Earlier in January 2012, Google created a stir yet again when it introduced ‘Search Plus Your World’ (SPYW). As part of this latest feature, you would find a lot of Google+ being infused into Google’s search results. This move has been criticized by netizens and web marketers alike over the last two weeks or so. Most users are unhappy about this blatant favoritism Google is indulging in.
SPYW has laid the foundation for a fresh debate which has little or no fence-sitters. The heated debate is all about whether Google is moving in the right path with SPYW or is it discrediting its own search results.
Contemporaries like Twitter and Facebook have not hidden their displeasure at this change. For instance, Twitter argued how these new changes are inapt the Internet as a whole. On the other hand, employees of Facebook found faults with SPYW through status updates.
Marketing Implications
Since Google launched Google+, they have been clear about the fact that the +1 button would help accentuate search rankings. The internet giant has also been using the authorship feature as a ranking signal. This move is essentially an extension of the endeavor to integrate social content and signals in search results and the underlying algorithms.
With Google+ greatly influencing search visibility, internet marketers are wondering whether on-page textual content is important for Google rankings these days. It is evident that on-page text is being used by Google to decide the relevance, but not necessarily for rankings. Social Media seems to be taking the front seat. Of course, this would also mean that more quality content will be shared over the Social Media.
SPYW has received criticism on many counts. Here’s what the buzz says:
- Ever since Google allowed the use of pseudonyms on Google+ in a bid to help users personalize their search identity, many are expressing doubt about the timing of this new feature. According to Trevor Gilbert at PandoDaily, “SPYW wouldn’t have worked if pseudonyms remained disabled. Instead, people would search and find nothing relevant (certainly not the Twitter and Facebook pages they were looking for). At the same time, Google+ would have been – marginally – worse at launch if they had accepted pseudonyms from the get-go. So what did Google do? They played dumb for a few months to get users to use their legal names, and then when Google needed pseudonyms, they are suddenly open to the idea.”
- Users and internet marketers have been raising questions about why Google would initially disable pseudonyms and then suddenly open up to the idea. Netizens opine that Google is catering to users’ requirements as long as its own requirements are met.
- Experts are becoming vocal about the fact that the relevancy of Google’s search results is at stake. This could well be a turning point where users might decide to switch over to Bing, Yahoo or another search engine.
It is imperative for enterprises to constantly adapt to these changes and challenges. Futurism IMBC helps you keep abreast with the latest surprises that the Internet throws up. For more details, visit us at www.futurismimbc.com. .