Dan Nedelko : Internet Marketer

As I am likely to do on any given day I have a habit of reading the thoughts of others in this ever growing industry. As I was browsing Threadwatch today I noticed a post by David Naylor (whose SEO Blog I enjoy reading - smart stuff in there) regarding Searchmash. As I read through his criticisms of searchmash, some of which I agree with and others I disagree with, I was compelled to write a response to his editorial on this interesting little project.

I think I'll go through point by point and simply address each in turn:

As it turns out, «Mash» is quite a appropriate - a mish-mash of badly thought out ideas

• Mash is actually appropriate since it is taking what appears to be a number of technology components from the Google arsenal and refactoring them in a way which will creates new dynamics to a user interface. Whether the ideas are badly though out or not is not really expessed in any documentation on Searchmash itself so I don't know if it's fair to say they are badly thought out until you hear the reasoning behind the decisions which were made.

«…mistaken belief that people actually want to spend more time on the search engines than the pages they're searching for.»

• I agree 100% this. DaveN was referencing A9 which was a test in badly implemented user interaction and poorly executed.
• I would like to followup on this comment with quite a few comments, but to be brief: search engines are the vehicles that users take to reach a destination - I think it is a fundamental mistake to think that the engine is the destination. If a portal or destination exists (ie Yahoo) then the dynamics of those products are completely different.

«You don't have to have your cursor in the search box to start typing your query»

• Again I agree however I will point out one thing here: there was no claim on Searchmash that this is a product of any kind. In fact quite the opposite, to quote from the SearchMash: «. It is constantly evolving as we come up with ideas and figure out what works and what doesn't. «
• This is a test and your point is a product refinement issue and a fairly minor point at that. This is a test for engineers to see what works and what doesn't that's the goal.
• I was at one time a software engineer and this is a fabulous test for designers, engineers and the like to test concepts and ideas with a real group of users. Sometimes in the development game that is very rare and yet extremely invaluable (how valuable do you think this discourse is to Google, I would say it's gold).

«Click the green URL of a web result to open a menu of options for viewing the URL or refining your query»

• You are assuming too much without real metrics to support that claim. I am just throwing this out there. What is the percentage of users who select the Title versus the URL?
• Do users who select the url in fact want to 'dig' deeper into the site anyhow? If that is the case then the dynamic menus vastly clean up the page, reducing clutter and creating a more direct interface for the user.

« You can see the top three image results next to your web results»

• You are constantly referring to «you» - «you» are one user, there are millions of users on Google.
• This is a test, again you have no direct access to metrics to see the number of concurrent or next searches.
• I would venture that there is the possibility that many users do perform image searches, now without metrics I am not 100% sure so I'm theorizing as well but it's a decent theory.
• Bandwidth? Is bandwidth a concern of yours in a given day while online? If it is then you must also have the penny (pence) and change jar in the world. Given the popularity of YouTube and other bandwidth sources I would say that is not an issue.

«Click the number next to a result and drag it around to reorder. Thought you'd best bite the bullet and admit your relevancy sucks, yeah?»

• This is a very interesting feature and you assume too much. Moving the item does not change it positional rank (number 5 at the top is still the 5th most relevant term it's just on the top).
• Do not assume it changes the relevance - I would personally not think that this is the point, rather I would think that it is possibly addressing remote bookmarking (neat) or a digg style of voting (more users reording to the top is a 'vote).
• This is a feature that could be productized in various ways. Interesting thought, very interesting.
• Bad relevance for search is Yahoo's job anyhow

« Click the «more results» bar at the bottom of the page (or hit the space bar) to load more results and automatically scroll down to view them:»

• I agree - I don't like this feature at all it impractical and confusing the general user. Thumbs up.

«Seems like even Google would rather not be associated with this little stinker - the design bears no corporate branding, and the affiliation with Google can only be found on the whois and privacy page. Come on Google, at least own up to your mistakes.»

• Wrong. It's also on the Terms of Service page
• It's not hidden, it's very clearly stated this is a test.
• It's also very clear to me and it should be to everyone that Searchmash is not a product!

I love you DaveN really I do, you make me happier than a bag a bag of kittens. It's also your blog so say what you want, but this is my blog so I'll say what I want which is: You're Wrong.

Have a great weekend!