Yesterday, I was taking a client through the ins and outs of Google AdWords when I realized something was very different with my Google natural search results. Every result was followed by an up arrow and an X. Out of curiosity I began clicking on these new features to find I was able to customize my search results. Google was nice enough to offer me the option of learning more about this new feature so I read up on it.

For one, you need to be signed in to be eligible for this feature and secondly I don’t think it’s tied to your Google account altogether. On our conference room computer I was signed into my Google account over Firefox but when I did the same on Safari I wasn’t offered the experimental feature, likewise I wasn’t offered the results with my main laptop using Firefox. My assumption is they are offering this feature at random and saving it in a session state.

Although I thought the feature was fun to play with, I guess I’m missing the bigger picture. If I’m searching for data then I’m usually looking for something which I know little about so what makes me an authority on which results are better then others. Are most people going to take the time to go back to Google and remove pages which they felt were inaccurate?

On the flip side, if Google’s index returns results which are spammy or irrelevant then I guess I could remove them from the index. Then again, I’m removing them from my personal index and it likely won’t effect Google’s main index.

This new feature feels alot like StumbleUpon in that I can give a thumbs up to good results and a thumbs down for poor results. For me, this feature make the most sense if Google is going to acquire a social networking company. Why? Because if Google factors my personal index into their own index it would provide a filter for my social network.

It’s an interesting feature but I’m still wondering how it will eventually be used.

In the last year I’ve seen an increasing number of websites using what I’ve dubbed as the “Content Footer.” These are exaggerated website text footers which serve the dual purpose of better search engine optimization and increased usability. To help frame the discussion, let’s look at what I think is the best example of a Content Footer, MarthaStewart.com.

Rather then trying to list everything in the main navigation the Content Footer helps organize additional content in similar buckets. This methodology also serves as a micro-sitemap of second tier navigation. From a search engine optimization perspective, Content Footers help re-enforce keyword rich terminology without spamming the search engines.

MarthaStewart.com

Apple uses the Content Footer in the same way as MarthaStewart.com however they’ve opted for a vertical arrangement and they are capping what items are listed in this area. If you look at the applications listed in the Content Footer you’ll see they’ve limited the selection to their top applications. Apple isn’t interested in showing you everything they sell, just what is most popular and relevant.

Apple.com

From a design perspective the argument could be made that Content Footers clutter up the layout, this could be the reason that Apple doesn’t show the Content Footer until the subpage level. Personally, I feel the Content Footer pros outweigh the cons and I think we’ll start seeing more sites designed with this feature in the future.

For about the past year I have been using a program by the name of Spotlaser that helps add some functionality to spotlight searches in OS X. Basically it allows the user to have a bit more control over exactly what they enter when looking for a document. For instance: creation date, text within the document, exact filetype, file size, etc. Spotlight is capable of finding all of these things (and more) but at times the default spotlight interface can make it hard to do. Mainly because you are forced to open up a finder window, run a search, and then add a filter rule for each search option. With Spotlaser you can do complex searching in a nice interface without the hassle.

Perhaps in Leopard spotlight will get a better interface but until that happens thankfully we have Spotlaser.

Earlier today I found out about an interesting website project by the name of Blackle, a black-backgrounded version of Google. The goal? To help save energy usage by displaying a black background for Google search.

In essence, Blackle hopes to gain enough traffic that the energy savings in displaying white pixels vs. black pixels will add up and make an environmental impact. In my opinion, it seems like more of a way to make a statement than provide a positive environmental service. I’m just not sure how big of an impact Blackle has made or will make. Especially since research suggests the use of LCD monitors may nix the energy savings in displaying black vs. white pixels. Further, I’m not convinced the usability tradeoff is worth it (for the user or the environment). I.E. if finding results takes longer on Blackle than Google because the text is hard to visually parse, then is there still an environmental savings? Not to mention Google has dedicated itself to being green and it seems counter productive to sway site traffic to a site that may or may not have green servers behind it (I couldn’t find information on Blackle’s hosting). Especially when we know Google is already focused on the environment.

I guess the point is that making a statement is one thing, but backing it up is another. And while I like the environmental ideals behind Blackle I don’t think they are making their point the right way.

Yahoo, how is it that you’ve missed the boat on the whole pay-per-click model? How is it that after several years your system for managing PPC has actually devolved into a barely usable duct taped garbage heap that marketers run from?

I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt several times over yet you still underwhelm me. I’m at a loss for understanding why with even a highly profitable model like Google Adwords, you haven’t at least copied some aspects of Google Adwords. Just the other day I did some basic account changes and reporting in your system, it took me well over an hour to do several tasks which would take less the 15 minutes in Google.

How can I justify using your system? Your ROI is less then Google’s, you send less traffic then Google and your management interface is a nightmare?  Let’s get real, Microsoft AdCenter is the new kid on the block and it looks lightyears more developed then your system. You just don’t get it!