August 9, 2007

Former Google Answers Researcher Discusses Demise

A former GAR (Google Answers Researcher) gives his opinion on why Google dropped the project.

The article is definitely worth a read. "[I]t seemed clear to the GARs that Google Answers failed precisely because it was increasingly a non-priority for those who had developed it, and they were putting their attention elsewhere," the report suggests.

Posted by Frank Watson at 3:19 PM | Permalink

November 29, 2006

Goodbye Google Answers

Wow. Google is shutting down its Google Answers service. The company has announced that new questions won't be accepted after the New Year, though the site will continue to let people view the question archives. Killing off the service, which never seemed to catch on much, certainly will help Google seem like it is focusing efforts toward more needed areas. But it still feels like an odd, almost surrendering move in the face of Yahoo Answers being such a success.

Back in April, I did a long roundup on how answering services in general had never really caught on in terms of popularity. It covered how Google's nearly four year old service generated practically no traffic for Google, plus looked at similar services that came and went.

But in June, I had to admit that my being dubious in terms of Yahoo Answers was off the mark. The service kept notching up tons of traffic, and Yahoo continues to put its weight behind it, to the point of even more integration last week of Yahoo Answers material into regular results.

Look Out Wikipedia, Here Comes Yahoo Answers! from me is my long look at the service and some of the factors in its success. Unlike Google Answers, it doesn't charge. And unlike Google Answers, there are a lot of "answers" that are more discussions happening rather than searches being fulfilled.

Even if there's a lot of chatting going on, I think there's no denying that Yahoo Answers turned into the social success that Yahoo hoped its 360 service or My Web would be. There's a entire active community taking part in Yahoo Answers, and some of those are going to translate into Yahoo searchers.

That action's not lost on Microsoft, which kicked off its Windows Live QnA service in August. I haven't seen a ton of buzz like with Yahoo coming out of it, so maybe lighting only strikes once, in this case. I'm sure Hitwise will run some stats for everyone later today to update us on the space, so watch the blog over there (note: numbers now up). But you can't help but feel Google may have missed out on what Yahoo managed to tap into.

Then again, killing off Google Answers might ultimately be a way for Google to relaunch with something fresh and radically different. We'll see. Killing it off remains far better than leaving things like Google Voice Search still up with a note to "check back in a little while," when it hasn't run for years. I suspect we'll see Google Catalogs get retired as well -- the last Ikea catalog over there seem to be from 2002. I'd say retiring experiments and services that haven't caught on is less embarrassing than leaving them out there doing badly, so Google making the right choice.

Postscript: Gary Price reminds me that Marissa Mayer of Google said not too long ago that 60 to 80 percent of Google products may "crash and burn," so at least Google can say they already said this might happen :)

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 5:08 AM | Permalink

June 22, 2006

Google Answers: Ask Whatever You Like, Except About Google

We wrote earlier about Google pulling a question at Google Answers about Google. Philipp Lenssen at Google Blogoscoped followed-up further and found that Google officially disallows people to ask questions about the company because the researchers at Google Answers aren't Google employees.

Got that? Freelance researchers are apparently qualified to answer questions about any other company in the world, but when it comes to Google, special treatment is required. Incredible.

In Google Answers Question Removed, Philipp says he was told:

Questions about Google, Google Search, and search engine optimization are not allowed because Google Answers researchers are not employees of Google. Researchers don’t have access to any “inside” information. The information they do have access to is available for free on the Google help pages or by writing to Google support.

And Steve Hall, who started this all when his question was rejected earlier this week, was told:

We'd like to clarify the reason for removal of this question. Please note that Google Answers researchers are not employees of Google. They are independent contractors, and they only have access to information about Google and Google Search that is publicly available. Therefore, all users with questions about Google and/or Google Search are directed to these Google support pages.

In the comments to Steve's post, someone raises a good point that Google might have this policy to help keep those getting responses from thinking they are getting "official" information from Google. I can understand that. But that can also be dealt with differently than just removing questions wholescale. And no questions on search engine optimization, as Philipp was told? Please.

For the record, the Google Answers FAQ says this about questions that aren't allowed:

Google Answers discourages and may remove questions that:

  • request private information about individuals
  • want assistance in conducting illegal activities
  • are meant to sell or advertise products
  • refer or relate to adult content
  • are homework or exam questions
  • seek specific information about Google or Google Answers (email answers-support@google.com instead)

Fair to say, I think that last line should go. People should be able to ask about Google and Google Answers, at the very least because such restrictions make the entire system seem silly.

More important, the Google help pages and other information about Google do NOT have everything you'd want to know about Google. Consider:

  • How does Google technically perform censorship in China? (Answer -- see this good New York Times article, with info not on the Google web site that I know of)  
  • How did a web site recently get so many spam pages indexed so quickly in Google? (Answer -- our article is one of many that explains its both a glitch with Google's site: command plus probably just a big problem with Google's spam control pages, something not covered on the Google web site)  
  • Is it cloaking if the New York Times puts up a page in front of those clicking from Google to reach paid articles? (Answer -- it's a matter of debate, as going on in our Search Engine Watch Forums. Google has general guidelines, but there's no agreement on whether these apply. And there's nothing on the Google site giving a definitive answer).

Out of curiosity, I did a little searching at Google Answers to see if much was getting through about Google. Not much, that I could see. But this question caught my eye, Mod Rewrite code for the .htaccess file. It asks:

I have a website called www.greathostels.com it is written in php i need to know the code to put in the htaccess file to make it search engine friendly using mod_rewrite as at the moment its not effectivly spidered.

The answer was a list of pointers to other sites, all of which look pretty useful to me, someone who is not an expert. But the person asking also raised a good point:

If asking a Php code question i think the answer should be provided by someone who knows PhP code.

Which got him this over-the-top response:

Apparently you negelected to read the FAQs for the Google Answers service:

"Are Researchers experts in their field?"

"All Google Researchers are tested to ensure that they are expert searchers with excellent communication skills. Some of them also have expertise in various fields. Your question may be answered by an expert in a particular field or by an expert searcher. Either way, if you are unsatisfied with your answer for any reason, you may apply for a full refund." http://answers.google.com/answers/faq.html#experts

Our job is to provide an answer to your question. If we personally lack the expertise to do so, we seek out authoritative resources on the internet.

Therefore, I referred you to an authoritative site which provided information which was extremely specific to your question. To imply that the authors of The SEO Toolset website are not experts in their topic, when they authored precisely the information you requested, and created precisely the URL Rewriting Tool which you so badly need, is the heighth of insolence and absurdity.

I would request that my answer be removed by the editors, simply to remove the taint of my association with you, but they tend not to remove answers which have satisfactorily answered the question.

If you ever plan to use this service again, I suggest you register under a different username, given the fact that other researchers will be more than reluctant to deal with someone who doesn't bother to inform themselves about what to expect from the service.

Ouch. I can understand the researcher feeling slighted. But it's also a fair opinion to have, that it would be nice if an actual expert in the area answered the question. Which brings it back to Google's censorship of questions about itself. It's OK for people to research things like PHP and rewriting, even if they have no expertise in them -- but Google itself is too sensitive a topic?

Oh, but remember, people can write to Google Support to get real expert advice. You mean like I did when Gmail went down for me last week? You mean like Tom Foremski did over at Silicon Valley Watcher when Gmail went down for him yesterday? I don't think he got a response. I know I didn't -- and this is now a week after I had my problem.

Instead, I hunted and hunted through support areas and eventually guessed that a solution for an entirely different problem might work for me. It did. But go read my Getting Gmail To Resume POP Access With Captcha Unlock article, because it explains just how lame the Gmail support documentation is in terms of helping people with this problem. And yet, that's what Google Answers thinks is fine for people to use instead of being able to ask questions?

And as for company questions, while asking about Google is off limits, these are fine:

Apparently, having researchers answer questions about other companies without inside information is OK. It's only Google itself that needs special protection.

What do you think? Should the policy change? I'm going to ask in two places and will postscript links here. The first will be our Search Engine Watch Forums. The second will be Yahoo Answers, where there are no restrictions about asking about Google -- or Yahoo -- that I can see. Perhaps that's one of the reasons it's growing by leaps-and-bounds, as covered in my recent article, Look Out Wikipedia, Here Comes Yahoo Answers!

Want to comment? Come join:

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:15 AM | Permalink

June 20, 2006

Google Pulls Question About Google From Google Answers

Peter Da Vanzo reports on an individual who posted a question on Google Answers that was removed by Google. The question was, "What percentage of Google searches are contextual?" Specifically, the person wanted to know what percentage of Google searches give back results based on the content of a page someone is reading.

You can see the thread title in the cache or via this image capture, at this moment in time, where the poster was willing to pay $20 for the answer. A Google editor removed the question, stating:

Hello hallsteve11-ga,

Thank you for your question ID 739118, titled "Percentage of Google searches that are "contextual"." We've removed your question because you can find the answer on our main site, free of charge. All publicly available information about Google is available at: http://www.google.com/about.html.

For additional questions about Google, please visit: http://www.google.com/support

Thank you for your interest in Google Answers. Please visit us again.

Sincerely,

The Google Answers Team

Is this a case of Google censoring a question that they don't feel comfortable being answered?

Postscript From Danny: I don't think there's anything "uncomfortable" about the question, especially since Google doesn't really contextually create search results anywhere. It does put ads on pages that are based by analyzing the content/context of those pages -- but those ads are not searches. Still, pulling the question makes no sense. If someone wants to ask a question on the service, let them answer it. And pointing at the Google About page doesn't answer the question at all!

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:39 AM | Permalink