Google Search-in-Search and a New York Times article titled “New Tool From Google Alarms Sites” has provoked a “startle response” from bloggers, search engine marketers and a few major publishers and online retailers. This all started on March 5th, when Google engineers announced the “Search-in-Search” aka “Teleportation” feature in the official Google Blog. The reasons appear to boil down to three responses to Google:
- How DARE you steal my pageviews!
- How DARE you sell ads against my brand!
- How DARE you claim your search is better than OURS!
Before I get into my thoughts on the matter, here is what that new Google Search Within Search Result looks like for a “NY Times” query:
Here’s how this controversy boils down for me on each of the above three points:
- The (weak) argument suggesting that Google is stealing pageviews from publishers who hope to capitalize on page after page of bad internal site search results is like saying – “Hey site user, we think you are an idiot and that you are probably willing to click through page after page of bad search results on our site and will tire of this eventually and click on one or two of our advertisers banners in order to escape the torture.” or Bad user experience (most site search sucks and is NOT optimized) equals extra incremental income – so bad user search experience is good for us!
- Objection two seems to be some sort of opposition to Google showing competitors ads in their Adwords results. Again saying “User, we think you haven’t a CLUE what you wanted when you typed OUR company name into the search box and you may decide to go to our competitors instead. If your competitors Adwords copy is so good that users go there instead of your site and you are not making keyword buys against your own brand – You Deserve to lose the customer!
- There has been some discussion of the loss of internally optimized long tail searches which seem to justify point #3 above in the list of objections to “SiS” (Search-in-search) but this objection is only applicable to those VERY few sites that actually have good site search and (even rarer) those who optimize internal search results for EVERY long tail search phrase.
I do happen to agree with everyone who has suggested that this probably should be “opt-in” for those companies that have “SiS” appearing on their brand searches at Google. This suggests though that a) all of those brands are participating in Google Webmaster Central accounts and have verified their pages or b) that “Search-in-Search” be manually turned off and administered by Google (that will only happen with Fortune 100 web companies, if that) appears to be already turned off for Amazon and Ebay.
I believe Google when they say they are doing this to improve user experience, and while it may increase their Adwords income incrementally, I say to Google – Bully for you – and congratulations on, yet again, finding a way to improve the search experience while increasing your own income. Google does not owe anyone more pageviews, and should be allowed to offer tools which increase their income.
To those moaning over lost opportunity and incremental income, I say – Get over yourselves – Your site search sucks and this saves me from doing the standard: “site:yourcompany.com product name” queries I’m always having to do because your internal search is so bad.