In the image where you show the 18.5% organic footprint vs 81.5% ad footprint, you are lumping in a lot of page real estate used for navigation and search tools. The entire left hand side is not add related.
I'd be a more accurate/fairer way to represent the info by providing 3 categories: organic, ads, navigation/misc. If you did this, you'd provably see a closer to 40/60 split, still in favor of ads. Similar to what you showed in your screenshot from the past.
Until people show me that paid results aren't relevant (hint: they usually are), then most of the real estate is fulfilling his purpose.
Also, if Google decided to some how change to using 2 columns of organic search so they could squeeze 16 results into a single page, you'd hear just as much, if not more, complaining.
Exactly - I use the "search within date range" functionality a lot. No, I don't want to type out that in the search box the entire time - esp. when the default facets (1 day, 1 month, 1 year back) are so convenient.
Surely the ideal would be a single result with exactly the information you need. But because the search query is seldom perfect, it's good to have several results - and by extension, some paid results too.
You joke, but yes, that's exactly what I want. Why would I not want exactly what I'm looking for delivered directly to me?
Also, "I'm Feeling Lucky" isn't an option for me, not in the version of Chrome I have anyway. Even if I explicitly load the www.google.com which shows the feeling lucky button, as soon as I type 1 letter in the box the screen changes to an interactive search, which no longer has the lucky button.
It seems like poor UX to me. It's a little ugly how line length isn't constrained and you're unable to do anything but type a query into the box. Special queries would require memorizing commands or just doing without.
I'd prefer a multi-column layout, 'cause you're right that long lines are hard to read.
I don't use that many special queries, except sometimes "site:", and frankly if I have to type (or paste) the entire domain anyway, "site:" is way less effort than switching to a different text field, even if it were one of the defaults.
I'd be OK having a "More Options" link or something for the rare case when I want to search for images by color or whatever.
Having said that, I'm aware this is very much a personal opinion. Google can design their site for the majority. I don't mind.
I kinda like the collapsable sidebar present in Google Maps. However, I rarely miss the extra space taken up by the current sidebar on the main search results page.
I looked for "81" in the page and found nothing. Apparently, he never said that 81.5% of the area is made up of ads. He may have edited it but I think his criticism was towards the unused space for results, not especially towards the ads.
And if that is the case, I must concur. I fail to understand why Google added a large side bar instead of adding more top bars in the unused space next to the logo (perhaps right under the search text box). The designers at Google may disagree but the Jitbit guy sure has a point.
There is a graphic that shows 18.5% for the organic and 81.5% for the ads/rest of the area.
The main reason I disagree with the conclusion is that the area used by Google, or any other company for that matter, for navigation/other tools is hardly equivalent to space used for ads.
That in no way is intended to say that the space is used "efficiently".
I'd be a more accurate/fairer way to represent the info by providing 3 categories: organic, ads, navigation/misc. If you did this, you'd provably see a closer to 40/60 split, still in favor of ads. Similar to what you showed in your screenshot from the past.