11–20 of 39 posts
In other words, I am not inclined to bestow accolades upon them for making real the concerns which were raised.
Wowzas. That's a pretty big move for Google to make. Google.com/chrome isn't even the top result for the query "Google Chrome" or "Chrome" https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&sourceid=chrome&... https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&sourceid=chrome&... Good on you, Google.
It isn't? The first thing I see when I search for "google chrome" is Google Chrome Download | google.com www.google.com/chrome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't? The first thing I see when I search for "google chrome" is Google Chrome Download | google.com www.google.com/chrome
That's a paid ad. You can tell from the yellow background and from the text that says "Ad" in the upper-right.
That was the strangest part, for me. Google clearly can trust outgoing links from www.google.com/chrome.
Its clear they had no intention of gaming their own system with this campaign. But they obviously feel the need to act in a 'beyond reproach' way, to avoid the accusation of conflicts-of-interest.
In one way its good that they are being held to high standards; on the other hand, this is resulting in less relevant search responses, for no real benefit to anyone (including those whom antitrust law, which they might be thinking about, is there to protect).
Hard to say what what the right thing to do is. Sometimes, it looks like its a tough job to maintain the 'dont be evil' image.
I'm torn between "That's almost cute " and "This is wrist-slapping ourselves to give the appearance that we administer our guidelines in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious."
I'm torn between "That's almost cute " and "This is wrist-slapping ourselves to give the appearance that we administer our guidelines in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious."
What would happen if an entity started buying links for a competitor product so that it was demoted?