• http://www.motionlab.co.uk/SEO-PPC John Trimble

    This may be true of ‘Google Instant’ bug clearly big brands are still given a bias in SERPS

  • Levi Wardell

    What a load of crap. If I’m a small business owner and trying to leverage one of the few spaces I have to fight against major businesses, the “most people are looking for” statement could very easily be seen as brand bias.

  • http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    It’s a latent bias, not an intentional bias. Amit Singhal feels the sting of criticism quite a bit, I am sure, but he seems to be responding to a very specific conspiracy theory. Maybe he’s just answering questions put to him by Fast Company.

  • http://fizzkid.wordpress.com Kyle Lelli

    This seems correct, though unfortunate. If the algorithm is set so that it is strict probability, of course the SE results are going to trend towards big brands. It almost seems that Singhal is admitting that the algorithm is set towards brand bias strictly due to mathematical probability. It has nothing to do with searcher intent, which is a shame.

  • PPCSwede

    I work for a company with a strong brand and significant search volume and the notion that G Instant has given us a boost is simply false. Target may receive more impression post G Instant implementation but I doubt it has resulted in incremental lift. If you’re in the process of typing in a search query, the likelihood of you stopping to look at the results of each letter being typed, is minimal. Let’s not forget that search is and always will be about intent, and the person who is looking for information about anything starting with a T, is not going to abandon his or her search and decide, “heck, I do need to go to target”. I think that’s a fallacy and I have no empirical evidence that backs that theory up.