Recently I read this article on Medium. Although the entry point of the article is very small, it actually extends a big proposition for readers to discuss. This paper will be divided into two parts, the first part is the original text, the second part is some of my views.

  • Change in Google Search is killing it
  • Lance Ng
  • Translator: Chor

I feel unfortunate, but I bet Google feels the same way now. On January 14, 2020, Google made a change to the design of its search engine results, which was met with an immediate backlash from users and the media.

Ten days later, Google had to take the design “back to the drawing board,” or, as TechCrunch describes it, “redesign from scratch.”

Users hated it

Shortly after launching the design, Google’s own forums were inundated with comments and objections from users. They have even threatened to abandon Google and switch to other search engines, such as DuckDuckGo and Bing.

One user pointed to a bigger problem facing Google:

“… The change in the visual design of the browser is secondary, because it strikes at the heart of the Internet, which is access to information. Google acted as a gatekeeper, and now it is allowing advertising to creep into the message……”

Google may be an Internet giant, but this time it is playing with fire.

The Internet is now awash with fake news and manipulative propaganda, and regulators are taking it seriously. In this case, deliberately blurring the distinction between advertising and real search results would be suicidal.

What did Google do to provoke outrage?

In fact, Google made only one change, showing the corresponding URL at the top of each search result and placing a website icon next to it.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that Google has removed the green box ICONS and fonts that used to distinguish ads from actual search results.

Many pointed out that they often clicked on ads late after Google introduced a new design.

Even the media are critical

Google introduced the new design for mobile browsers a year ago, so it assumed that desktop users would quickly get used to the change.

Big mistake. The backlash was swift and strong, with even “moderate” online media outlets denouncing Google.

Digiday’s headline reads, “Google’s recently updated search results design further blurs the definition of advertising.”

TechCrunch’s headline was even more radical, pointing out that the changes were “maliciously designed to target users” and made it difficult for users to distinguish between real ads and fake search results.

In the article, TechCrunch likens the user experience to participating in a lottery — one of the “lottery results” in Favor of Google……

“This is essentially a lottery in Google’s favor, confusing users and making them more likely to click on the AD link by mistake. Google makes money at the expense of users’ time and energy.”

— “Google’s Latest malicious design Makes Ads and search Results Hard to Tell From Fake,” TechCrunch.com

A bit exaggerated, perhaps, but the criticism worked. Google scrapped the design. As I write this, the ICONS are no longer visible on the browser, but “Ad” in black is still at……

What is Google doing here?

For money, of course. Many digital ads are now monetized by user clicks, which means it doesn’t matter how many times an AD appears — Google only makes money from the AD if the user actually clicks on it.

But why is Google betting so much on potential profits, despite regulatory objections and the risk of losing users?

Perhaps the Internet giant is affected by the size of the natural market, has reached a “bottleneck” in revenue growth. TechCrunch also hold [view] (techcrunch.com/2020/01/24/… .

“With Google, the reason is simple. The company’s advertising revenue isn’t growing like it used to, and its core business is slowing. It’s tempting to do this in an ignoble way to breathe life into the numbers.”

But Google is gambling with its very core, fundamental business: search.

Loss of beginner’s mind

Google needs to rethink its product strategy more carefully, or it risks losing what drove it in the first place — an efficient, accurate and honest search engine.

In an interview with TechCrunch, User experience (UX) expert Harry Brignull lamented that Google’s search results used to be “almost perfect, with nothing to add and nothing to take away.”

“This means that engineers can break the rules of the Internet even without a suit-wearing executive nearby. Get rid of all garbage. Do one thing, and do it well.”

But “as Google’s goals change…… That’s gone forever, “Says Brignull.

Based on the reaction to the update and Google’s swift retraction of the design, I think many users would agree with Brignull.

Google really needs to stop and think about this. Otherwise, netizens will only avoid it……

[Above. End of the text]

This article is short, but it can get us thinking. First of all, the author is a person who likes to keep in suspense. When I first read the title, I was actually curious about what the author said “Google search is killing itself”, is it blocking some search results? Is it advertising? Obviously not. Shielding doesn’t exist, and advertising has been around for a long time. When I read the second part of the article, I realized that what the author was talking about was the presentation of search results. Google intentionally blurs the visual distinction between ads and real search results, resulting in many users mistakenly clicking on ads and making money from Google.

The problem may not be advertising itself. Advertising is impossible to eliminate. In terms of mobile phones, no matter in music app, social app or e-commerce app, everyone may touch the advertisement by mistake after opening the app. As a result, he or she is going to open Zhihu but enters Taobao in the blink of an eye (this is the most helpless thing). If it is on the computer, even if you don’t throw all kinds of junk software, if you use a certain search engine, you still can’t escape the “attention” of advertising, it can even give you three or four ads on the front page, and the so-called “advertising” word, it is only in light blue, meaningless. The biggest problem is deliberate obfuscation, which I think is a hidden evil. It’s worse than normal evil because it’s not obvious, it’s too suggestive, it’s more of a trap waiting for users to fall into.

In the extended reading, I found the graph below. This chart shows how Google displayed ads from 2007 to 2016. In fact, at the beginning, it is not difficult to see that the advertisement is clearly marked, directly given a large background color, even if it is difficult to recognize the advertisement. In 2013, even though the background was inconspicuous white, the word “Ad” was deliberately marked with fluorescent color. Yellow means “warning” in the UI design, so it was still easy to recognize the Ad. In 2016, although green has less contrast, it is still differentiated by color.

But today (March 27, 2020), in fact, it has become the author said that “advertising and real search results are silly to distinguish”, for example, I search “online program course”, then the result is like this:

The word “Ad” is used in bold, but it is more than 10 times weaker than the previous one. If you look wrong, accidentally for the site to contribute to the number of clicks.

This is certainly Google’s business, as it has no role in improving the user experience, nor is it a technical issue. The article said, “this incident has shaken the core foundation of the Internet, namely access to information,” but in fact, the Development of the Internet today, long ago is not a pure thing, especially the Internet we are currently using, if to say “shake”, even “shake” more than a hundred times. Access to information has always been a pain point, not just for the ads mentioned in this article, but for many of the online conversations we’re having right now. Most conversations are so inefficient that they don’t create a flow of back and forth, and because of the interference of third-party information, it’s easy to get lost in the conversation. This may not matter if you’re having a regular conversation, but if you’re talking about a problem, you’re wasting your time and energy, and you’re not getting the information you want.

In the face of these situations, it may be better to improve the personal environment. What are the sources of useless information and how to eliminate it (enhance recognition, use tools to block)? What are the sources of useful information and how do you get it fastest (platform, route)? These may be the questions we need to think about. Combined with practical experience and their own in-depth thinking, in the end, we will develop a set of information processing mode belongs to our own, and continue to use and improve this mode, so we can well resist the interference of search engines, really find the information they want.