As searchers, we all have frustrations when we search. That’s why Yahoo conducted a study to better understand our search behavior. In this video, Larry Cornett of Yahoo tells us about their study as well as what they found out.
The company went around to 6 different U.S. cities and surveyed 150 Web users. The 3 continuing themes from their research were:
1. Information overload
2. Text overload
3. Impersonal experience
As Larry explains, the average Web user does not care how many million results the search engines return. Even though it means a lot to the search engines, the average user doesn’t even look past the first page.
The same idea is true with text overload. It takes a lot of work for the user to sort through all the text. As users, we want relevant information and want it quickly. The study also found that we desire a personal experience as we search. Larry explains that since we use the engine every day, it should know our habits.
Yahoo is working to respond to this study and to users search needs. One of the approaches the company is taking to answer this dilemma is with Yahoo SearchMonkey. The open platform is a developer tool that essentially gives Yahoo more structured data in order for the company to deliver better results. A few specific examples include ratings for restaurants, phone numbers, and street addresses.
Yahoo Search BOSS is another approach the company is taking and at SMX West, announced a few features and updates to the model. One feature allows access to SearchMonkey structured data through BOSS API. Search BOSS provides a 3-tier pricing structure and offers up to 10,000 search queries per day to all developers for free. The fee changes will not take effect until late Q2 of this year, but Yahoo wanted to give developers an advance notice.
Yahoo also encourages marketers to embrace blended/universal search to help better meet the searchers needs.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Gasta Comment: Google doesnt own the Internet
Matt Cutts Explains Why You're Out of Luck
If you've been involved with the web for any significant amount of time, there is a good chance there may be pages up somewhere that you're not thrilled about, but are out of your power to remove. Whether it is a page you made in high school or somebody else talking smack about you, you're concerned about your online reputation (as you should be) and would like to see the page removed from Google's index altogether.
Unfortunately, Google cannot be held responsible for this because as they say on the official help page for "How do I remove content from Google Search Results?" they do not own the Internet. The company says, "In order for information within Google search results to change, the information must first change on the website where it appears."
Matt Cutts Blog
Google's Matt Cutts posted about this on his own blog after receiving countless emails from people making such requests. He was kind enough to share his response to these emails, which usually goes something like this:
Unfortunately there’s not much I can do. The page you pointed out is not spam, and pretty much the only removals (at least in the U.S., which is what I know about) that we do for legal reasons are if a court orders us. We typically say that if person A doesn’t like a webpage B, only removing page B out of Google’s search results doesn’t do any good because webpage B is still there (e.g. it can be found by going to it directly or through other search engines). In that sense, the presence of that page in Google’s index is just reflecting the fact that the page exists on the wider web.
The best actions for you from our perspective can be one of a couple options. Either contact whoever put up webpage B and convince them to modify or to take the page down. Or if the page is doing something against the law, get a court to agree with you and force webpage B to be removed or changed. We really don’t want to be taking sides in a he-said/she-said dispute, so that’s why we typically say “Get the page fixed, changed, or removed on the web and then Google will update our index with those changes the next time that we crawl that page.” Our policies outside the U.S. might be different; I’m not as familiar with how legal stuff works outside the U.S.
This is pretty much the same thing you get from the official page. "If you can't get the webmaster to do anything, we're really sorry, but our hands are tied without action from the webmaster," is the position stated there. Though Google uses the opportunity to suggest reporting social security or credit card information in results, adult content in results when SafeSearch is on, defamatory content in results, and inappropriate images in video results. So if the content you're trying to get removed falls into any of these categories, there might still be hope for you.
Once people understand that Google can't take responsibility for listings they don't like, they seem (for the most part) to accept the explanation. It's the understanding in the first place that is often lacking. Hopefully Matt's comments will set the record straight.
Ultimately this leaves you no choice but to amp up your reputation management efforts. Go to the root of the problem. Make nice with people if you have to. It won't always work, but just like with the rest of life, sometimes you have to live with past mistakes and acceptance that someone might not like you.
If you've been involved with the web for any significant amount of time, there is a good chance there may be pages up somewhere that you're not thrilled about, but are out of your power to remove. Whether it is a page you made in high school or somebody else talking smack about you, you're concerned about your online reputation (as you should be) and would like to see the page removed from Google's index altogether.
Unfortunately, Google cannot be held responsible for this because as they say on the official help page for "How do I remove content from Google Search Results?" they do not own the Internet. The company says, "In order for information within Google search results to change, the information must first change on the website where it appears."
Matt Cutts Blog
Google's Matt Cutts posted about this on his own blog after receiving countless emails from people making such requests. He was kind enough to share his response to these emails, which usually goes something like this:
Unfortunately there’s not much I can do. The page you pointed out is not spam, and pretty much the only removals (at least in the U.S., which is what I know about) that we do for legal reasons are if a court orders us. We typically say that if person A doesn’t like a webpage B, only removing page B out of Google’s search results doesn’t do any good because webpage B is still there (e.g. it can be found by going to it directly or through other search engines). In that sense, the presence of that page in Google’s index is just reflecting the fact that the page exists on the wider web.
The best actions for you from our perspective can be one of a couple options. Either contact whoever put up webpage B and convince them to modify or to take the page down. Or if the page is doing something against the law, get a court to agree with you and force webpage B to be removed or changed. We really don’t want to be taking sides in a he-said/she-said dispute, so that’s why we typically say “Get the page fixed, changed, or removed on the web and then Google will update our index with those changes the next time that we crawl that page.” Our policies outside the U.S. might be different; I’m not as familiar with how legal stuff works outside the U.S.
This is pretty much the same thing you get from the official page. "If you can't get the webmaster to do anything, we're really sorry, but our hands are tied without action from the webmaster," is the position stated there. Though Google uses the opportunity to suggest reporting social security or credit card information in results, adult content in results when SafeSearch is on, defamatory content in results, and inappropriate images in video results. So if the content you're trying to get removed falls into any of these categories, there might still be hope for you.
Once people understand that Google can't take responsibility for listings they don't like, they seem (for the most part) to accept the explanation. It's the understanding in the first place that is often lacking. Hopefully Matt's comments will set the record straight.
Ultimately this leaves you no choice but to amp up your reputation management efforts. Go to the root of the problem. Make nice with people if you have to. It won't always work, but just like with the rest of life, sometimes you have to live with past mistakes and acceptance that someone might not like you.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Gasta Travel: Online travel search to exceed to £56bn by 2014
Online UK retail and travel sales are expected to increase to £56bn by 2014, according to Forrester Research.
The research house expects online sales to grow by 6% a year from its current level of £37bn as consumer spending continues to shift online.
According to the research, which is due out later today, fashion was the fastest growing area of online retail during 2008. Books, DVDs and travel were the most frequently bought items over the period.
The Forrester research, which places the UK's online spend ahead of that in France and Germany, expects the number of UK online shoppers to grow from 30m this year to 37m by 2014.
In January the first new media age online shopping survey revealed 36% of people plan to do more shopping online and less on the high street this year.
The FT Group has reported a 13% rise in profits for 2008 to £195m, spurred on by its digital and subscription businesses.
In its end of year results parent company Pearson said 67% of the publisher's revenues now come from digital, up from 28% from 2000.
FT.com subscribers rose 9% to 109,609 in 2008, while registered users grew from 150,000 to 966,000.
The company posted revenues of £796m, up 7% from 2007.
A statement by Pearson said, "Looking ahead, we believe the FT Group's premium and global positions, combined with our digital and subscription businesses, put us in a good position to weather tougher economic conditions."
It also said FT.com benefited from the launch of the new access model involving registration for access to more than three articles per month.
In January the Financial Times announced plans to make 80 job cuts due to the global recession (nma.co.uk 12 January).
The research house expects online sales to grow by 6% a year from its current level of £37bn as consumer spending continues to shift online.
According to the research, which is due out later today, fashion was the fastest growing area of online retail during 2008. Books, DVDs and travel were the most frequently bought items over the period.
The Forrester research, which places the UK's online spend ahead of that in France and Germany, expects the number of UK online shoppers to grow from 30m this year to 37m by 2014.
In January the first new media age online shopping survey revealed 36% of people plan to do more shopping online and less on the high street this year.
The FT Group has reported a 13% rise in profits for 2008 to £195m, spurred on by its digital and subscription businesses.
In its end of year results parent company Pearson said 67% of the publisher's revenues now come from digital, up from 28% from 2000.
FT.com subscribers rose 9% to 109,609 in 2008, while registered users grew from 150,000 to 966,000.
The company posted revenues of £796m, up 7% from 2007.
A statement by Pearson said, "Looking ahead, we believe the FT Group's premium and global positions, combined with our digital and subscription businesses, put us in a good position to weather tougher economic conditions."
It also said FT.com benefited from the launch of the new access model involving registration for access to more than three articles per month.
In January the Financial Times announced plans to make 80 job cuts due to the global recession (nma.co.uk 12 January).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
