Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

siliconvalleywatcher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#51

Post by mapgrep »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #41

Not sure if people saw the comment that someone left on the original thread: "Seriously? It is because of the Panda update and the resulting shift in traffic away from ad-ridden low-quality sites and towards higher quality sites that often haven't yet been optimized for ads in the Google network. They've addressed this directly in both of the last two earnings calls and have said they expect the effects to be largely…

If that's true then come out and say it's true. Don't be coy. No, really, don't: You can't have it both ways, implying the original author is somehow dumb without being willing to stick your neck out enough to say it yourself. Pointing to a random anonymous internet comment is weasely.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#52

Post by mapgrep »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #49
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt, hated to downvote you but your comment didn't add much here. Simply saying that something was addressed and dismissed doesn't tell the reader why it was dismissed so that they could judge for themselves. Your premise seemed to be that if Google says something it must be true, which isn't necessarily the case. (And I'm definitely not implying any evil or bad reason, sometimes people are just mistaken)

DanielBMarkham, let me try again using quotes from Google's last two earning transcripts from the last two quarters and see whether that helps to clarify. I'm loath to go anywhere near a subject like corporate earnings for various reasons, but Foremski says "There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find," but anyone can go read Google's Q2 2011 earnings call transcript, which you can f…

That doesn't explain the sudden strong spike in Google's own earnings, it only explains the decline in network earnings. How is Google harvesting some of the Panda changes for itself? As it happens the FTC is probing whether it is unfairly intercepting too many queries itself http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230333990457640...

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#53

Post by mapgrep »

nikcub wrote: post #15
patio11 wrote: post #9

Some combination of: 1) Panda, which redirected hundreds of millions in revenue from some content farms to other parties (including, likely, the ether) which do not show up on Google's books 2) Google is being increasingly aggressive about monetizing the Google SERPS. More ads in more places with more prominent billing. Other sites on the Internet have not been aggressively up-monetizing principally because they have…

If Google ever does end up facing an anti-trust trial, your second point will likely form part of the case against them. This could be considered direct evidence that Google are using their dominance in search to favor their own properties over others.

This shouldn't have been downvoted; news of an FTC antitrust probe for /precisely this behavior/ was reported just last month: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230333990457640...

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#54

Post by Matt_Cutts »

mapgrep wrote: post #52
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DanielBMarkham, let me try again using quotes from Google's last two earning transcripts from the last two quarters and see whether that helps to clarify. I'm loath to go anywhere near a subject like corporate earnings for various reasons, but Foremski says "There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find," but anyone can go read Google's Q2 2011 earnings call transcript, which you can f…

That doesn't explain the sudden strong spike in Google's own earnings, it only explains the decline in network earnings. How is Google harvesting some of the Panda changes for itself? As it happens the FTC is probing whether it is unfairly intercepting too many queries itself http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230333990457640...

"it only explains the decline in network earnings."

mapgrep, the original article was centered around the change between Google vs. network earnings. In fact, the first sentence of the article was "Google reported stellar 2011 Q2 earnings but Google's partner sites, which used to account for half of its revenues, showed a massive lag in growth." The original article went on to point out "There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find."

I'm just pointing out that Google has provided guidance (in both earnings calls) about the reasons for that disparity.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#55

Post by Matt_Cutts »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #50
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DanielBMarkham, let me try again using quotes from Google's last two earning transcripts from the last two quarters and see whether that helps to clarify. I'm loath to go anywhere near a subject like corporate earnings for various reasons, but Foremski says "There is no explanation from Google or Wall Street analysts that I could find," but anyone can go read Google's Q2 2011 earnings call transcript, which you can f…

Thanks. I'm obviously pursuing you into a spot you can't go, and for that I apologize, but the relevant problem here was your quoting a commenter from a blog who claimed from the earnings discussion that the effects would be transitory. That's a little too much indirection and terseness for my tastes. I also lost track of pronoun antecedents. In particular, I read it as transitory in terms of partner performance, whe…

No worries. Going back to the original earnings transcripts is nice because then it's official Google statements, not something I'm claiming.

I'd been meaning to find those quotes anyway; back in January, a few skeptical people wondered whether Google "has a disincentive to algorithmically weed out the kind of drivel that exists for no other reason than to make its publisher money via AdSense" -- that's a quote from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2127937 .

What the last two earnings calls show is that Google is willing to accept an impact in our revenue to improve our search quality. So it was a helpful exercise for me to track down the relevant bits from the earnings transcripts.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#56

Post by mapgrep »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #54
mapgrep wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain the sudden strong spike in Google's own earnings, it only explains the decline in network earnings. How is Google harvesting some of the Panda changes for itself? As it happens the FTC is probing whether it is unfairly intercepting too many queries itself http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230333990457640...

"it only explains the decline in network earnings." mapgrep, the original article was centered around the change between Google vs. network earnings. In fact, the first sentence of the article was "Google reported stellar 2011 Q2 earnings but Google's partner sites, which used to account for half of its revenues, showed a massive lag in growth." The original article went on to point out "There is no explanation from…

You have pointed to guidance on the "massive lag in growth" by partner sites but not to the "stellar 2011 Q2 earnings" by Google sites. The latter earnings growth is truly exceptional:

Google sites grew 39 percent in Q2 2011 vs 22, 22, 23 and 20 percent in the prior four quarters (!). Foremski wrote, "Google sites' growth jumped suddenly and without any explanation." That explanation is still nowhere to be found.

Something is missing here. I'm not saying it's nefarious or not, and I'm not saying you /need/ to address it, just that you haven't, and that Foremski's question still stands. You seem to be saying (roughly) "nothing to see here," but that appears to be incorrect.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#57

Post by teflonhook »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #41

Not sure if people saw the comment that someone left on the original thread: "Seriously? It is because of the Panda update and the resulting shift in traffic away from ad-ridden low-quality sites and towards higher quality sites that often haven't yet been optimized for ads in the Google network. They've addressed this directly in both of the last two earnings calls and have said they expect the effects to be largely…

So use Adsense at your own peril? Add Google ads and risk being deprioritised in search rankings if they decide they are not making enough money?

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#58

Post by teflonhook »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #55
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I'm obviously pursuing you into a spot you can't go, and for that I apologize, but the relevant problem here was your quoting a commenter from a blog who claimed from the earnings discussion that the effects would be transitory. That's a little too much indirection and terseness for my tastes. I also lost track of pronoun antecedents. In particular, I read it as transitory in terms of partner performance, whe…

No worries. Going back to the original earnings transcripts is nice because then it's official Google statements, not something I'm claiming. I'd been meaning to find those quotes anyway; back in January, a few skeptical people wondered whether Google "has a disincentive to algorithmically weed out the kind of drivel that exists for no other reason than to make its publisher money via AdSense" -- that's a quote from…

Yes but I think Google possibly are being disingenuous here. Yes its negatively impacted by some search quality improvements, but is it NETT negatively impacted, or is it also positively impacted as well.

After all, you are displaying ads that someone has paid for, so if someone isn't clicking on them, then maybe the content is no good for the ads (ie poor quality). Likewise you can tell by how much someone will bid on the keyword how valuable the content is.

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#59

Post by nikcub »

aneth wrote: post #32
nikcub wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google ever does end up facing an anti-trust trial, your second point will likely form part of the case against them. This could be considered direct evidence that Google are using their dominance in search to favor their own properties over others.

It's not illegal to use dominance in one market to enter another. That's called good business. Antitrust requires monopoly, which google does not have. There are many competitive and successful ad networks and search engines, and there is no lock in to the search product.

I don't agree with the entire concept of anti-trust, let alone support any case against Google - but I can see it happening

Re: The Massive Mystery In Google's Finances

#60

Post by chopsueyar »

nikcub wrote: post #59
aneth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal to use dominance in one market to enter another. That's called good business. Antitrust requires monopoly, which google does not have. There are many competitive and successful ad networks and search engines, and there is no lock in to the search product.

I don't agree with the entire concept of anti-trust, let alone support any case against Google - but I can see it happening

Yeah, Standard Oil and U.S. Steel were pretty awesome.

Without robber-barons, we would have a dearth of philanthropists.

Post reply on HN