When Google started testing the new look for its search results pages which ditches the shading behind the ads and replaces it with yellow “ad” icons, contradictory outcries of this sort began popping up,
“Ad click-through rates are going to plummet because the ads are too obvious with those bright icons.”
“The ads look like organic listings without the yellow background shading. Nobody will notice those tiny icons.”
Google made the transition to the new look official last week. The other changes that came with the update are the removal of underlines, larger title fonts (and shorter titles) and evenly spaced line height.
Source: Usertesting.com
The team at Usertesting.com set up a usability study to find out whether users respond differently to the new design, which Google says was aimed at improving legibility and freshening up the page with a cleaner look
The sample size is small at just 50 participants, but the results are still interesting.
First, users were shown each design version separately and rated how easy or difficult it was to tell the paid links from the unpaid links. The scores were tied, yes absolutely tied. The icon-minus-shading made zero difference to the users that were polled.
Old Google Score: B (87.2 percent ), Avg. Score: 4.36 (out of 5)
New Google Score: B (87.2 percent), Avg. Score: 4.36 (out of 5)
The scores were also tied when users were asked to look at the two versions individually and rate how easy or hard it was to read the links.
It was actually the change in line spacing that generated a higher approval rating for the new version. The old version received a score of 87.6 percent while the new version managed a 90.8 percent.
When users were shown the two versions side-by-side, however, and asked which version helped them determine which links were paid and which were unpaid, the new version won out. Just over half of respondents (26) said the new version was more effective, while only 12 found the old format more effective. The other 12 had no preference.
Overall, the new version was preferred by 33 of the participants, who called it “clean”, “fresh” and “uncluttered”. So, from a users’ perspective, it would seem Google set out what it aimed to accomplish. However, advertisers and SEOs will continue to examine the business impact these changes make for quite some time.
Apple usually every year launches a new smartphone and this time many expects its upcoming device will be named as iPhone 6. The web world is already quite abuzz with news of the purported Apple iPhone 6.
We have here summarised all these rumours that you should know about the upcoming iPhone model.
First of all, Apple till 2010 used to launch its handsets in the June (iPhone 1st Gen in June 2007 while iPhone 3G in June 2008) or July ( iPhone 3GS in July 2009, and iPhone 4 July 2010). However, since 2011, it shifted the cycle to September-October - iPhone 4s (October 2011), iPhone 5 (September 2012), iPhone 5s (September 2013). So going by this product cycle of Apple, we can assume that the iPhone 6 may be announced this September. Since Apple iPhone 5s launched in India October last year, soon after its global launch in the previous month, we expect iPhone 6 to hit Indian shores immediately after its global launch as well.
Though the launch time is quite expected, it is the screen size of iPhone 6 that is keeping all on their toes. Apple has till now stuck to the 4 inch size in its iPhone models even when all other handset makers have moved to 5+ inch screen segment especially when it comes to flagship devices. Many analysts expect the iPhone 6 to come with a bigger screen - 4.5 to 6 inch.
Apple has taken utmost care about the resolution of its devices. In iPhone 5s, the 4 inch screen has 1136 x 640 Pixels resolution, which translates to 326 ppi pixel density. So if iPhone 6 at all comes with a 6 inch touchscreen, it might have full HD resolution and in case of a 4.5 or 5 inch screen, Apple might arm it with HD resolution.
Meanwhile, a website called Digitaltrends.com, claimed that there is a possibility of Apple using a sapphire screen on the new iPhone mode that would make its screen "nearly indestructible". The website also cited rumours of Apple and the sapphire screen company, GT Advanced having a $578m contract, with Apple looking to build its on facility in Arizona to make the screens. With LG and Samsung announcing their curved display bearing phones, few also are hoping for a flexible display in the iPhone 6.
According to reports, the iPhone 6 will come in three storage versions - 16 GB, 32 GB and 64 GB. Many also expects Apple to break its tradition this time by arming its new flagship with an expandable storage slot; one report said that upto 128 GB internal or expandable storage is expect from iPhone 6.
The California (USA) based company always introduces a new version of its iOS operating system with its flaghship device every year. Last year, it showcased the iOS 7 and analysts expecting it to announce the so called iOS 8 version.
Last year, Apple put off many technology enthusiast by not arming its iPhone 5s with NFC but this time analysts are quite hopeful of the nifty file sharing tech in the new model.
Meanwhile, Sam Beckett - a noted designer - has come out with a concept model (see the image) of iPhone 6 which he is referring to as iPhone Air (on the lines of recently released iPad Air). As per his concept, iPhone Air will sport a 4.7-inch screen supporting a resolution of 1920x1080p. It is 7mm thin, about 0.6 mm thinner than its predecessor. Other features include the use of sapphire crystal as opposed to Corning Gorilla Glass, as well as a 10-megapixel camera and a faster A8 chip.
Back in October, Google started experimenting with large banner ads at the top of branded search results on Google.com. If you haven’t noticed them lately, there’s a reason. In his SMX West keynote discussion with Danny Sullivan yesterday, Google’s Amit Singhal said the test failed and is over.
Presumably the click-through rates (CTR) on the graphic banner ads weren’t high enough to justify keeping around. Though CTR seems like an odd performance metric to place on a banner that functions more as a graphic introduction to the organic listings and has no call-to-action.
The test only ran in the U.S. and was small with about 30 advertisers participating and banners showing on about 5 percent of search queries.
We will post the video clip of Singhal’s discussion of the test when it’s available. If you’re interested in taking a stroll down memory lane, Marketing Land captured many of these banner ads during the test in the Slideshare below.
When Google moved to secure search in October 2011, it was a blow to publishers, who began losing data about the search terms used to reach their sites. It also opened Google up to claims of hypocrisy, in that advertisers continued to receive the terms. Now, Google says it’s reexamining the issue and seeking a better solution.
Will clicks on non-paid listings go back to passing along search term data again? Will ad clicks have that withheld? Google didn’t say either way, and there could be other possibilities, as well.
Google Looking For Solution
The news came out of a keynote conversation with Google search chief Amit Singhalyesterday at our SMX West conference. I raised the issue of “not provided,” as it’s known as a short-hand term search marketers and many publishers in general.
I wasn’t really expecting much of an answer — in fact, I’ve written so much about the topic, with relatively little response from Google about the perceived inequities and hypocrisy, that I’ve felt like a broken record. I certainly got surprised. Singhal said:
Over a period of time, we [Google's search and ad sides] have been looking at this issue…. we’re also hearing from our users that they would want their searches to be secure … it’s really important to the users. We really like the way things have gone on the organic side of search.
I have nothing to announce right now, but in the coming weeks and months as [we] find the right solution, expect something to come out.
Here’s the complete segment. Note that references to “Sridhar” are about Sridhar Ramaswamy, who oversees Google’s ads.
)
Paid Clicks To Lose Terms? Organic Clicks To Get Them Back?
Google’s looking for a solution?
Pondering The Possibilities
Which way will it go? Google won’t say, and it could even be that it might go another way. Let’s look at the possibilities, then do some educated guessing. I see it as perhaps up to five things:
Google decides to make no change
Clicks may pass only to sites that run secure servers
Google makes all organic click data available through Google Webmaster Tools
Organic clicks have terms restored
Paid clicks have terms withheld
The first is easiest — Google might do a review of everything and decide, in the end, it’s happy with how things are going. I think that’s unlikely, but it is possible.
Clicks For Secure Servers?
Another solution would be that Google could restore search term data to publishers who run secure sites. Before Google’s change, when someone clicked on a listing at Google, information about the search term they used to find that listing passed “in the clear” and across the web to the publisher. The publisher would know exactly how they were located.
After Google’s change, terms on unpaid or “organic” listings were withheld. The chief reason for this was that Google seemed to worry that sending a stream of terms in the clear could cause someone to “eavesdrop” on a string of searches someone was doing, which could build a revealing profile about them.
Google continued to send terms in the clear for ad click and never really gave a reasonable explanation why. It also continued to allow actual search terms to be obtained by publishers, for up to 90 days, through its Google Webmaster Tools area.
To me, all this indicated that Google didn’t view individual searches on their own being exposed as much of a privacy issue. So securing ad clicks wasn’t so pressing, since relatively few people click on ads. It’s hard to get a profile just off that data (though over time, even that could be revealing). The Questions Google Refuses To Answer About Search Privacy is my story from last year that explores all this more.
But if the goal really was to prevent eavesdropping, then providing search term data only to sites that run secure servers is a great solution. It would restore the data flow to publishers, yet a third-party couldn’t easily eavesdrop on the stream of searches from a particular person. It would also have the side benefit of making the entire web more secure.
Another story I wrote last year explains all this more: How Google could have made the Web secure and failed — again. Maybe that’s a solution Google will go to, as it’s doing this review.
Make All Organic Terms Available In Webmaster Tools?
As mentioned, Google does allow publishers to see how people have reached their sites though its Google Webmaster Tools system. The problem is, that system shows a limited amount of data. You only get the top 2,000 terms (which is a lot, actually) and back for 90 days (which is a real problem, because historic trend data is lost).
Last September, Google announced that it would extend query data in Google Webmaster Tools from 90 days to one year. Since then, we’ve been waiting. This could be another solution — that Google finally delivers on its promise and perhaps goes even better, and makes all search term data it has available for any site available with no limitations.
Organic Terms Passed Via Clicks Again?
Google could also go back to the old system, where a click on an unpaid link once again transmits the search term in the clear to publishers. Personally, I think this is unlikely.
Go back to what Singhal said — Google users find it important to have their searches secure, and that likes how things have gone with the withholding of organic clicks. That doesn’t seem to indicate going back to the old system is likely.
Paid Search Terms To Be Withheld
That leaves the last possibility — that clicks on paid links will have terms withheld, just like their unpaid counterparts.
That’s move that would help solve the hypocrisy problem, that Google’s fine with making searches secure except where it might impact its bottom line, something that’s been an issue since this all began. See also:
Post-PRISM, Google Confirms Quietly Moving To Make All Searches Secure, Except For Ad Clicks
It also seems the most likely, again going off what Singhal said, that there are discussions with the ad side. There’s no reason to have discussions with the ad side unless you’re pondering a change that’s going to impact the ad clicks. Nor was that the only mention of talking with the ad side, as you can hear in the entire segment from the show.
Whether this indeed will happen remains to be seen. If it does happen, it’s super important to note that advertisers would continue to get search terms in the other way they always have, through the AdWords system itself. They wouldn’t go “blind,” though not receiving terms directly to their sites would pose challenges for them in other ways.
Google said to expect something in “weeks to months,” so stay tuned.
Google head of search spam Matt Cutts released a pretty detailed video discussing the Google webspam team’s criteria for determining whether a link is considered a paid link or not.
There are five basic criteria Google uses in this determination. The first is the most obvious, is the link an explicit link for sale; then, the others are less obvious. The others include: how close is the value to money, is it a gift or a loan, what is the intent of the audience and is it a surprise or not.
Explicit Link Sales
Links that are explicitly sold for money are the most obvious. A webmaster sells a link to another webmaster in exchange for a certain dollar payment. That is clearly a paid link, and Matt Cutts said that is the most common paid link example, by far.
Close To The Value Of Money
The next determination Google uses is to see how close is the value to money. For example, a gift card is pretty close to money in that it can be often exchanged for a dollar value. But if you give someone a free pen that is valued at $1, the chances are that the value of that $1 pen won’t influence the user. However, a free beer or free trial to software is less value to users than a $600 gift card.
Gift Vs. Loan
If you give someone a laptop versus loaning them a laptop or gift someone a car versus loaning them a car, those are huge distinctions. Often, companies will loan a tech reviewer a device or car or something in order for them to properly review the item. But if you give them the item forever and not ask them to return it, that is closer to a paid link then a loan.
Intent Of Audience
When conferences give away stuff, the intent of the audience is often not to link to the conference as a thank you. For example, when you go to a SalesForce conference and get a free trial of the software, that is often not in exchange for a link. In addition, when Google gives away a free Nexus 7, the intent is not about links but about developers working on apps for the device. But if you give away laptops at events and expect bloggers to link to you in exchange, that is a bad intent.
Surprise Or Not
The final criteria is would the reporter or blogger be surprised? For example, if you are a movie blogger and you are given free access to a movie to review, that would not surprise the blogger. But if you are given a free car or laptop in exchange for writing about it, that would be a surprise.
Matt Cutts also recommends you review the FTC online ads guidelines.
Over the past few months, Google has been testing many, many layouts that made the search results look a bit easier to read by increasing the font size and removing some of the underlines for the hyperlinked content.
It seems Google has increased those tests, as we are seeing more and more searchers post about seeing these updates on Twitter, Facebook and other areas. Both Danny Sullivan, Matt McGeee and myself are able to replicate the new design either using our native browsers or via incognito mode in Chrome.
Here is a side by side image of the old and new user interface for Google’s search results:
You can click on it and notice the side by side comparison showing the larger font, more white space, no underlines for hyperlinked content and more.
Here is a zoomed in view of the old design:
Here is a zoomed in view of the new design:
Google has not responded to our questions about this design but if we had to guess, we’d see this new design launched in the near future.
Did you know that even if you try to run away from your Google penalty, it might end up finding you anyway? In a recent Google Webmaster Hangout, hosted by Google’s John Mueller, John said that even if you move your penalized site to a new domain name and don’t redirect the penalized site, Google may still find it and pass along the bad signals.
In the video, 23 minutes in, John answers my question about penalties following sites. He said that if the site is extremely similar and you simply move the site from domain A to domain B, that Google may pick up on the site move without you even giving them signals of the move. So even if you do not set up 301 redirects or use the change address tool in Google Webmaster Tools, Google may indeed know that you moved from domain A to domain B and pass along all the signals.
In that case, if a site is penalized, simply moving it to a new domain name might not be enough. You might have to go the extra mile and rebuild the site, content and user interfaces to convince Google it really is a new site.
Here is the video, again fast forward to about 23 minutes and 15 seconds in:
Yesterday Eric Ward wrote a piece for us named When The Best Move Is To Kill The Site, which covers what to do when your Google penalty is so severe that you can’t recover from it. Eric mentions that in about two-thirds of the cases he sees, he recommends you “kill” the site. Some may want to take shortcuts on “killing” a site by just migrating it to a new domain name, but that might not work.
Based on the feedback from this news, I’ve heard three responses from the SEO community:
Google is a liar and it does not pass either positive or negative signals when there are no redirects or change of address requests made.
Yes, Google does pass the penalties in these cases, Google is telling the truth.
Not only does the penalty pass but sometimes you will see the links from the old domain show in the new domain show up in the new verified section within Google Webmaster Tools.
What is your experience with site moves without changing the site design, content or structure and while not using redirects or other signals to communicate the penalized site has moved?
That Google menus experiment we told you about a couple weeks ago?
It’s now official. But it’s only available in the U.S. at the moment.
Google announced that it’s now showing restaurant menus as a OneBox-style answer at the top of its search results. It seems to be primarily triggered by searches that involve both the restaurant name and the word “menu,” although Google’s example involves a query that starts with “show me the menu for….”
The menu OneBox shows multiple food options and is divided into different categories, depending on how the individual restuarants (or chains) organize their menu. You’ll typically see tabs such as lunch, dinner, entreés, sandwiches and the like.
There’s actually more that we don’t know about the menus than we do. For example:
Where is Google getting the menu details? It seems to be from sites like AllMenus.com and Gayot.com, but there’s no official list.
Has Google made a deal with its sources to show the menus, or is it just scrapingthat information?
What should a restaurant do if it wants its menu showing like this?
What if it doesn’t want its menu showing this way for some reason? (It’s outdated, for example.)
How often will Google be updating the menu information?
