Google Search Evolves - But Has Google Finally Lost its Core Focus?
Yesterday at Google's Searchology event, which we live-blogged, the search market leader announced two significant features to its search product: Search Options and Rich Snippets. It also previewed a new fact-finding search product called Google Squared. The first two features are already live on google.com and they've notably extended Google's core search product. As we sit back and reflect on the meaning of this, one thing is starkly clear: the core Google search experience is now much more than a simple search box on a plain white background, which it was for so long. Just how far has Google evolved its search experience over recent years? And has it become too much of a shift from its core focus? Let's explore that.
The Evolution of Google Search (in a Nutshell)
The features announced today, and in particular 'Search Options', build on Google's Universal Search announcements of two years ago at the same event. Universal Search integrated search results from across Google's properties into the main search. It began with images, maps, books, news, and video - and over the past two years it has added products and blog search.
Then last November, Google introduced SearchWiki: the ability to add, annotate, and remove your search results.
So with those two sets of changes alone, Google search added more types of content (including multimedia like video and maps) and some read/write functionality (which Google termed a "wiki", to the bemusement of the inventor of the wiki).
Today's announcements are centered around some of the themes in the current era of the Web that we at ReadWriteWeb have been exploring recently: real-time information, adding more meaning to the data (aka Semantic Search), and filtering results. The new features show that Google is adapting to this environment.
Rich Snippets and Google Squared: Google Getting Clever With Data
According to Google, rich snippets "extract and show more useful information from web pages than the preview text that you are used to seeing." Significantly, Google is using structured data open standards such as microformats and RDFa to power the rich snippets feature. It is inviting publishers to mark up their HTML and webmasters can find more details here.
Image from Matt Cutts
At Searchology Google showed a preview of a new tool called Google Squared. This as yet unreleased product has already been compared to Wolfram Alpha, a "computational knowledge engine" that we reviewed in detail recently. Google Squared doesn't find webpages, like the normal Google search. Instead it "automatically fetches and organizes facts from across the Internet." The product will be added to Google Labs later this month.
Our take: Both Rich Snippets and Google Squared show that Google is getting smarter about data, adding more context (Rich Snippets) and new ways of searching and organizing (Squared).
Search Options: More Options, More Clutter?
Now let's look at Search Options, because it is the most immediately useful of the announcements today. And more than the other two, it shows how much the core Google search experience has evolved. The 2-minute video from Google below is a good introduction to the feature.
The screenshot below shows Search Options in action. The highlighted part shows the new link.
When the user clicks on 'Show options...', a sidebar pops out on the left with a variety of options including multimedia, reviews and time-based views:
Our take: When you ponder the above screenshots, bear in mind the Google experience of 10 years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that there are now significantly more options, links, on the Google results page. The ramifications of that are pretty clear: Google has evolved far beyond the simple 1-feature product it once was. Simplicity and focus on the core search experience were the principle reasons for Google's success. It's why Google usurped the bulky search-portals of the Web 1.0 era - Lycos, Yahoo, Excite, and their ilk.
Nevertheless, Google has been careful to gradually and relatively slowly introduce these new features to its core search experience. And the actual webpage search links still dominate most of the page real estate in the above screenshots.
The big question is: will making the core search experience more complex make Google more vulnerable to competitors that actually want to compete on features? Microsoft for instance is constantly trumpeting its next generation search plans. Google search got so popular precisely because of its laser focus on solid, simple good search results.
Or is it that the world of information and data has gotten more complex and so Google is just sensibly adapting to the environment?
There is certainly more media and interaction on the Web in 2009; and users are demanding real-time updates. So we're inclined to believe the latter view - that Google is cautiously adapting to the environment, without losing its core focus. If it didn't evolve that way, up and comers like Twitter would become more of a danger; moreso than relative dinosaurs like Microsoft and Yahoo.
Let us know whether you agree, or not, in the comments.
Google.com, circa May 1999
ShareRelated Entries
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/11467
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
You are wrong in your implications : Google won because it gave better, more relevant results, and it did this fast. Simple interface is nice, but results are MUCH more important. As long as it gives better Search Results, it will rule. There are a lot of sites nowadays, which have simple inbox with "ask" button and garbage output. Gimmicks don't work for a long time. If you are not a snake salesman type of company you need consistent long time user experience.
mechape, good point. But the simplicity of the interface drew attention to the results, users didn't get distracted with shiny objects like they did on e.g. Lycos. So I guess I'm asking: are there too many shiny objects in Google results now? As I said in the post, I'm inclined to think not. But it's worth asking the question.
@Richard I don't think there is to much clutter on Google either. Most of it is useful and relevant.
I don't know about the search options -- the balance between user control and visual and mechanical complexity is a tough, and no doubt evolving, tug-of-war. But I think Google is right to experiment with innovations there, as the quantity of content out there continues to balloon.
However, I think the news about rich snippets and Google Squared is AWESOME. I was just watching Tim Berners-Lee's presentation from TED the other day, and it's hard not to get excited about the potential for a "structured data revolution" on the web. That potential has been there for a long time, but it's lacked a mainstream catalyst to get the virtuous cycle started. (Kudos to Yahoo! for trying their best with SearchMonkey.)
Google, through these new offerings, is now nudging mainstream participation. I know, this is just a first step, but it's an important first step to take to get the journey started.
Having been thinking about the interesting ways in which marketing may engage with the semantic web/data for a while -- "semantic marketing", if you will -- I'm psyched to see this start to move from theory to real-world experimentation.
I'm impressed with the increased functionality, this definitely adds more relevance to our search results by allowing us to filter the query. Advanced filters are slowly filtering through to increase the experience across many of our favourite sites and services and that's good news!
I can't see how Google lost its simplicity! It is still as simple as ever for people who are after a quick search. But it also provides now more options for those who are after specific searches. Those options look simple enough for me!
Having said that, I still can't see Google providing real time information the way Twitter offers. I have tired it myself, it doesn't feel as fresh and credible as what you can find in people's words on Twitter.
They need to add a section for live micro-blogging search beside their current search reasults if they want to cover this area.
Richard, I was going to write a blog post where I went to the Wayback Machine and got a picture of the first Google home page, but I see you beat me to it. This is not just a matter of us being old enough to remember all the way back to 1998. It is about recognizing that more is not more. Google used to understand that less is more. The greatest irony is that they say it themselves with "Google Squared." I'd think this was irony, but then Google is not good with irony.
if google haven't so many options we don't use it anymore :P
Two mounts ago I suggested optional Google in a Grid Redesign.
People were afraid to change. I suggested only one button who will change list results to grid results.
Many were very very protective about Google layout they rejected the idea without thinking.
So Google should be extra careful about changing the layout.
The web is getting more complex, users are getting more sophisticated, and Google is evolving accordingly.
I reckon they've done a pretty good job of hiding the complexity from the average user while making it available to those who want to tap into it. (The experience while scrolling with Related Searches turned on is a bit weird though.)
I'm not a fan of all Google's changes but no doubt they're analyzing the hell out of each one and will keep the ones that work for them.
And I agree with @Scott that the Rich Snippets feature will be the start of something huge!
Hello,
while you do make an excellent point you are forgetting something very important. The core Google is still there and when you search you are not shoved extra stuff. As far as I could tell you are objecting to the Show Options part and the fact is that Google lets you have the options or not, whichever you prefer. Most other search engines just give them to you whether you want them or not and I think that is what set Google apart. You can do a lot of things with Google search but you don't have to. It does offer suggestions and more often then not those suggestions are actually useful.
Ow, and thanks for live-blogging the Searchology...
Cheers
I for one think that localizing the mobile results will be great, especially if we can pay for those spots on AdSense but I don't think the Google Squared will matter to most people, honestly? I think Google has to be careful not to fall into Microsoft's habit of trying to find a problem for their solutions.
I don't think we'll have truly universal search until Google starts integrating results from other services in their search results. Much like Addictomatic or WebMynd.
I think that people who get confused by or don't understand extra features won't notice the 'show options' option, so google will have it both ways - simple for the simple & etc.
Btw, even after all these years, I have never understood what the 'I'm feeling lucky' button did - it didn't do anything when i tried it. Anyone know? And google are still bad at search for certain countries e.g. france, and useless for excluding search items, but then so is everyone (please correct me if i am wrong) e.g. if you try to exclude 'quebec' from a search involving 'french'.
As stated in the post, "Simplicity and focus on the core search experience were the principle reasons for Google's success. It's why Google usurped the bulky search-portals of the Web 1.0 era - Lycos, Yahoo, Excite, and their ilk." This pretty much sums things up.
you are asking a question that should have been answered by yourself within a second... of course things have changed... If Google had not adapted, you & the other pageview hunting analysts and bloggers, would criticise them for exactly that... NOT adapting...
I agree with reg4c and webcloud.
a) Users have changed and gotten more sophisticated / demanding and Google has only been responding to what would appear has some very reasonable needs.
b) I find Google as simple and direct as always. yes, there are more features and options but they have not been added at the expense of how relevant information is presented and organized.
"they've done a pretty good job of hiding the complexity from the average user while making it available to those who want to tap into it."
Thanks Richard for asking some interesting questions.
I agree with @Seattle Website Design. Simplicity and focus on the core search experience were the keys to Google's success. Seth Godin gave a very good example of how this happened in one of his keynotes:
"What happened was that geeks and nerds and early adopters, and people like me, the ones who are always getting bugged by their friends on how to use the internet... We sent our friends to Google because we knew they were not going to come back and bother us later. Because if you send someone to Google, they knew what to do. But if you sent someone to Yahoo!, they had no clue. So we stopped sending our friends to Yahoo! and started sending them to Google."