'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#2[deleted]
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#3Why do people write silly things? How would you enforce "search neutrality"? How do you define "relevance"?
Network neutrality is necessitated by the lack of competition in the telecommunications market. If Time Warner and AT&T both enact policies I disagree with, I'm screwed. There are plenty of search engines, there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines, and the switching cost is zero.
No, we shouldn't try to regulate the author's business plan into viability.
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#4Why do people write silly things? How would you enforce "search neutrality"? How do you define "relevance"? Network neutrality is necessitated by the lack of competition in the telecommunications market. If Time Warner and AT&T both enact policies I disagree with, I'm screwed. There are plenty of search engines, there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines, and the switching cost is zero. No, we…
> there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines
WTF??
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#5I don't think Google would disagree. Usually, when there's a "penalty" to a site's ranking, it's because the site is doing something that harms users, eg. malware, adspam. Google (and other search engines) has a vested interest in making sure that users find relevant, helpful results, because that's the only way they can keep them coming back.
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#6Why do people write silly things? How would you enforce "search neutrality"? How do you define "relevance"? Network neutrality is necessitated by the lack of competition in the telecommunications market. If Time Warner and AT&T both enact policies I disagree with, I'm screwed. There are plenty of search engines, there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines, and the switching cost is zero. No, we…
I agree 'search neutrality' is an absurd thing to try to have regulators enforce, but I'd put it in the "just as absurd as 'net neutrality'" bucket.
After all, Google has more of the search market than Time Warner or AT&T have of the home broadband markets -- and higher margins, and a greater market-cap.
There aren't many web-scale search engines, and the 'barrier' isn't you typing in a different URL, it's running the giant cluster, with proprietary algorithms, to offer acceptable results, and reach an economical scale (on the ad side, as well), against now-ingrained customer habits.
It would take years and lots of money, innovation, and luck to dislodge Google -- just the same as it would take to offer a new set of wires or wireless links to home users.
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#7Why do people write silly things? How would you enforce "search neutrality"? How do you define "relevance"? Network neutrality is necessitated by the lack of competition in the telecommunications market. If Time Warner and AT&T both enact policies I disagree with, I'm screwed. There are plenty of search engines, there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines, and the switching cost is zero. No, we…
> there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines WTF??
because your comment is not thought out thoroughly at all.
I'm not a great coder by any standards, but with a couple simple command lines, you can build an index quite easily.
Then there's 80legs.com, and well...
your comment was not thought out thoroughly all all.
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#8Why do people write silly things? How would you enforce "search neutrality"? How do you define "relevance"? Network neutrality is necessitated by the lack of competition in the telecommunications market. If Time Warner and AT&T both enact policies I disagree with, I'm screwed. There are plenty of search engines, there is a relatively low barrier to entry for new search engines, and the switching cost is zero. No, we…
I agree 'search neutrality' is an absurd thing to try to have regulators enforce, but I'd put it in the "just as absurd as 'net neutrality'" bucket. After all, Google has more of the search market than Time Warner or AT&T have of the home broadband markets -- and higher margins, and a greater market-cap. There aren't many web-scale search engines, and the 'barrier' isn't you typing in a different URL, it's running th…
The issue with net neutrality is not to do with market share but to do with the fact that many of the telecommunication companies have exclusive monopolies in their areas often with government mandates.
In addition they were given large sums of money by the government to implement certain styles of networks that were never implemented.
Then they also have alternative revenue streams (e.g. comcast provides television, qwest phone). These alternative revenue streams are often in competition with services that are on the internet (e.g. hulu, and skype).
So they are guaranteed their places by government assistance and they have conflicts of interest. This is why we need net neutrality.
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#9The stated goal of search is to find relevant information. If Google somehow provides that information to me in a easy to digest way, who am i to refuse it? If not, i would go elsewhere for that information. Since net neutrality ensures that i can always go to an alternative source for information, i don't think search dominance is too much of a problem.
Re: 'Search Neutrality' is neccessary to promote growth and innovation
#10The bigger issue is not negative impacts on ranking, but large search engines promoting content from their other properties inside the results. cough one box cough