31–36 of 36 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you are a "spammer", because you care for your results to be high, but I care for the results to be useful. Can you honestly say you would prefer that your site be ranked lower than that of a competitor with better information?
What if my site is better, but my competitors site ranks higher? Definitely the case for one of my sites. I know for a fact that the "just provide good content" line by Google is complete bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you are a "spammer", because you care for your results to be high, but I care for the results to be useful. Can you honestly say you would prefer that your site be ranked lower than that of a competitor with better information?
What if my site is better, but my competitors site ranks higher? Definitely the case for one of my sites. I know for a fact that the "just provide good content" line by Google is complete bullshit.
"Just provide good content" indeed isn't enough. What we should also be saying is that you shouldn't count on Google's search results to do your marketing for you. It's difficult for Google's search results to "lead" the internet. If something isn't already somewhat popular, it's hard for us to discover it, though we try very hard. What I'd suggest is to try to market your site through more conventional ways without worrying about search engines. If real people demonstrate that they like your site when exposed to it, the ball is in our court, and it's really our fault for not ranking you well enough.
However, if not enough people have been exposed to it, there's still more you need to do on your end.
Send the site along, and I'll see if there are any issues I can tell you about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if my site is better, but my competitors site ranks higher? Definitely the case for one of my sites. I know for a fact that the "just provide good content" line by Google is complete bullshit.
I'm sorry to hear that. I work in search quality at Google, and we really do try to do our best, but it's a very hard problem. "Just provide good content" indeed isn't enough. What we should also be saying is that you shouldn't count on Google's search results to do your marketing for you. It's difficult for Google's search results to "lead" the internet. If something isn't already somewhat popular, it's hard for us…
I know it is an uphill struggle for Google against all the spammers and I am sure Google is trying to rank the best sites as the highest ones. It just gets frustrating at times.
The site is http://mondhandy.de - page 6 for the keyword "mondkalender" (it is also German). Some of the sites before it are fair, but I think it is obvious that there are many that are worse than my site. For example, some are just sites where you can order a book about the moon calendar.
I think I did most of the "on site" improvements, but I don't have many inbound links, and the domain name is weird.
I plan to move to http://mondkalender.us soon, hoping that I won't be punished too much for running a German site on a .us domain. Also finally want to launch an English language version (although I think the topic is not popular outside of Germany).
Also plan to improve the widget - just wondering, do iframes also count as inbound links? That was my secret master plan to generate links, to make lots of blogs include my widget. The widget really needs improving, though.
Once I entered the site in some catalogs. A while later I noticed the ranking had really tanked. I guess that was a big mistake. I tried to remove it, but it wasn't possible for all of them. On the other hand it seems it shouldn't be too bad, otherwise it could be used to damage the competition (enter them into catalogs, too).
Anyway, I plan to give the site one last push, so that I can say I have tried what I could. Also planning on an Android and an iPhone app, so that I have everything covered. Suggestions are of course very welcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally agree, but there is an issue if Google has a monopolistic market share, even if there are many other options. As you say, there is very little customer lock-in, so there should be a high bar for calling Google a monopoly. On the other hand, there is a large entry cost for the search martket.
Is there really a "large cost of entry"? I somehow doubt Duck Duck Go has a multi-billion dollar war chest backing it... And Google's "monopoly" is very much based on it's reputation - remember how quickly we all jumped ship from Alta Vista - and surely Bing and Yahoo provide enough competition that if Google _were_ manipulating search returns in obviously monopolistic ways, people would notice and publish evidence s…
Second, Google has an astounding 63% market share, which would be considered a monopoly in almost all industries.
Third, people "noticed" Microsoft's monopolistic tactics, but that doesn't mean that they weren't effective or didn't continue for a long time, largely unpunished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A monopoly is merely having sufficient market share. Which isn't necessarily bad, although it usually is. What you're talking about is abusing a monopoly.
>A monopoly is merely having sufficient market share It's not, but it's clear that the legal nature of it seems to be besides the point. Who needs rule of law when you have uninformed opinion being passed around the campfire?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A monopoly is merely having sufficient market share It's not, but it's clear that the legal nature of it seems to be besides the point. Who needs rule of law when you have uninformed opinion being passed around the campfire?
there's quite a well cited wikipedia article that appears to disagree with you: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly . I'm very open to being shown different sources and proven wrong, however.
You'd be closer to the mark accusing the iPhone of having a monopoly on telephony simply because it costs money to buy a different one.