Submit Your Article
Join the WebProWorld Forum!
– Close + Open
Facebook Twitter Google Buzz

Easily Follow WebProNews

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Buzz... it's up to you.


Text: Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size | Print Print Article | Share: Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Post to Twitter Post to Facebook



How Badly Do People Want Personalized Search?

Does Personalization Improve Relevance?

9 comments Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem with my search results being personalized, because I understand that search engines want to deliver the best user experience so that users will keep using them. If I get results that are personalized well, that means I don't have to look too far for what I'm trying to find. However, not all users are so thrilled with the evolution of search results pages, particularly with the personalization aspect.

This week, Google announced the launch of a new feature that lets users star their search results for ones they like. This would lead to the starred results appearing at the top of the SERP in future searches, when appropriate. The feature is still rolling out, so if you don't see it yet, you should see it soon.

Google adds starring to search results pages for personalized search

After reporting on this change, we received comments from readers like:

"I really am getting hacked off with this bloody personalised search thing... the serps are full of bloody crap for 50% of searches and ultimately less relevent than before."

"I think that if they take into consideration the stars for serps everything will be a mess..."

"I'm getting tired of Google forcing things on me. Over and over and over after I have said I do not want to be recognized for my geographical locations, it keeps asking me."


I'm guessing comments like these aren't limited to this particular instance. I doubt that they represent the majority of opinions about Google's SERP changes, but it does raise an interesting question: Is Google trying too hard to improve? To answer this with a yes, would indicate that Google's results are already perfect (or were at least), and while Google has had a pretty good reputation for delivering quality results (and the market share to back it up), I don't know if anyone would go so far as to call them perfect, including Google itself.

There is always room for improvement. Things can always get better. Some ideas work, and others don't. Sometimes you don't know until you try, and if certain concepts don't go over well with the majority, sometimes they are scrapped. In fact, the very release of this starring feature also represents the end of a less successful feature in Google's SearchWiki.

As for personalized search itself, I wouldn't count on it going away anytime soon. I wouldn't count on Google (or the other search engines for that matter) spending less time trying to improve in this area. Why would you want them to? If your results are tailored to you specifically, does that not increase their chances of being more relevant to you?

If privacy is a concern, remember, you can always look at the Google Dashboard and look at everything Google has stored about you from each of the company's products that you may use.

Do you like personalized search? Should search engines continue to innovate in this area? Share your thoughts here.

About the author:
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Follow WebProNews on Facebook or Twitter. Twitter: @CCrum237

Personalised and real-time search

To me (as a user rather than just as an SEO) personalised search is a faulty concept. The point of search is that I'm looking for something I usually don't know much about - why would I want sites that I already know about appearing in such a search. It only really makes sense if you use search merely as a navigation tool rather than a search tool.

As regards real-time search I only see the point in it for news-based queries - otherwise being new doesn't make something any more relevant or carry any quality signal, so why focus on it? The appearance of Twitter or Facebook entries in search results are completely irrelevant for the sort of searches I make, and most of the time so is video. I'd like to be able to turn them off and only nlcude them on the rare occasions when I think they are relevant. I already use a Firefox add-on that kills Adwords for my personal searches since I *never* use PPC ads. Sadly Google seem determined to show me what they think I should see and not what I want to see. Yet the quality of the organic results is probably worse now than it was 5 years ago and they seem to be unable to filter out obvious spam of a type that we ethical SEO's have been railing against for years.

The end result is a low quality experience for many users. I would say to them to concentrate on quality and simplicity and give us a choice of what we want to see in the results rather than foist unwanted "features" on us.

when i find a site i like, i

when i find a site i like, i add it to favorites. If my favorites don't deliver the goods.. i search. I want results that are based on quality and authority not what i searched for last week.

Google has seriously lost the plot. It was made great because it was simple and delivered quality. Today its not simple and and does not deliver quality.

Today i use Bing far more often than google.

RIP Google, you were good, but now you have been killed by greed.

Publish A Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
SEARCH