Google Launches Website Optimizer 66
Rockgod writes "Google Analytics Senior Manager Brett Crosby unveiled the tool, called Google Website Optimizer, this morning at the eMetrics summit in Washington D.C. If you find web site traffic heat maps like CrazyEgg, ClickDensity or Google Analytics' own heat map interesting, this looks like the next generation of that kind of tool. If Google's Website Optimizer can score high on usability, I expect it to be a big hit with small and medium size website publishers."
That's great and all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's great and all... (Score:5, Informative)
"algorithm" ..or google users? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it really is the latter method, I am sure it would work for some web sites, but I know for our company's site, we can only ever display one version of our content, as any minor changes at all tend to draw a lot of industry attention (i.e. "hey what are these guys up to.. their site updated.. OMG is the next big product about to drop, blah blah").. so I hope that out of the three methods, it's either an algorithm, or a small subset of google trustees/volunteers. But then again, our industry (digital cinema) is a typical and I'm sure no matter which method, this will work great for mom & pop selling Pokemon trading cards or whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG I must have ADHD as well - I couldn't stand more than 30 seconds of it - just clicked on every link in the left-hand side, saw it was "more of the same" ... and was out of there!
Maybe if we want real information (like a web page that describes it) we should just google for it ... oops ... "google website optimizer" just returns articles
Re:"algorithm" ..or google users? (Score:5, Informative)
When someone goes to that page, google will randomly select one of your alternate headlines and replace the original one with it. It'll then check if that person buys something (or subscribes or whatever).
It then gives you a report of which variations lead to the most conversions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why use Postnuke instead of writing your own "ugly portal site" software?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's great and all... (Score:5, Informative)
This allows you to try out different sets of content, and see which one leads to the most conversions (software downloads, sales, enquiries etc.), and hopefully save some money at the same time. We have several clients you are spending over £1000/month on Adwords, and it really pays to be able to see what works.
limited beta test = launch? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Enhancing your ability to get ads (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, it's not for us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My "google-analytics.com" Adblock Plus entry had pretty much ensured that it wasn't for me regardless.
Now, if NoScript had "blacklisting" that would be even better. I currently don't like NoScript because of the bar that's constantly at the bottom of every site with scripts by google-analytics, tacoda, imrworldwide, omniture or hitbox (which is pretty much everyone.) Once I've visited a site I don't want to remember whether or not I've cleaned it up -- I'd use the presence of the warn
Re:Enhancing your ability to get ads (Score:5, Interesting)
At my job, I am rather far removed from the finances, yet I am supposed to decide what and how to market. Analytics lets me do that by tracking what sells, when it sells, etc.
Does it help Google? Of course. But it also helps the webmaster of the sites you visit to create sites you want to see.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So I took a look at my netvibes homepage and now I use who they use, statcounter.com... it's simpler than google analytics, loads a lot faster, and you can see the results in real time.
Re:Enhancing your ability to get ads (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree google analytics is helpful. However, it also increased my page load times by a long shot, so it had to be removed. It simply doesn't serve fast enough.
Did you try putting the Javascript somewhere other than the <head>? Obviously that's the recommended place, but in fact most of the functionality still works if you bury the Javascript down as close to </body> as it will go, and that should have less effect on the effective[1] page load time.
Rich.
[1] By "effective" I mean the time until the browser can render the page for the user, rather than the total load time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see why I should care. The ones who manage to create sites I want to see get my custom; the rest can go out of business as far as I care. Nothing here gives me reason to help people move from the second group to the first. If they can't create sites I want to see without this, somebody else will.
Or, more briefly: Are they going to pay me for this? No? Then I'm not doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not looking for an "experience" on most sites. I'm looking for whatever it was that the referring link told me the site had. If it's a search, I probably used Google or Ask to do the heavy lifting. (I don't even use Microsoft's search link on MSDN because Google does a much better job indexing their site.)
Unfortunately, google analytics
Re: (Score:1)
If you come to my site and leave immediately, it tells me you didn't see what you wanted to see. By coupling that with inbound links, I can track down where my problems are.
I think you're confused as to what "user experience" means, somehow. It is the experience a user has when using a piece of software. If you think a part of the site is crap, that doesn't make it not part of the user exp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as flashsticks aren't banned at your location, you should be able to use Portable Firefox [portableapps.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla products are very nice because of their customisation possibilities. You can do the following:
1. open Dom inspector
2. File > Instepct a window > [select any window just not a document]
3. Search > Select Element By Click
4. click on the annoying element
5. Profit!!!
then see how you can identify it, if it has a n ID attribute this would be the easiest way, oth
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, it's not for us.
Who's "us?"
I'm not so unhappy that some small-time creators of very interesting web sites can at leats afford to pay for their hosting by generating some targeted clicks along the way. If you can't even stand those simple text Google ads tucked below an article or off on the edge of the page offsetting the overhead of running a niche web site, you're pretty cranky. I've get to see a g-powered ad that even came close
Optimising Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
*Clicks link*
*Clicks Sign up*
*Starts filling in form*
*Notices that signing up to Ad Words is required*
*Notices that adding a phone number is required*
*Gives up and decides to just post the results of W3C's HTML Validation Service instead*
Re:Optimising Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Now... did you actually look at the site? It's nothing to do with HTML validation, and therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the W3C's HTML Validation Service.
Re:Optimising Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Rich.
Re:Optimising Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Optimising Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it seems that this is a tool for AdWords users. The demo says "Google AdWords Website Optimization" and the sign-up thing reads:
We're currently accepting sign-ups from AdWords Advertisers who are interested in participating in this beta test. We may not be able to guarantee invitations to everyone, but will be working hard to make this tool generally available to all AdWords customers in the near future.
The front-page is misleading though, as it doesn't state anything about AdWords.
Yes.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
This may be useful (Score:5, Insightful)
Mixed Feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there is a point where trying to rank highly in Google is OK for wanting to growth in your site, but if Google continue to give out such tools then surely people will start producing sites that match exactly what it wants to see in order to get traffic. I'm starting to think that it shouldn't be sites that have to be optimised for Google to rank them highly, but Google to be optimised to pick up the best sites for each search term instead of landing pages or shells that are just there for advertising revenue.
You're not a sadist enthralled by technology (Score:3, Funny)
Step 2: Get it to rank highly for "fat", "skank", or another appropriate pejorative
Step 3: Enjoy their sweet sweet tears. If possible lick them right off their face.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not tool to help increase a sites ranking (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
That said, I disagree with your implied premise that people who use Google's search are so completely naive and unsavvy. I also think you're wrong that Google's new tool is as powerful as many would think based on the little they say.
On the first point, people don't just query "mountain bike", to use your example. They'll search for something more
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked it ain't 1997 anymore and technology, especially web related technology, has changed a lot over the past 9 years. So to turn the tables on you, should site A continue to be rewarded for the service it produced way back when or should site B that is current, up-to-dat
Re: (Score:1)
> surely people will start producing sites that match exactly what it wants to see in order to get traffic
This already happens - in fact, there are companies that will help you do it (for a fee). Hittail [hittail.com] for one example.
I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, although it's called "Google Website Optimizer" it's about optimizing your website to get the highest number of orders ("conversions" in marketingspeak) from people who land on your site (eg, from an Adwords campaign), not about getting higher Google search rankings.
"If we look at why people creating websites usually want to get them to rank highly google the reasons are primarily monetary, which means that this tool is mainly giving advice to those who are
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
<html></html>
Re: (Score:1)
If google really want to optimize things.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
when you set a page to "noindex" in the metatags
google does not display a index or cache of the page
(which is what it should do).
After a few months though, if you change the content
of the webpage and remove the "noindex" metatag,
it magically displays the cache of the page you told
it to not index!! (what it shouldn't do)
Similiar problems occur when telling the robot to
"noarchive" (index page but do not cache)
So basically google saves the page when you told it
not t
GA heat maps? (Score:2)
Out of curiousity I signed up (Score:1)
Perhaps they should optimize their service? (Score:1)
Closing the "demo" tab allowed one of the other links to be opened.
Is this optimal design?
... but what is it (Score:1)
Classic "look at the monkey tactics" making you believe you get your money's worth from Adwords - very rarely true in my experience. What they really need is a means of stopping fraudulent clicks by 'Google Network' advertisers.
It's for marketer's landing pages (Score:3, Informative)
the Real website optimizer (Score:3, Insightful)
And the winner is: w3.org [w3.org]. The CSS section [w3.org] is probably the most useful part of it, but the whole thing is heartily recommended. To test you level of optimization there is an automated tool for HTML markup [w3.org] as well as one for CSS [w3.org].
Maybe it's a UK thing.... (Score:2, Funny)
Google Launches Website Optimizer (Score:1, Interesting)