Skip to main content

Change in Google Search is killing it

Google’s latest update nearly cost it the very thing that fueled its success, going by reactions from users and the media.


I’m not feeling lucky, but I’m betting neither is Google. On January 14, 2020, Google changed the design of its search engine results and immediately got a huge backlash from both users and the media.
Barely 10 days later, it had to roll back this change in what TechCrunch described as “redesigning the redesign”.

Users hated it

Immediately after the change, Google’s own support forum was flooded with users crying, screaming and protesting. They threatened to ditch Google for other search engines like DuckDuckGo and Bing.

User complaints on Google’s support forum on the new search results page
One user pointed out a much larger issue Google faces being accused of…
“…this isn’t about a visual change to the browser, these are core fundamental changes to how the internet is used for information, and Google is acting as the gatekeeper, limiting information to peddle advertising…”
The giant that Google may be, it was indeed experimenting on very dangerous grounds.
Given the amount of attention being paid by regulators to fake news and manipulative propaganda being fed through the internet these days, making ads more indistinguishable from real search results is literally asking to be hung.

So what exactly did Google do?

Essentially, Google made just one change. It placed a URL link on top of each result and a brand favicon on the left next to it.
New search results makes ads more indistinguishable from actual results
Search results after the Jan 14th change
So what’s the problem?
The problem was, it took away the green box and font it previously used to differentiate ads from actual search results.
The old search results highlighted ads in bold, green font
Search results before the Jan 14th change
Many users immediately complained. Putting a favicon next to the URL and making the font colors identical for both actual results and sponsored ads made it more difficult to tell them apart.
Some also claimed to have accidentally clicked on the ads after the change.

Even the media criticized it

Google had already made this change on its mobile version the year before, so it thought that desktop users should be able to get used to it pretty quickly.
But it was so wrong. The backlash was quick and hard. Even respected online media criticized it mercilessly.
Digiday’s headline read, “ Google’s latest search results change further blurs what’s an ad.”
TechCrunch’s headline was even more harsh. It called the change a “user-hostile design” which made “ads and search results look identical”.
In the article, TechCrunch compared the user experience to taking part in a lottery — one that’s skewed in Google’s favor…
“A lottery that’s being stacked in Google’s favor because confused users are likely to end up clicking more ad links than they otherwise would, meaning it cashes in at the expense of web users’ time and energy.”
- “ Google’s latest user-hostile design change makes ads and search results look identical “, TechCrunch.com
That may be a bit of an exaggeration. But it had the desired effect. Google took it back. As of the time of writing the favicons are gone, but the black ‘ Ad ‘ labels stayed…
Google rolls back its change and took URL favicons away
Google pulls out favicon after 10 days of change

So why did Google do this?

It’s all about the money, of course. Most digital ads are ‘cost per click’ these days. This means that it doesn’t matter how many times the ad was shown; Google only gets paid if users clicked on the ad.
But why did Google take such a huge bet against regulatory backlash and loss of users just to potentially increase earnings?
Perhaps because the giant has finally hit the plateau in revenue growth due to the size of its natural market. TechCrunch seems to agree …
“For Google, the rationale is simple. The company’s advertising revenues aren’t growing the way they used to, and the company is looking at a slowdown in its core business. To try and juice the numbers, dark patterns present an attractive way forward.”
But Google is betting on the most fundamental aspect and genesis of their business — the search engine.

Losing its origins

Google needs to rethink its product strategies more carefully going forward, otherwise it might lose the very thing that got it started — an efficient, accurate and honest search engine.
User Experience (UX) expert Harry Brignull lamented to TechCrunch that Google’s original search engine was “perfection with nothing to add or take away”.
“It was proof that engineers could disrupt the rules of the web without needing any suit-wearing executives. Strip out all the crap. Do one thing and do it well.”
But “as Google’s ambitions changed… it’s completely gone now,” Brignull said.
Going by the reaction to this latest update and Google’s rapid pullback, I’m guessing many users agree with Brignull.
Stop and think harder Google. Otherwise, netizens might just vote with their feet…

Originally published at https://uxdesign.cc 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ransomware's Dangerous New Trick Is Double-Encrypting Your Data

  Ransomware groups have always taken a more-is-more approach . If a victim pays a ransom and then goes back to business as usual-hit them again. Or don’t just encrypt a target’s systems; steal their data first, so you can threaten to leak it if they don’t pay up. The latest escalation? Ransomware hackers who encrypt a victim’s data twice at the same time. Double-encryption attacks have happened before, usually stemming from two separate ransomware gangs compromising the same victim at the same time. But antivirus company Emsisoft says it is aware of dozens of incidents in which the same actor or group intentionally layers two types of ransomware on top of each other. “The groups are constantly trying to work out which strategies are best , which net them the most money for the least amount of effort,” says Emsisoft threat analyst Brett Callow. “So in this approach you have a single actor deploying two types of ransomware. The victim decrypts their data and discovers it’s not act...
Post a Comment
Read more

Babuk ransomware is back, uses new version on corporate networks

  After announcing their exit from the ransomware business in favor of data theft extortion, the Babuk gang appears to have slipped back into their old habit of encrypting corporate networks. The criminals are currently using a new version of their file-encrypting malware and have moved the operation to a new leak site that lists a handful of victims. Gang’s still in the game The Babuk ransomware group became known at the beginning of the year but the gang says that their attacks had started in mid-October 2020, targeting companies across the world and demanding ransoms typically between $60,000 and $85,000 in bitcoin cryptocurrency. In some cases, victims were asked hundreds of thousands for data decryption. One of their most publicized victims is the Washinton DC’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). This attack likely pushed the threat actor into announcing its retirement from the ransomware business only to adopt another extortion model that did not include encryption....
Post a Comment
Read more

Microsoft Teams Phishing Attack Targets Office 365 Users

  Up to 50,000 Office 365 users are being targeted by a phishing campaign that purports to notify them of a “missed chat” from Microsoft Teams. Researchers are warning of a phishing campaign that pretends to be an automated message from Microsoft Teams. In reality, the attack aims to steal Office 365 recipients’ login credentials. Teams is Microsoft’s popular collaboration tool, which has particularly risen in popularity among remote workforces during the pandemic  — making it an attractive brand for attackers to impersonate. This particular campaign was sent to between 15,000 to 50,000 Office 365 users, according to researchers with Abnormal Security on Thursday. “Because Microsoft Teams is an instant-messaging service, recipients of this notification might be more apt to click on it so that they can respond quickly to whatever message they think they may have missed based on the notification,” said researchers in a Thursday analysis . The initial phishing email displays the name ...
Post a Comment
Read more