• http://www.footinmouthdisease.net footinmouth

    That’s not just a change in the SERPS, that’s a change in the definition of a search engine, and really a change in the mission of Google. They say the are “organizing the Internet so people can find what they want”, but I don’t see how becoming a content database and cutting out providers of information i.e. websites from the benefit of creating that content is a good business model.

    I.e. if Google is not going to send people to my website in the end, but is just going to display my information and gain revenue from advertising on my content, then why wouldn’t I just block Googlebot and be done with it?

  • http://www.strongwords.ca Jim Huinink

    This article does not really meet the expectations set by the title. I thought this was going to talk about, I don’t know… 3D holographic search results, maybe?… Maybe a Google interface inside my contac lenses?… The ability of search engines to serve their own content seems much closer than five years. Of course if Google can serve better results than third party sites they will. But really, what else did they talk about in the presentation? That was it? I think I could have done better by daydreaming for a few minutes. Maybe it should have been led by someone from Google not Yahoo?

  • http://dejanseo.com.au/ Dejan

    Great article. I was looking forward to see some cool mockups though. Anyone?

  • R.M.

    This is a topic with great potential. It just needs more focus on the user than how search engines will exploit various verticals for greater monetization because in the end users want to finish the process of search and not stay in it for too long.

    I think where you are (via geolocation and location data) and what you are doing (your social updates) will be factors on what you get in results as they get used more to establish intent. So, signals for relevancy won’t be just static but also dynamic. While personalization will continue to evolve, customization of your results will i.e. how you want them, will also come into play (the My Yahoo analogy is probably more in line here). The SERPs will be much more dynamic and contextual than today.

  • R.M.

    Just forgot to add, the customization aspect also means the potential for pushing relevant search results to the user.

  • http://www.kaizenlog.com I.N.

    So if I understood correctly, search engines are going the way of AOL in which they tried to give all the relevant content themselves without actually going to the WWW.

    A walled garden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_(technology)

    It is a trend. When that happens, a technological revolution will probably occur in which people would want to get the content out of the walled garden.

  • Bruce Michael

    Google Comes up with new things every holiday :) and you are saying about 5 years definitely we will gonna see a different search engine in upcoming 5 years. If they can come up with street view and 3D maps then definitely they can do any thing with search we can’t predict any thing from Google yet. If this is related to Search Engine but if this is relate to a product which is really rising then we will definitely predict that Google or Microsoft gonna buy them :D

  • http://www.gustavsson-i.nl Mark Scholten

    Gustavsson-i, I am not sure I get it.
    Of course you are right that Google -as Mr Information Guard- could decide to let the search-and-result-traffic pass through or keep it for itself.
    However, at some point that would shatter their USP of being a (ok, sort of …) independent information broker.

    Besides that, why going throught the trouble of searching in the first place?
    Google’s top navigation bar showing ‘Google Banking’ would already stop the consumer from starting a search at all.

    Third, Google’s position is the be as high on the value chain as possible. They wouldn’t want to be bothered by more earthy matters as physical distribution and logictics.

  • http://www.4psmarketing.com Matt Stannard

    Very interesting – personally I quite like the SERP as they are, I don’t like clutter and think it could become a mess very quickly, especially if third party sites manage to take over the content snippets!

    I think as long as things can be controlled by the user – or perhaps even have the option to customise how you want the results to look that’s cool. Thus people who want the search engine to pull things into the SERP can turn it on / off.

  • http://iandgoodall.com Ian Goodall

    I guess this ties in closely with the development of the semantic web. Not only will SERPS be able to display results based on where you live but also the context that surrounds you. Basically, I imagine truly personalised search, where the search engine gets what you mean almost every time.

  • H.T.

    So the search engines are going to become “content farms” in their own right. They want to provide you with anything/everything about your search to keep you on their site. Irony at its best.

  • http://www.stepforth.com/ Scott Van Achte

    If it reached a point where Google was simply a content farm reposting MY content, I would likely block them and have my content removed – now that said, that is also assuming that I saw no benefit from it.

    Lets say that someone does a search, and Google puts a block of content up from my site, but with a link that says “for more info, check out Scott’s site at http://www.whatever.com“. That could be a pretty damn good link, quite possibly better than a normal #1 organic ranking… Afterall, you would be pre-qualifying all traffic that clicks on that link. Depending on how the search engines present this content, the key to SEO may be finding out not what it takes to be #1 organically, but what you have to do to get Google to use your content.

    Regardless, it will be interesting…

  • http://europeforvisitors.com Durant Imboden

    Your example of a movie trailer as a response to a “[movie title}” query makes sense. Similarly, a query for “death by chocolate cake recipe” could be answered with a recipe instead of a traditional SERP. But many–perhaps most?–search queries aren’t that simple. If someone is looking for “transportation from CDG Airport to Paris” or “treatment for stroke,” the answer isn’t likely to be served up as a video clip, factoid, or snippet on a Google or Bing page. For that matter, the searcher’s location and circle of friends may not matter, either. (If I want to know about the life of St. Francis of Assissi, whether I’m in Miami or in Melbourne, and who my Facebook friends are, are beside the point.)

  • http://www.linkedin.com/myprofile?trk=hb_side_pro jonalexander

    If search engines decide to focus on pure content e.g. searching for a movie and receiving trailers and cinema times.

    What will happen to PPC results for companies selling DVD’s of that movie surely Google, Bing etc aren’t going to risk jeopardising that revenue stream

  • http://www.gamerstube.com Joe Youngblood

    Footinmouth had a great point. You could see the web dwindle in size from billions of pages to maybe a few million or just a few hundred thousand. If Google or Bing ever gets to the point where they scape my content, reward users for scraping my content and punish me while taking my revenue then i’ll just block them and move on with more traditional marketing and focus on other search engines (blekko, duck duck)

    oh wait.. google is already doing all of this…

  • A.T.

    If Google does begin scraping websites for content to post on search queries, It seems the question is how to adequately compensate sites that produce quality content in order to keep those sites from blocking Google. Google is smart enough to understand incentives, and I suspect this wouldn’t be as big of a hurdle as other comments make it seem.

  • http://linkedin.com/in/DavidVallejo David Vallejo

    Sounds like the search engines are looking to becoming portals (which Yahoo already is).

  • Matt Hyatt

    I’m not sure I get it.

    So, the new-look SERP will include Google turning into a provider of services rather than sending you elsewhere?

    How is this meant to happen?

    Example: if I’m looking for Nike trainers, Google either has to have it’s own separate business that sells Nike trainers (unlikely), or it just displays content from another website without actually taking me away from Google, correct?

    I presume the latter is the what we’re talking about here. How does that compare to today?

    If I search today for Nike trainers, I get a few results that display pictures and prices for actual products. I suppose the difference is that I never need to leave Google to buy them in future.

    If that is the case, then why would the retailers provide Google with the ability to do this?

    I’m struggling to get my head round it. Either Google turns its hand to totally alien industries, which it won’t OR it strikes deals with the providers of all the services under the sun for us to purchase these services or products without leaving the SERP.

    Why would any of these companies want, or agree, to traffic not landing on their own page, where they have total control of UX, user journeys and the chance to expose them to a range of other products / services?

    Also, this idea of a tabbed box already exists surely? I have video, image and map searches today. I suppose there is an extension of News but what else?

    I can understand that results could be presented in a far better way to keep users on the SERP for longer and actually preventing them from leaving when the request is for information rather than products / complex services.

    However, how will the Search Engines keep you on the SERP when the request is for something that they aren’t in the business of directly making / selling?