tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post116311344019907356..comments2024-01-15T13:17:33.771-08:00Comments on Geeking with Greg: Marissa Mayer at Web 2.0Greg Lindenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-29614075338618944742015-03-16T10:10:58.758-07:002015-03-16T10:10:58.758-07:00The new Google Maps? Well the latest version is an...The new Google Maps? Well the latest version is an overbloated time hog that is processor crippling, from my experience. (with the dangling overlay parts)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-14636426385711556952009-09-15T08:03:37.931-07:002009-09-15T08:03:37.931-07:00FWIW, it's now three years later (2009 rather ...FWIW, it's now three years later (2009 rather than 2006) and Google's new "Fast Flip" search interface shows 30 results to the page, rather than 10. <br /><br />Interesting development.jeremyhttp://irgupf.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-62118807288122973072009-04-30T06:46:00.000-07:002009-04-30T06:46:00.000-07:00By the way, if you are not actually looking for th...By the way, if you are not actually looking for the video but merely confirmation that Marissa actually said this, not only are there other reports on Marissa's 2006 Web 2.0 talk (e.g. [<A HREF="http://seekingalpha.com/article/20323-google-s-marissa-mayer-speed-matters" REL="nofollow">1</A>] [<A HREF="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3925" REL="nofollow">2</A>] [<A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1032_3-6134247.html" REL="nofollow">3</A>] [<A HREF="http://battellemedia.com/archives/003076.php" REL="nofollow">4</A>] [<A HREF="http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2006/11/09/web-20-googles-marissa-mayer-reveals-a-secret/" REL="nofollow">5</A>] [<A HREF="http://gawker.com/213746/liveblogging-google-vp-marissa-mayer-at-the-web-20-summit" REL="nofollow">6</A>]), but also Marissa has said similar things in later talks (e.g. her "<A HREF="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7039469220993285507" REL="nofollow">Scaling Google for the Everyday User</A>" talk at the Seattle Scalability Conference in 2007, see around 13:00 in the video).Greg Lindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-10362692304974315372009-04-30T06:37:00.000-07:002009-04-30T06:37:00.000-07:00I don't know if Marissa's Web 2.0 talk was recorde...I don't know if Marissa's Web 2.0 talk was recorded. If you find a video of it, please do post a link to it in the comments here, but I don't know of one.Greg Lindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-84940941696678970042009-04-30T01:33:00.000-07:002009-04-30T01:33:00.000-07:00Greg can you post a link here too the video where ...Greg can you post a link here too the video where Marissa talks about load page time at the conference, I can't find it either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-90224901969860484212009-02-23T08:07:00.000-08:002009-02-23T08:07:00.000-08:00Which Web 2.0 talk did you find, Anonymous? There...Which Web 2.0 talk did you find, Anonymous? There have been multiple Web 2.0 conferences and Marissa has spoken at many of them. <BR/><BR/>As you can see from the date on the post, the one I was referring to is the 2006 Web 2.0 conference.Greg Lindenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09216403000599463072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-12536979262243450292009-02-23T07:33:00.000-08:002009-02-23T07:33:00.000-08:00Does anyone know where I can watch this talk as I ...Does anyone know where I can watch this talk as I found a Web 2.0 Marissa Mayer video on you tube and none of this is mentioned in it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-63513391478049358302009-02-05T06:48:00.000-08:002009-02-05T06:48:00.000-08:00hah - yea not very scientific. I'm sure its becau...hah - yea not very scientific. I'm sure its because users are finding what they want now on the 2 total page st page instead of 4 page views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-50804966155378805232009-02-05T06:17:00.000-08:002009-02-05T06:17:00.000-08:00What? Are you saying Amazon.com has ever been conc...What? Are you saying Amazon.com has ever been concerned about how fast their web site loads? That has got to be the most bloated site on the Internet except for eBay. I have to keep Task Manager open and kill at least 6 processes just to give my browser enough CPU to open that resource pig.Robert Robbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09523148031572031816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-80634853911153994822009-02-04T23:58:00.000-08:002009-02-04T23:58:00.000-08:00Why do you make me wait for the end result of your...Why do you make me wait for the end result of your post? Why not just say, "Fast=good, slow=suck. NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK YOU WANT PEON." If you are going to praise brevity for the sake of expedience at least live by that standard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-20176232290456375582009-02-04T19:38:00.000-08:002009-02-04T19:38:00.000-08:00Tangental support for this argument:There were 2 (...Tangental support for this argument:<BR/><BR/>There were 2 (by my count, maybe I missed some) 1/2 second ads run locally in this years superbowl.<BR/><BR/>Like the blink of an eye, but definitely noticeable.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16165891876480392847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-83150724458256047362009-02-04T17:48:00.000-08:002009-02-04T17:48:00.000-08:00Yeah, and decapitating your customer is a good way...Yeah, and decapitating your customer is a good way to lose repeat business. It's great to see solid research lend support to obvious. Really!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-24556670097153174492009-02-04T17:23:00.000-08:002009-02-04T17:23:00.000-08:00Sure, the google test is easy to pick apart and di...Sure, the google test is easy to pick apart and discount, but the interesting part of this article for me is the amazon test.<BR/><BR/>"we tried delaying the page in increments of 100 milliseconds and found that even very small delays would result in substantial and costly drops in revenue"<BR/><BR/>They only altered speed. They didn't alter the number of results or add/result ratio. It shows a correlation between speed and revenue much better than the google test.<BR/><BR/>I can already picture some middle manager demanding speed increases at the cost of result quality... hooray for metrics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-31692015169460539942009-02-04T16:09:00.000-08:002009-02-04T16:09:00.000-08:00re: Isaac Rivera's comments: Of course the sedan i...re: Isaac Rivera's comments: Of course the sedan is faster than the bus! Is it an unfair comparison? No one cares if it is, when the desire is to get there faster, and all other requirements take the back seat.<BR/><BR/>The rewards of flash and ajax aren't there if the site/page never gets viewed. I know if I navigate to a flash based site, I either click the html link or leave. I don't wait for whatever nonsense the 'designer' has chosen to bless me with.vincenziohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10001033995125210534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-34912226408275730342009-02-04T14:28:00.000-08:002009-02-04T14:28:00.000-08:00This makes PERFECTLY SENSE. It's not about how...This makes PERFECTLY SENSE. <BR/><BR/>It's not about how much time are spent in total, but rather how much are the cognitive process of surfers disrupted between the request and response.<BR/><BR/>If there's enough of a delay that the users actually NOTICE the delay, there will be A LOT LESS customer satisfaction, than when it's "imperceptibly" small. It's not linear, because there's a lower treshold of about 0.2 seconds before any delay are noticed at all. to 2x the perceptible delay or 4,5x the perceptible delay?<BR/><BR/>Then there's distractions. If a user is interrupted, there will be enough time to start other cognitive proesses that takes priority, over the original task. Zero opportunities for loss of interest BEFORE the results are presented are also HUGE.<BR/><BR/>This matters a LOT more than what "makes sense", but that's the way the brain works.<BR/><BR/>Also, when companies the size of Google/Amazon are willing to share something, they've got both sufficient sample size & methology to be certain. Disregard this if you have better facts.. not because you've got some compulsive need to object.likeemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666417693549300811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-51642201596478151302009-02-04T13:36:00.000-08:002009-02-04T13:36:00.000-08:00I usually scroll down the first page and if I don'...I usually scroll down the first page and if I don't get what I'm looking for I refine my search and try again. With more front page results its more likely I will find it on the front page and less likely i will search again. That's what this experiment would show if i was in it, maybe other people do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-18118416164065322132009-02-04T13:17:00.000-08:002009-02-04T13:17:00.000-08:00How about if they tried new searching algorithm X ...How about if they tried new searching algorithm X which takes 10% longer but gives 20% better results - would that lead to "lower satisfaction too", because as someone else mentioned, less searches required does not mean less satisfaction. If you don't get a result on page 1, you'll do one of two things: search for something more specific, so that your original search of "test page" becomes "test page -rabbits +ducks", or go on to page 2. Removing the need for page 2 AND page 3 by raising search result counts to 30 eliminates the need to do the second option, and increases the probability of results that a more specific search would yield showing up. <BR/><BR/>I have google set to give me 100 results at a time, and by the time I get through the first 10 the next 90 will have loaded. <BR/><BR/>This test doesn't sound at all representative, there are too many other things that could affect this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-48160870198486809832009-02-04T13:00:00.000-08:002009-02-04T13:00:00.000-08:00Traffic and revenue may have dropped by 20%, but w...Traffic and revenue may have dropped by 20%, but wouldn't that just be because there aren't 3x the ads on a 30 result page and you make fewer requests by not clicking through as many pages of results?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-80589401837794108462009-02-04T12:57:00.000-08:002009-02-04T12:57:00.000-08:00I disagree with Isaac Rivera. I have often given u...I disagree with Isaac Rivera. I have often given up on flash sites because they take too long to load initially. I would prefer some lost time in between pageviews.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09529401502025927648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-83018675965793316732009-02-04T12:34:00.000-08:002009-02-04T12:34:00.000-08:00As others have said, speed certainly matters, but ...As others have said, speed certainly matters, but I too am dubious about the Google example.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I also use Greasemonkey to get an "infinite scrolling" Google search page- as I scroll down, Greasemonkey is fetching the next page of results and displaying them at the bottom of the current set, so that I just never hit the bottom of the page.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11228643077621359286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-63376012535145441282009-02-04T12:21:00.000-08:002009-02-04T12:21:00.000-08:00@Calin-The math is wrong: You're assuming that sea...@Calin-<BR/><BR/>The math is wrong: You're assuming that search results are the only thing responsible for the page load- Ignoring graphics, other text (links, whatever), tracking code that may be on the page, etc.<BR/><BR/>Let's say "x" = the time required for a unit of 10 searches, processed and displayed (along with any adsense related to the results)<BR/>"c" will be the time taken to load everything else on the page not related to searches.<BR/>From what Marissa said:<BR/>c + x = .4<BR/>c + 3x = .9<BR/><BR/> 3c + 3x = 1.2<BR/>- (c + 3x) = .9 gives us<BR/>----------------<BR/>2c = .3<BR/>c = .15<BR/><BR/>x + .15 = .4<BR/>so x (unit for 10 searches) = .25 seconds<BR/><BR/>Which, now that I"ve done that, could have been figured out just as easily by saying "20 more searches adds .5 seconds, so 10 searches adds .25 seconds, so the rest of the page takes .15 seconds".<BR/><BR/>Anyway, just an FYI, it's reasonable to assume they didn't screw up the math:Pcallingshotgunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02285402797797564056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-52529634896542692232009-02-04T10:55:00.000-08:002009-02-04T10:55:00.000-08:00Research from the 80s and the PLATO Project showed...Research from the 80s and the PLATO Project showed that response time really needs to be about .25 second. For something where users expect a bit of work by the computer, stretching that to .4 I guess is OK. But, I would shoot for .25sec.<BR/><BR/>MikeMike P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03163067314438790577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-24925477111910719742009-01-26T12:40:00.000-08:002009-01-26T12:40:00.000-08:00I think it is a common mistake to conclude that pa...I think it is a common mistake to conclude that pages with AJAX or Flash are slower. By slower people must mean that the single page takes longer to load than say, an average page or a similar looking page.<BR/><BR/>Ajax and Flash displace the "page" metaphor and this is what most critics do not seem to grasp. There is no page when AJAX or Flash are present. So you can't compare a page without such technologies and one with. It would be like comparing apples to oranges. Like comparing a sedan to a bus and concluding that the sedan is faster.<BR/><BR/>For the comparison to be fair, the AJAX page would have to be compared to the SET of pages that it replaces. Without AJAX or Flash, accessing that information would require loading, sequentially, a succession of pages. The compound load time of those single pages is what Flash and AJAX replace, not the single page. Single pages DO NOT NEED asynchronous technologies, because they are, umm, single.<BR/><BR/>Because both Flash and AJAX avoid redundant loading by loading upfront and reloading only new data. And because they can effectively manage user experience during load times, something HTML can't do, they can actually minimize the compound load time and, more importantly, the PERCEIVED load time, when properly designed and implemented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-32747502399961727792009-01-23T07:49:00.000-08:002009-01-23T07:49:00.000-08:00More choices: that is Shannon's classic signal/no...More choices: that is Shannon's classic signal/noise. Information is that which reduces choice. The more choices, the less information. <BR/><BR/>No new news in Mayer's comment or the Paradox of Choice. However, it means that any improvement in the means or skills for selecting search terms reduces the choice by increasing the available information. Google should have tried building a few training games into Lively or something like it that sharpens the ability of the user to select the initial search terms. <BR/><BR/>I seldom need more than ten hits unless I am intentionally widening for 'creative search' where serendipity is used to create something new from the results (a favorite trick for using YouTube when looking for a vid to embed in a blog topic). IOW, I weaken the vector and look for outliers.Len Bullardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001043126774600957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6569681.post-17640185875129421182009-01-23T07:42:00.000-08:002009-01-23T07:42:00.000-08:00IBM did studies on interactive interfaces in the 8...IBM did studies on interactive interfaces in the 80s. The results showed that as the return time neared two seconds, the time the user spent staring at the screen increased. The curve turned up dramatically below two seconds. Below one second, someone had to pry them off the keyboard. And that was with non-rich terminal applications.<BR/><BR/>You don't have to go far in behavioral science to figure this one out. I wouldn't geek over it too much. Faster is better but it cuts both ways. It is just attention as a product of stimulus/response. Faster torture amplifies the revulsion too. In the balancing act, slower but better search results are still better than faster nonsense.Len Bullardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001043126774600957noreply@blogger.com