[listmaking]

More precisely, the slide shows, for an advertiser who is bidding on the keywords “+kids +clothing” and has this sort of broad match enabled, three columns of examples of searches that would also match:

1. (because of [kids → children]) ads with keywords “+kids +clothing” would also match searches like “clothing for young child” and “newborn children's clothing”

2. (because of [kids clothing → kidswear]) ads with keywords “+kids +clothing” would also match searches like ”nikolai kidswear” and “kidswear outlet”

3. (because of [clothing → apparel / outlet]) ads with keywords “+kids +clothing” would also match searches like “creative apparel for kids” and “kids outfits”

That is what the slide's title (“Advertisers benefit via closing recall gaps”) refers to: the gaps in recall (matching) are being closed, by being broader.

The WIRED article misunderstood the slide, and was entirely based on the premise that if you searched for “children’s clothing” you'd get results for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear” which is not true (and would indeed have been “startling”, not to mention obvious, if it were true). In fact, the organic (non-ads) part of the search results in Google are always completely independent of anything in ads, something that the Search team in Google have maintained for several decades as a fundamental principle.

[soraminazuki]

> In fact, the organic (non-ads) part of the search results in Google are always completely independent of anything in ads, something that the Search team in Google have maintained for several decades as a fundamental principle.

Are you sure? There's an email from the ads team proposing multiple measures to increase the number of search queries so they can reach their target revenue. One of the mentioned measures include "ranking tweaks."

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416646.pdf

[listmaking]

Well, it's a line I've heard a few times over the years, and it's also being stated externally (https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 says “The organic (IE: non-sponsored) results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems.”) so I'm fairly sure it's still true.

That email thread you linked is between the Ads and Chrome (not Search) teams, is about the number of search queries (not the results of search queries), and “ranking tweaks” there refers to the ranking that Chrome uses to show the suggestions in the omnibox (address bar). (To get a sense of these “ranking tweaks”, try this experiment in a (new?) Chrome profile with default settings: type "flowers" in the Chrome address bar and don't hit Enter, and look at the suggestions: what mix of search suggestions, entities, and bookmarks/history do you see? Try again with other commercial queries like “insurance” and “mortgage”, and also some less commercial queries like, I don't know, “Minnesota” or “economics”.)

(And FWIW, I think that whole email thread actually shows Google in a “good” light relative to the popular impression here on HN as a company whose every action is some Machiavellian scheme to increase ads revenue: it shows that Chrome actually launched something to production before its negative impact on revenue became a concern, that Ads leads had to work hard to persuade them to either roll back or find some other way to undo the decrease in search query volume, that starting to include search query volume as a launch criterion would be a “cultural shift” for Chrome, etc: that Ads having an influence on Chrome is a rare occurrence.)

[Tryk]

I disagree that it shows Google in a "good" light. Here is a excerpt from the emails between Ads to the Google Chrome team. From Jerry Dirschler (Ads) to Anil Sabharwal (Google Chrome)

>"Thanks Anil (Google Chrome Lead) for pushing your team and being open to this whole line of thinking... We are short REDACTED% queries and are ahread on ads launches so are short REDACTED% vs. plan...The Search team is working together with us (ADS) to accelerate a lunch out of a new mobile layout by the end of May that will be very revenue positive (exact numbers still moving) but that still won't be enough. Our best shot at making the quarter is if we get an injection of at least REDACTED%, ideally REDACTED%, queries ASAP from Chrome... I also don't want the message to be "we're doing this thing because the Ads team needs revenue." That's a very negative message. But my question to all of you is - based on above - what do we think is the best decision for Google overall?

>In that spirit, do we think it's worth reconsidering a rollback? Or are there very scrappy tactical tweaks we can launch with holdback that we know will increase queries? (For example, can we increase vertical space between the search box/icons/feed on new tab to make search more prominent? are there other ranking tweaks we can push out very quickly? Are there other entry points we haven't focused on that we could push on soon?) Just to be clear, the reason I haven't pushed harder on a rollback so far is because I don't want the message to be..."

(source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230919185431/https://www.justi...)

[listmaking]

That's the same as the link I was responding to, and that's why I wrote “relative to” — the Ads team pushing on Chrome for revenue shows Google in a poor light relative to an imagined world where Chrome never cares about Google revenue, but a good light relative to an imagined world where everything that Chrome does is for revenue or some short-term profit to Google, rather than what's good for users.

[jollofricepeas]

Jesus. Wow just wow.

Yours should be the top comment

Why are people not talking about this document more?

“I also don’t want the message to be we’re doing this because the Ads team needs more revenue…but what is the best for Google overall?”

Clearly, the ads team has influence over search to the point of saying more-or-less screw culture and team morale, let’s do what’s best for Google overall which is hitting our quarterly targets.

[compiler-guy]

What it actually shows is that ads can ask for whatever they want and the teams they ask can (and do) say “No”.

Ads didn’t get its way here. It doesn’t drive every decision. Especially not with search, but also not with chrome.

[ImPostingOnHN]

that is the exact opposite of what it shows to me

reading through the email chain, it seems ads did indeed get its way, and the product was indeed made worse to drive revenue numbers – chrome team was unable to say "no" when pressured by ad team

[jollofricepeas]

Exactly. Who’s going to say no to revenue?

[moultano]

This email was not addressed to the search team.

[oakhaven]

What's "the street" they're referring to?

[greyface-]

Wall Street, i.e. GOOG shareholders

[figassis]

And I looked at the article at the time, and then showed my righteous indignation on HN. An example of why it’s important to dog deeper before commenting.