If Google continues down this road it is exactly what I spoke of a month or so prior in regards to Yahoo!’s restructuring…Google seems to be following in Yahoo’s footsteps in a way and this could mean that with the efforts Yahoo! is putting in and these “blunders” that Google is making, I think there is a possibility of a momentum shift in time.

Once upon a time, the confluence of killer technology, perfect timing, a lofty philosophy, and the invitation to hold them to a higher standard (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/30/googles-tipping-point/ ) gave the world a company that a lot of people really thought (hoped, wished) would be different.

I wonder if this Checkout issue, along with the Tips issue from last month and the resulting concern are syptoms of Google maturing into a (heaven forbid) “regular” company a la MSFT, IBM, [insert your favorite current/former tech giant here], whose overriding interest is, ultimately, their bottom line.

Note that I don’t have a problem with this transformation/evolution — I just want to know. I happily use Microsoft, IBM, etc., solutions everyday, and I’m clear how much I want to trust them. Things get more complex when I don’t know how much to trust something(i.e. should I trust Google like I used to, or should I trust them like I trust Microsoft?)

To jump into the conversation: I would indeed call advertisements a search result if they were not disclosed as ads. But they happen to be. (They are called “sponsored links”). The onebox in question is disclosed by Google to be a “product search result”, so it is a type of search result. We both know it’s not what search pros call the “organic result”, but a “onebox” of course.

Respect your opinion. I just disagree. It’s sort of how Blake Ross saw the tips in the search results and I disagreed they were. These are open to interpretation.

> Does this not imply that you feel it provides little or no benefit to Google searchers?

Little benefit to other options they could show right in the main search results. They’re taking up a line of the page, on a page where they carefully debate anything that goes on it. They’ve decided a Google Checkout line is THAT important to users that it needs to be there? I don’t think it’s that important, even if I appreciate it as a search within the Froogle results themselves.

> I would much rather perform a keyword search and click links to further filter my results than to view a bunch of text boxes, check boxes, and/or radio boxes to be able to do this in one step.

People are different. They should offer both. And maybe make it a preference that you can save, too.

> Much later, Google created a finance site of their own. Once the kinks were worked out, Google added Google Finance to these sets of links. It just seems to be the natural course of progression to eventually remove the competing links once you feel your own product fills the need.

I absolutely agree. When Google Finance launched, a ton of people came down on Google as trying to wipe out the competition. I was one of the relatively few commentators to disagree with that. And if they feel finance is super wonderful, I can see the competitor links going. But Google clearly occupies this special trust situation where people worry about such moves, as the tips thing underscores. So making these type of drops, that’s something they really need to consider announcing and inviting some debate. Moreover, it’s a pretty easy thing to say that if people like the “old style,” they can set it as a preference and bring it back. If no one does that or in tiny numbers, then they are more on solid ground to eventually phase it out entirely.

> I don’t know why they have to let everyone know in advance that they are going to cross promote their products.

Because they cross-promote in areas some people think should be free of any promotion at all. There’s obvious concern about this. They can do whatever they want. But they can also do things in a smarter way.

> The OneBox region is, for the most part, a “tip” area that nudges someone into taking a look at a vertical that may be more appropriate for their search term

For now. The OneBox is the future. Two, three years from now, those product results will dominate the page.

> So, I even think this product still falls in line with their goal to make information more accessible and useful.

And to be clear, I’m not saying Google Checkout is bad, not useful, etc. I’m saying that Google is pushing it big time and there’s some spillage going on that makes people wonder if they’re maintaining the neutral approach they themselves want to take with listings.

I still disagree on this point. The term “search results”, IMHO, mean the actual “numbered” results that are returned in a specific order based on the sorting and relevance algorithm. The OneBox, although it is designed to aid the searcher, is not one of these results. It is an add-on reference. If you can call the OneBox region as a “search result” then you could call an advertisement a “search result” because advertisements also appear when searches are performed, are designed algorithmically to be relevant to the terms searched, and are meant to aid the searcher with relevant links. I still believe calling the OneBox region part of the “main search results” to be far-reaching.

>I never said that at all.

You said, “Why does this promotion need to be in the main Google search results? What benefit is it providing Google searchers?” Does this not imply that you feel it provides little or no benefit to Google searchers? Maybe not to you, but it does provide a benefit to me. I also rarely pay attention to the number of stars a merchant has mainly because most merchants don’t even have a rating, even ones I have had quite a good experience with. A compromise DID cross my mind, however. What if Google only provided this link for users who are logged in and who actually use Google Checkout? That way, this link would appear to be less of an “advertisement” for Google Checkout and would become more of a “tool” for existing Google Checkout users. Just a thought.

>Or those using PayPal? Pity you can’t filter to those

I’m a little turned off of PayPal at the moment. I bought a memory card from eBay (I know, I know, bad idea) and it turned out to be a counterfeit card. I was able to compare the card itself and its packaging to images shown on the web by those who compare legitimate products to their counterfeits. When I went through the fraud department of eBay, they sent me to PayPal. When I went through the fraud department of PayPal, they told me I had 10 days (I actually only had 6 days because they sent me this notification 4 days late) to fax them verification from a third party that the card was, in fact, counterfeit. (The card, by the way, which claimed to hold 4 GB only held 1 GB as I tested this thoroughly.) No local computer shop or store had ever heard of such a “verification” process, so they couldn’t help me. When I contacted Sony (which the card claimed to be) they said I could mail the card to them and they could verify if it is counterfeit. However, the process would take a couple of weeks. When I asked PayPal for more time, they sent me a canned message that essentially said “We are sorry that our method is inconvenient for you. It is our method and we’re sticking to it.” Two more days passed and they closed the issue. Since the issue is closed, I can’t make a claim against that transaction again. So, essentially, I’m stuck with a bad memory card. There was absolutely no way PayPal (according to their methods) was ever going to help me in that situation. Maybe Google Checkout might not have been much better, but a bad taste is a bad taste, so I’m not particularly happy with PayPal at the moment.

>No — as I explained, if this is a useful feature, you also include it in places where people can make use of it BEFORE they conduct a search, not after.

I don’t know if I agree with that. The advanced search pages, in my opinion, are cumbersome. I would much rather perform a keyword search and click links to further filter my results than to view a bunch of text boxes, check boxes, and/or radio boxes to be able to do this in one step. Sure, it’s only one step, but you’re forced to look at a page worth of options. If Google’s advanced search had this option, or even their home page, I likely wouldn’t bother using it there. In fact, most of my Google searches are done through the Google Toolbar, so I would prefer the links for further filtering to appear on the search results pages. Adding any of these features on the home page would also clutter up the home page unnecessarily.

>I struggle to think of examples where Google has dropped competitor links. The best I can think of is years and years ago, they dropped links at the bottom of search pages to other search engines.

Perhaps this was the example I was thinking of, or maybe I have just seen this coming from a mile away. Doing a search for GOOG or MSFT used to generate a OneBox result that only linked to competitors, because Google didn’t have a finance site at the time. Much later, Google created a finance site of their own. Once the kinks were worked out, Google added Google Finance to these sets of links. It just seems to be the natural course of progression to eventually remove the competing links once you feel your own product fills the need. I imagine this will happen with patents. Searching for “patent 5123123″ links to the government’s patent website. In time, I am sure it will link to Google’s patent website. Besides, linking to competitor’s just raises questions like “Which competitor’s get to be in that spot? Can I get my finance website listed there, as well? Why not? Do you have to pay to get linked from there?”, etc…

>I’m saying Google is clearly undergoing an internal push to be more self-promotional. And they are doing this without any heads-up to those that use them and watch them closely.

I don’t know why they have to let everyone know in advance that they are going to cross promote their products. I’m not quite sure what made the general public the managers of the company. If anything, this push for self-promotion is likely a direct result OF requests by the general public. For YEARS people have been saying on message boards “I wish Google would promote its other products more.” People would talk about how much they love Google Talk, but wish more of their friends used it. Then went on to complain how Google creates great new services, but buries them in places like Google Labs or the “more/even more” links. So, now that Google is actually making an effort to cross-promote their various services, rather than a collective “hurray, finally!” there’s just more criticism. You state that you defend Google a lot, but this is what makes it more frustrating. You defended the “tips” concept, yet are “worried” about the OneBox concept. Yet, a little research would show that the results given in the OneBox (whether for images or products) DO NOT give the “top product” or “top image” results for these subsequent verticals. The OneBox region is, for the most part, a “tip” area that nudges someone into taking a look at a vertical that may be more appropriate for their search term. It makes more of an impact when a Google-defender is suddenly “worried” about the direction Google is taking than when a Google-basher is worried. I don’t mind, so much, that Google took away the “tips” because I am already full aware of Google’s other services. However, if they were to roll back on this latest feature because the community rose up again, I’d be losing a feature that I find to be useful. That’s where my frustration is.

>There is a difference between a store promoting its own credit card and a consumer guide pushing its own credit card.

In my opinion (yeah, I know it’s really humble), Google is not and never has been a “consumer guide”. The INTERNET is a “consumer guide” and Google is a TOOL to be able to more easily navigate the Internet. Google also provides a TOOL to more easily purchase items from the Internet, so it only makes sense they would combine this tool with the tool that makes searching for products to buy easier. And while I enjoy using Froogle, it is not my home page. So, opening a web browser to Google’s home page and then having to perform another click to search Froogle is one step too many. Being able to perform a product search directly on Google and have it give me the OneBox results at the top is useful. Allowing me to view only the results that accept Google Checkout in one more step is even more useful to me.

>Spam. It’s an issue, so we use it. Sorry.

No worries. But, maybe you could provide the option to use multiple different services that would prevent spam, so the users could make a choice. And, if you ever have your own in-house built spam-prevention system, it would be quite worrisome if you “forced” people to use that system, rather than the third party systems out there. (I say this sarcastically.) I think I might see more of a problem with Google promoting Google Checkout (and not PayPal) IF Google Checkout also cost more than PayPal to merchants. However, it costs less all the way around. And, as a consumer, I feel it provides a better service. I can’t easily go to PayPal and see all of my previous purchases and what items I bought. With Google Checkout, I can do this. Also, in a few years, when the amount of items I have purchased grows, I will find it useful to be able to search through past purchases in case I was wondering where I got a particular item. I think the Google Checkout service has more to do with that (giving consumers a way to search through their purchases) than just having an alternative to PayPal. So, I even think this product still falls in line with their goal to make information more accessible and useful.

>But thanks for signing up and for your comments!

You’re welcome! ;)

Should I get them to sign up for google checkout?

and how does google chekout work for large ticket items – I am just stating work on a medium sided audi dealer (no ones going to pay for a car with google check out)

I had a meeting with one of the Google base product managers ill mail him the link to SEL

You might want to check out the Google: Critics category here, use the drop down in the right hand side. I don’t find it trendy just to complain about them. I actually do a huge amount of defending them. So when I complain, you’d better believe I’m pretty concerned.

> Maybe you have a different view of what the “main search results” area is, but the OneBox feature isn’t a part of it, neither is the “tips” section.

Tips aren’t, as the past article I linked to explains. OneBox is. You’d better believe it is. That OneBox is designed to help you find editorial results that come out of Google’s other vertical services, and down the line it will simply get bigger.

> Then, you talk about how completely useless a feature is that lets one filter product search results to only those who accept Google Checkout.

I never said that at all. I said that on the main search results of Google, there are probably better search filtering options that could be promoted for Froogle, such as four star merchants. I specifically said I had no problem with Google Checkout being a filtering options and actually questioned why Google wasn’t making this easier to do in appropriate areas, such as on the home page of Froogle.

> I feel more comfortable paying through Google Checkout than by entering credit card information on the first website that happens to show the cheapest price.

Perhaps you might feel more comfortable using merchants that offer that trusted Visa guarantee to protect your purchases? Or those using PayPal? Pity you can’t filter to those :)

> In other words, your mention of the home page or the advanced page was just a senseless argument.

No — as I explained, if this is a useful feature, you also include it in places where people can make use of it BEFORE they conduct a search, not after.

> Also, regarding OneBox results, linking to competitors until their own product is up-to-speed and then dropping the links to the competitors has always been Google’s method.

No, actually it has not been. I struggle to think of examples where Google has dropped competitor links. The best I can think of is years and years ago, they dropped links at the bottom of search pages to other search engines.

> So, yes, I agree… when Google Finance catches up to the competitors, they will likely drop the link to the competing services and show information exclusively from their own Google Finance.

It’s like you were so busy getting ready to argue that you didn’t actually read what I wrote. I specifically said I had no problem with them dropping map links if they feel Google Maps was the best product. Makes sense. But that’s on its own. In combination with pushing Checkout, pushing products with Tips, I’m saying Google is clearly undergoing an internal push to be more self-promotional. And they are doing this without any heads-up to those that use them and watch them closely. The tips fiasco shows it can blow up on them. So Google — which I love immensely — really needs to think about better explaining what they are doing and why.

> Then, you say merchants might be “left out” if they don’t use Google Checkout? Well, absolutely, but this has nothing to do with the addition of a link to the Google OneBox result for product searches.

There is a difference between a store promoting its own credit card and a consumer guide pushing its own credit card. Google is not a store. It is designed to be a guide to product on the web, Froogle is. An unbiased guide. When it start offering its own credit card — and pushing people to accept that — it begins to raise obvious questions that it will find it in its self-interest to favor the merchants using that card. And this latest promotion is an example of that.

> Why isn’t anyone complaining loudly about eBay still disallowing Google Checkout, after all of this time.

People have. And eBay looks bad for it. And now Google makes them look less bad :)

> let’s not be information terrorists and exaggerate every reality into a negative one.

I agree. If you’d read that article I said about supporting them on the tips issue, you would have seen me saying the exact same thing.

> Oh, and what’s with FORCING people to sign up for TypeKey?

Spam. It’s an issue, so we use it. Sorry. But thanks for signing up and for your comments!

Being slightly contrarian, it might be a good thing if Google does lose some trust. Looking down the road I can’t help but be somewhat fearful of a world dominated by Google. Anything that breaks that domination has to be a good thing IMO.

I see Read/Write are covering Google promoting Checkout on their homepage http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_promotes_checkout.php