Google Instant launched this week. I’m already a fan. I typically use the Google search bar in my Firefox browser, so for a while I have been happy with the utility of the auto-complete suggestions that were popping up in the drop-down menu below that search bar as I typed. Now, if I am on the Google search page (which I have added as a handy tab), I also see all the results pre-populating and morphing automagically as I type. Since I do a lot of “long tail” searches, Google Instant isn’t always guessing right at first, but for the most common short form searches—the utilitarian ones (look up the spelling of something, find a quick definition, get to a Web page quickly, check a current event), it gets me there quicker. Change Our Search Behavior. Google Search continues to change our Web behavior much more than most other Web tools. We humans are often slow to adapt to new interfaces and to adopt new tools (like new releases of applications), or new User Interfaces (Apple touchscreen/gesture interface). Yet, there are Web-based tools that change “underneath us” that we tolerate although we may notice and grumble about it. One characteristic of the human user interface evolution is that the UI/technology often changes the human’s behavior, not the other way around. Take the example of using speech to text or handwriting recognition. Although these technologies are touted to “learn” and adapt, what’s really happening is that you, the user, adapt by changing your behavior to get the “right” results. My husband points out that this is similar to the way that a good executive assistant “trains” his boss to provide him with the correct information in the right order to get things done most efficiently, e.g., “Book me a flight to Paris tomorrow on the 9 pm.”
This new behavior does have implications for Search Engine Optimization and keyword purchases. Here’s an interesting early analysis from Jignesh Thakkar:
“What Happens to SEO & PPC?
Well, this is the most interesting question from a business angle. Few 'keywords' that should be focused on regarding "How Google Instant Works?" are:
- localized
- personalized
- real time
From an SEO angle, localization and personalization will play a major role. The first thing that comes to mind is that optimizers and marketers will have to ensure their keyword-URL mapping is exact or tight to the extent possible - to get ranked organically. However, on the opposite angle, a single letter typed in the search box fetches few results and this means exact/tight mapping may not increase visibility. Why? Because with exact/tight keyword-URL mapping, one does not stand a chance to get ranked until the targeted keyword is 'completely' searched. And with Instant, Google seems to be offering result options a lot in advance of you typing a 'complete' keyterm.
Confused? Hang on!
Read this. The most interesting observation of this article is that advertisers will have to broaden their horizons and start bidding on broad level keywords to increase their visibility thru paid ads. To quote the author:
"With our example, starting the query with “Las”, shows ads for Las Vegas. Some of those ads are for hotels. Why would a user continue typing if they see hotel ads already? As an advertiser this forces me to bid on “Las Vegas” to compete. Thus, making me put more dollars in Google’s pockets. This kills the need to bid on long-tail keywords. Users may never even get to “Las V…” much less “Las Vegas 5-star Hotels”, “Las Vegas hotels on the strip”, “Las Vegas hotels on the North Strip”, etc."
You see the business angle for Google? Long tail terms may lose their importance in paid advertising gradually and for businesses using PPC (Adwords to be specific), this means they have to put in more $$s on generic keywords. A new revenue generation stream for Google? Of course yes!”
Google’s write ups make it clear that Google Instant is based more on “what other people meant” when they typed the first few characters you are typing to generate the “autocomplete” part of your search query, than on “what I meant.” (That may or may not be useful, depending on what you’re looking for). So that’s the “wisdom of the crowds” part. Google also states that the results are localized—based on your IP address, or on a mobile device—your actual GPS location. That’s pretty useful if you’re looking for a local pizza joint; less so, if you want more global results. The real question, in my mind, is how truly personalized is the instant search algorithm? Does it know that Patty searches for technical terms and doesn’t care about baseball? I haven’t been able to figure that out yet. But I believe the answer is yes. That has Big Brother pros and cons. But, in general, if I get better results faster, with less effort, then I’m all for it. So then my question is, WHAT is Google using to “personalize” my predictive results? Just the search terms that I entered tailored based on the results I actually clicked on? Or also the words and phrases that turn up in my Google mail interactions? If the latter, my searches would probably be more accurate and better-tailored, but I’m not sure that my email correspondents would want to know that their missives are helping to target my predictive search results. If you get instant results before you hit enter, that presumes that Google is caching and streaming results to me. Easy to do on my broadband-connected browser. But it’s much harder when I’m on a lower bandwidth mobile phone. So, is the personalization based only on the searches that I’ve done previously from that particular browser? I’m really most interested in the version of Google Instant that will launch on mobile devices this fall. Saving keystrokes and roundtrips is really important on the slower bandwidths that mobile phones use to search the Net and return results. I use the Bitstream Bolt browser on my Blackberry because it’s the best behaved. I’m hoping that Google Instant and Bolt will play well together. One of the capabilities that Google touts for mobile use is the fact that your instant search results will be “localized.” It knows where you are, so it will filter searches based on that knowledge giving you results that are locally relevant. (The example given in the demo is a search for “v space g” when the user is at an art museum yields “Van Gogh”). This will be interesting to see. What I don’t think works well are “read my mind” technology assists when I KNOW what I want to find. If I know I want to book a flight, make a reservation in a favorite restaurant, check my bank balance, or buy a book for my kindle, I don’t want Google Instant to type ahead and guess. Instead, I want a set of minimal keystrokes (or voice commands) that I control that will do the equivalent of “book me a flight to Paris tomorrow on the 9 pm” or “buy this book for my Kindle” or “schedule this meeting for Friday at 2 pm and send out this agenda.” For that, I want a different kind of UI—one that lets me specify the actions I want it to take with the fewest keystrokes or voice commands possible and automagically “knows” what info I always supply (secure credit card info, etc.). That’s Action Messaging from Actioneer. (Full Disclosure: My husband’s company.) Coming soon on your favorite mobile device.
Personally Tailored or Wisdom of the Crowds?
Google Instant Mobile
Google Instant has been really helpful in terms of generating quality and fast search results. But as a marketer and seo, it's more like a challenge to get listed and be seen by the people on top of the list.
Posted by: JV Attraction Formula | September 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM
From what I can see, I am not the only one who hates Google Instant
Posted by: txp65vt20b | September 16, 2010 at 05:14 AM
I see companies all of the time block innovations because they can’t get their heads around the benefit of a new way of doing something--- the status quo police are out to get you. See this posting in Forbes magazine http://bit.ly/c7mPoT
Posted by: Ryan | September 10, 2010 at 02:40 PM