Google

Google Instant Event Live Blog

Google Instant Event Live blog, please excuse typos and spelling errors.

According to Marissa Mayer 11 hours can be saved for every second spent searching thanks to Google Instant. Google Instant revolutionizes how users interact with Google. This new search feature has 3 main components:

  • Instant results – Results appear instantly to the user.
  • Predictions – Google is able to predict what users search for as they search.
  • Scroll to search – This feature offers users options for their query. Google Instant is a better, faster, cleaner experience but like riding a bike… you never forget how to ride.

google instant efficiency

Google Serps

Google Incremental Search

All of these new features render the “search” button almost useless. Google is still seamless users just have additional options. Google Instant provides feedback that users can use find what they are looking for online. Feedback from Google Instant is also used via mobile but this feature won’t be available until Fall 2010. Google “Trusted Tester” video illustrates testers interaction with Google Instant which will roll out later today.

Up next is Ben Gomes to talk about technical challenges with Google Instant. According to Ben, Google Instant had to be efficient. To do this Google focused on user interface design, search as an application and efficiency to scale. In order to test all of this Google tested more than 100 testers in their usability lab. These “Trusted Testers” were monitored using eye tracking technology.

Google Autocomplete

In the past Google has relied on (X)HTML but Google Instant is AJAX based. To do this Google first sends autocomplete search requests, autocomplete predicitions and then receives results page. In addition, Google detects when the system breaks.

If Google returns search results with every letter and there are 20 characters per query on average, how can Google do this and not melt down their servers.

When it comes to scale and efficiency Google can maintain low cost per query by anticipating the query. Google does this because efficiency matters to users and users matter to Google. For that reason Google has already rolled out 500 updates this year. Today is the biggest change to hit Google in terms of user interaction in years. Google Instant makes search available to users.

According to Marissa Mayer, Interaction, Comprehensiveness and Understanding (users, web, squared) are the future of search. Google Instant is first step into the future of search. According to Marissa, users will save 350 million hours a year.

The event is closing with a video by Google’s creative lab inspired by Bob Dylan…. Results as you type, no clicks, search on!

Q&A
Does this change PPC? No change in how ads are served or ranked.

Are 20% of queries still unique? Not sure but if you make search easier and faster more folks search

@Wired asks how Google Instant ties into search history? Marissa Mayer, fields and says the inputs remain unchanged.

How much personal data is required for speed improvements? How much does this tax data centers?
Marissa Mayer says personal data requirements are the same. Google is using prediction not personal data. Johanna answers the data center question and confirms the cost has increased but engineering has been able to maintain.

Sergey Brin fields “human computer interaction” question in terms of speed of advancement in this area. According to Sergey techno advancements and openmindenesss are resulting in major advances that will change the way you interact with these kinds of devices.

What impact will Google Instant have on SEO? According to Ben, there will be little impact in terms of SEO.

When will this be available in China? Marissa says Google’s goal is to roll out on Google.com.hk

Do you believe users want faster search? YES By speeding up search Google expects more traffic and more queries. Marissa says as users adapt to Google Instant the won’t go back.

Question from author of “Inside Larry and Sergy’s Brain” asks about privacy and what impact Instant has. According to Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin Google spends lots of time focused on privacy and Google Instant is no different.

BBC asks how Google Instant will change behavior? According to Ben neighboring queries become more important.

During testing how many users didn’t want to use Google Instant? How does Google Instant relate to caffeine. According to Mayer, few didn’t like. Ben follows up by saying the two have an indirect conncetion.

How does this impact SEM (SEO &PPC)? Little…

Next question, “Sergey did you ever think you would reach this point”. Based on Moore’s Law of Computation is has been amazing and a tribute to people who work on computing everywhere.

How is Google getting folks to contribute content? Sergy, great question. That has been one focus for a long time, for example AdSense. For more user gen content Google has worked on projects like Blogger, Google Docs. In addition, there are lots of places where users gen content.

Are there plans to make faster? Ben says we are going to enjoy the speed but you “ain’t seen nothing yet”.

Ad Age asks about brand impact and rankings in terms of page 2? Ben says user intent doesn’t change no matter what predictions are going on behind the scenes. Johanna points out the Google Instant gets users to results faster. Google totaly focuses on users and that is good for ads.

Will Google server less ads? No

Will this change result in more searches and more adds clicked? Ben says focus on user and all else will follow.

When will Google release Google Instant in Japan and China because characters can cause problems? Marissa Mayer, says expect all these in addition to mobile in a few months.

Is this part of a bigger plan? Mayer, yes… In fact we look at queries from years ago. Ben says we are always working to make things better.

ONE FINAL QUESTION, oh who could it be? Danny Sullivan asks about what happens when results are not correct? According to Google, users learn how to pull things up from the top except for Danny’s Dogpile question. Google asks Danny, why he is using Google to search for [search engines] :)

Google Instant Meetup later today at 111 Minna in SFO

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

Google Brand Named Entity Navigational Query Update 2010

Malcolm Coles pointed out a new feature in Google SERPs and posed some interesting questions last week. I don’t think Google is treating “brand names” as site operator queries. Site operator queries only return results for a single site. Either way, both Malcolm’s and Matt‘s examples appear to be navigational and/or what are referred to as “named entity queries.”

Queries provide numerous signals that engines can use for insight about user intent. They are for the most part either informational, navigational or transactional (action) in intent but, some queries fall into more than one category. These queries are often classed as named entities. Problem is, it’s difficult to surmise intent from a single query that may have multiple interpretations. Google already has related patents and recently purchased Metaweb, a company specializing in this field. One aspect that I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere in plain English, is that company names, product names, organization names, brand names and/or combinations thereof are named entities. Named entities are easy to extract online because they are often capitalized. If leveraged properly, they could provide a number of associative signals that are well worth considering.

All that said, I’m not sure that is what is happening today. When statistic probability significantly favors one site over all others in terms of user intent, it makes sense that engines would return multiple results for that site instead of just two. Google may have introduced named entity elements or may simply be handling navigational queries in a way that seems… well more logical.

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

Insight from Adobe’s Search Patent

Adobe recently submitted a US Patent application that relates to SEO for Flash / Flex, titled “EXPOSING RICH INTERNET APPLICATION CONTENT TO SEARCH ENGINES.” Believe it or not, this Patent application claims “shadowing” techniques like SWFObject and SOFA are at an “obvious disadvantage” for search. According to Adobe, shadowing textual content in rich Internet applications with textual content in (X)HTML results in duplication and other issues. For those not aware, duplicate content thins keyword relevancy, Google’s secret sauce, PageRank and requires a “duplication of effort” in producing “the actual rich Internet application as well as the shadow HTML.” This Patent claims site management time is also increased because “changes in the rich Internet application must also be made to the shadow HTML, if that HTML code is to remain consistent with the rich Internet application.”

To address these and other issues, Adobe’s application proposes an invention that returns different content to users and search engines. According to the Patent application, content will be “available through a rich Internet application to search engine queries” via a “translation module” that interfaces “between a Web crawler and a rich Internet application.” It seems this application isn’t intended to provide alternative textual “eye wash” for users, but instead descriptions of the state, content and identifying URLs that are “important to Web crawler and/or search engines.” According to Adobe the “translation module may comprise pseudo HTML page code providing a description of the state which omits description of aspects of the state which are not useful to Web crawler and/or search engine. According to the invention application, “cached pages” will reflect a poorly formatted and quite likely partially humanly readable page.

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

Differences Between Speed Tools

According to the Site Performance feature in Google Webmaster Tools, your pages load reeeeealy slow but, other external tools or monitoring services tell a different story.

What should you believe?

First, it’s important to understand the differences between these tools, the data they capture and how it’s measured.

Page Speed evaluates the performance of a specific web page and individual elements in the browser. As a result, this type of testing may not accurately reflect latency experienced by users. Page Speed is for testing and improving speed for individual pages.

Tools like webpagetest.org and monitoring services often test latency for a specific URL at various times of day and locations around the world. As a result, these kinds of tests may not reflect latency as perceived by users in the region the site targets.

Google Webmaster Tools Site Performance data is collected from actual Google Toolbar users in the same geographic region as the target audience of the site. This data can be measured in several ways. One being, time between when the user clicks on a link “until just before that document’s body.onload() handler is called.” If for example, if a user clicks on a link, is then redirected and then redirected again, that delay should be recorded and reflected in Google Webmaster Tools Site Performance data. These are the kinds of delays that impact users and Googlebot and that are totally missing from other tools including analytics.

Speed doesn’t currently have a major impact on rankings but, slow pages deter users and hamper crawl efficiency. Crawl efficiency can be a major factor for pages with lower PageRank because “ the number of pages Google crawls is roughly proportional to PageRank“.

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon

 

Case Study: Hosting & Speed

Experiment:
To determine if hosting impacts site speed according to the Site Performance feature in Google Webmaster Tools.

Hypothesis:
Hosting can impact site speed.

Background:
80% of the end-user response time is spent on the front end.” The preceding statement could be interpreted to mean that back end hosting has little impact on front end site performance.

Procedure:
To test this experiment, an existing site was replicated at a new and separately hosted IP address. DNS was changed from the original host IP to the new host IP. A few days later, DNS was changed back to the original host IP. A few days after that, DNS was again changed to the new host IP from the original host IP.

speed graph illustrating hosting impact

Result:
According to Google’s Site Performance tool, pages at the new host IP (dashed line) loaded much faster than pages at the original host IP (solid line). There appears to be an obvious and immediate improvement of more than 50% when DNS was initially pointed from the original host to the new host. Similarly there appears to be a decrease in speed when DNS was pointed back at the original host IP from the new host IP and increase when pointed back at the new host IP again. Since DNS was pointed at the new host IP, site speed and performance have continued to improve according to Google Webmaster Tools.

Conclusion:
This experiment seems to indicate a strong correlation between changes in hosting and changes in site performance. This correlation is no real surprise given, the new host is highly rated as fast and reliable. Conventional wisdom is that “hosting” doesn’t impact site performance but, I think it’s worth testing just in case your site is one of those rare exceptions. :)

 

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmark
  • StumbleUpon