Google:
http://www.goog...lient=firefox-a

Amazon:
http://www.amaz...p;x=20&y=27

Amazon’s result is far superior. Particularly because “piggybank” doesn’t necessarily imply pigs and their #1 result is a bestseller that out-paces all pig banks.

Google To Vegetarians: Eat The Damn Hamburger!
http://www.rimm...ogle-hamburger/

1) Not all pages indexed, but would give the illusion that they were.
2) My database is normalized and I know more about the content than Google.
3) Google doesn’t use a proper ranking algorithm for most popular retail products
4) Google doesn’t understand my taxonomy.
5) Google doesn’t understand my niche’s synonyms

I could keep listing reasons, but I think that’s enough. Bottom line, if your search is tailored to your niche, you don’t need or want Google’s help.

I think that all readers of techcrunch are so far above the “average” internet user in terms of being “internet savvy” that they forget that the average users had no idea what the site search tool was before this came along.

As a retailer I love google but also have a healthy fear of what it can do to marketing efforts outside of Google. Let’s take as an example a product for which there is not great awareness. Company A spends $250,000 publicizing the product. Since almost everybody uses Google many customers type the landing page url into google or perhaps just search for the product name. Companies B,C,D, E, etc. bid like crazy on the competitor’s url (who has already sunk $250,000 into the promotion). In the short term this is great for consumers and manufacturers because prices get pushed down and sales increase of the product (all at the expense of the retailer’s margin).

Google does a great job of helping us find what we are looking for, but they may spell the death of allowing retailers to pay to promote products.

This isn’t a complaint, more of an observation.

Sure it takes a little bit of elbow grease to build up a product and brand but considering how much SEO goes into placing into Google maybe that time, energy and money should be spent elsewhere.

What does that have to do with anything? Google is not taking away the ability for the site owner to have their own search.

All this is, is a button that in essence says, “hey would you like to restrict your search to pages on this particualar site? If so I will add site:blah for you.”

Anyone who has ever hit the advanced search link or knows about the site: keyword does this all the time.

Besides, ’site:’ works on all the major search engines, not just google.

Provide a good search engine, and make your search option obvious on every page and people will use it. Most sites have terrible search and make it hard to find the search function which is why folks want such a feature.

To further my point, google shows search results only from pages they have index.
Pages that have yet not been indexed is a total loss for us.

To tell the truth, lately I haven’t even used actual google site. I just use the firefox url bar, and then just type out what I want and then I either get the Google search results, or if I specified a specific site i.e. wiki/imdb, it opens the actual wiki/imdb page that I’m looking for bypassing Google entirely.

Do not use us as a reference — STOP

Love, Google Borg

if i am the site owner, i should be pissed.

(a) i get fewer page impressions and hence lower monetization, and at the same time google gets more page impressions and gets more money. basically i am giving money to google with this feature.

(b) in turn, will it improve my monetization? probably not. if the user is on my site, i can show recommendations and/or rich supporting information to keep the user on my site and probably get the lead along the way to stick into my email campaigns.

if google is doing it right by the user, they have to ensure they are doing it right by the website owners (ie., better rev share) as well. as it is, they have been short-changed by google for way too long.