Today over at ReadWriteWeb Sarah Perez wrote an article on how Google was gaining ground on their share of the search market. In the article she talked about the latest buzz from Google Analytics blog having to do with changes to the way Google.com handles clicks in their serps, which were a implemented as result of what Google would break in analytics packages by implementing AJAX driven search results. She notes that even though the speed benefit Google gains from going AJAX would be minimal on a per-search basis, when multiplied by the millions of searches performed every day it would eventually add up to more of a market share for them.
Although a change to AJAX technology would only make searches milliseconds faster, those milliseconds add up, allowing people to do more searches, faster. And that would let Google grow even more, eating up percentage points along the way. – Sarah Perez
which was generated by saving this url:
Google is aware of this too. Matt Cutts mentioned again the other day how he wished there was a better solution:
The problem is, of course, the better solution is to not make the changes. Unless all mainstream browsers recode the way that they handle url fragments after the hash mark (#), and Google waits until everybody in the world upgrades to those versions, it’s just not going to happen.
By the way, has anyone else noticed that Google is actually cloaking these new urls that they are delivering to people? If you happen to have your status bar turned on, and you mouse over a url in the serps, it shows you the final destination page instead of the actual one:
However, if you click on the url (even a right click), the true target suddenly appears:
Not that big of a deal, I know, and nothing that they haven’t done before, but still. Between that and the “don’t bother reading this post, it’s just for geeks” intro on the Google Analytics blog post it almost seems like Google is making an effort to not have these new changes noticed. If this change is such a great idea, I would have to wonder why that would be.