Google's search revenues increased almost 2 per cent in the two weeks following the introduction of its Instant search engine, according to an independent study. Marin Software — an outfit that manages $1.3 billion a year on behalf of search engine advertisers — has released a study based on the recent Google experience of "a …
Get the Research Brief behind the article...
If you're interested in reading the actual research study that Cade leveraged for this article, click on: http://www.marinsoftware.com/instant
If you're a member of the press/blogosphere and have additional questions, I can be contacted at my first initial and last name @ marinsoftware.com
Anecdotal maybe, but everyone I've spoken to hates it, and are very pleased when I tell them how it can be switched off.
Maybe it's useful if you're a slow typist, when I guess there's enough time between each keypress to let it load the "instant" results and check to see if it's found what you're looking for, before looking back down at the keys and fumbling for the next letter. For the rest of us, we just splurge the query out in one go, hit search, and then check the results.
Nice article, thanks
how can it be turned off?
I've started using http://google.com/advanced_search and then clicking on Instant is OFF.
Is there a better way to do it?
5.63 per cent jump in click-throughs
Google seem to be suggesting that an increase in "click-through"s implies that users are so happy with the service that they are using it more. I think this is not the case. In fact, I suggest it is the opposite: Since "Instant" is not offering the user exactly what they are looking for, they have to click through more results in order to actually find arrive at their target.
By bombarding the user with constant slightly-relevant-but-not-quite results, the user has to wade through all the noise in order to find what they want, and this may include clicking on a link or two more on the way.
I do find Rosenberg's last comment telling:
"So let me be clear that Instant wasn't based on a narrow financial calculation. We launched it because we could and because it's great for our users, as we have always said"
Note how "because we could" comes first. I fully accept this as the real explanation, just like the development and release of GoogleWave: it's first about a nifty technical challenge and second about upper management attempting to make money out of it. The two not always coincide in user experience, but that last one seems to be tertiary.
- iPad? More like iFAD: This is why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Major problems beset UK ISP filth filters: But it's OK, nobody uses them