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

How Google is Killing Organic Search

blog.tutorspree.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 220 posts

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#171

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tomkarlo wrote: post #166
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that fraud though.

I'm not a lawyer (nor an expert on payments) but generally it doesn't seem to have any element of fraud - it's collecting payment for services fairly rendered via the credit card account provided by the customer. Fraud would involve some kind of intentional deception. If their was fraud, you could get a chargeback, and I don't see that happening very often.

You provide payment using the card. The card expires and can't - supposedly - be used beyond the expiry date to make a payment. There is no expectation of continued payment beyond the expiry date.

Guessing the new expiry date in order to exact a payment is taking an unauthorised payment. It can't be authorised because the card-holder can't authorise payments beyond the expiry date.

Taking a payment that isn't authorised by the card-holder by guessing some of the details of a card against the expectations of the card-holder appears to be fraudulent to me.

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#173

Post by tomkarlo »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #171
tomkarlo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer (nor an expert on payments) but generally it doesn't seem to have any element of fraud - it's collecting payment for services fairly rendered via the credit card account provided by the customer. Fraud would involve some kind of intentional deception. If their was fraud, you could get a chargeback, and I don't see that happening very often.

You provide payment using the card. The card expires and can't - supposedly - be used beyond the expiry date to make a payment. There is no expectation of continued payment beyond the expiry date. Guessing the new expiry date in order to exact a payment is taking an unauthorised payment. It can't be authorised because the card-holder can't authorise payments beyond the expiry date. Taking a payment that isn't authori…

No, you provided initial payment using the credit card account, but you signed up for the service until you cancel it, not until your method of payment expires.

Even if you cancelled the card outright, you're generally technically (and legally) still on the hook for a subscription if you don't go and cancel. Read the ToS for just about any recurring subscription. It's your obligation to cancel, not their obligation to guess when you want to cancel. Honestly, I'm not sure how that's unfair; it's not a service provider's business to interpret your payment methods and how they might map to your desire to cancel or retain a service.

The only reason most services don't bother to pursue payment for expired cards is because it's not economic to do so. So when a card expires, they eventually mark the account as overdue and disable it. That's not the same as a clean cancellation; technically you still owe them for the services rendered between the last invoice and the final cancellation.

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#174

Post by tomkarlo »

corresation wrote: post #168
tomkarlo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer (nor an expert on payments) but generally it doesn't seem to have any element of fraud - it's collecting payment for services fairly rendered via the credit card account provided by the customer. Fraud would involve some kind of intentional deception. If their was fraud, you could get a chargeback, and I don't see that happening very often.

An important point is that it isn't for services rendered -- it's for services to be rendered in the future on receipt of payment. At the point of billing I owed them $0, and had received no service from them. A credit card number is the compound of the number and expiry day, and they essentially fabricated a new expiry date. There are whole industries built around billing people for services they don't actually want…

This depends a lot on the particulars of the individual subscription agreement. But in most cases, you owe for the services once the new subscription period starts, not when payment is received. (In most cases, your card company actually pays long after the services are rendered (30-60 days), anyway.)

You're saying this is a service you don't want, but it's unclear how the provider is supposed to guess that. You signed up for it, you haven't cancelled it, and now they're going to provide it and then seek payment for it. The failure to cancel is on you, not the provider. Even if you cancelled the card outright, in most good ToS, they'd still have a right to bill you directly for the service if you don't cancel.

Let's say I run a gym and you're a signed up member. If a new month starts, and you've got an active account, even if your card expires I'm still going to bill you for the month unless you come and tell me you want to cancel your membership. The two things are unrelated.

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#175

Post by saumil07 »

AJ007 wrote: post #70
jcampbell1 wrote: post #22

The auction model for ads basically ruins internet searches in transactional categories. If you want to win at the "italian restaurant" search game, you have to bid the highest for the ad, which means you must have the highest margin. The best way to win is to open a restaurant with ridiculously high margins (over priced wine and cheap ingredients). Want the "cheapest car insurance"? Google is zero help. It sends you…

I am happy to see other people finally pointing this one out. I will refine your hypothesis a little. a) It isn't companies with the highest margin who win, but the ones which are able and willing to devote the greatest percentage of revenue to performance driven advertising. If the company has a slim margin to begin with, they will never even be able to start in the "race." b) Education is a better example than car…

It's interesting to note that across 165 comments, only 2-3 have even touched upon Quality Score let alone attempted to discuss it in detail.

Based upon personal experience (worked at a company that spent 8 digits on Google Ads on an annualized basis, profitably and successfully over a long period of time) I can assure you that Quality Score does NOT mean very little.

It is also a falsehood to state that Quality Score is entirely about "how a site looks". Google actually even measures how quickly users come back to Google after clicking on an Ad - and if users come back too often in too short a period of time (signal for poor quality ad landing page), the advertiser's Quality Score can be penalized (to what extent, exactly, is of course unclear).

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#176

Post by WalterGR »

_jmar777 wrote: post #112

This feels somewhat disingenuous. Naturally a site making it's money off of ads is going to give them an above-the-fold and prominent position. Just scroll down... the value add is in the qualify of the organic results (which is still there), not in the absence of scrolling. If you think the ratio is off, then write an article about it... but this is hardly "killing organic search".

Naturally a site making it's money off of ads is going to give them an above-the-fold and prominent position. Just scroll down...

Google penalizes sites with above-the-fold ads. It doesn't take much at all to earn the penalty. I think that's one reason why people are miffed with Google's excessive ATF advertising on their SERPs.

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#177

Post by dendory »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #22

The auction model for ads basically ruins internet searches in transactional categories. If you want to win at the "italian restaurant" search game, you have to bid the highest for the ad, which means you must have the highest margin. The best way to win is to open a restaurant with ridiculously high margins (over priced wine and cheap ingredients). Want the "cheapest car insurance"? Google is zero help. It sends you…

I've long ago taken this approach to all ads myself. Whenever I'm forced to see an ad (because I block or skip ads as much as I possibly can) then I make a mental note not to buy from that company. Whenever I go to buy something, I always go for a brand I've never seen in an ad. I find that this on average saves me money.

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#178

Post by bigiain »

diminish wrote: post #124
jcampbell1 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth pointing out that Google is internally very aware of this situation. They have attempted to do what is best for users on several high value searches such as "Mortgage Refinance". At one point they had a fixed fee comparison widget, that would actually suggest banks with the lowest rates. Unfortunately all these attempts were killed, because it is so much more valuable to sell an ad to a shady comparison s…

for some keywords search ads, are also a free service to users if you make a Copernican turn in your perception. the problem for end users for ads is the auction mechanism. it may seem that from quarter to quarter GOOG has to report better earnings and more ad placements seem to be an easy way to achieve increased revenue, albeit jeopardizing their main organic search experience. at my zombie startup, "Vadlue" ( http…

" … maybe future lies in not making ads look more annoying by mixing them inside content, but making 'some content' behave like ads."

And so online advertising re-invents traditional media's "product placement".

To paraphrase a comment upthread "Would you watch Game of Thrones, if The Freys had used Smith & Wesson branded crossbows to massacre the Starks? Or if The Lanisters only used AT&T brand carrier pigeons?"

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#179

Post by znowi »

Google Search was totally awesome when it first came out. Disrupted the whole industry and set new standards of search on the web.

Now I find myself longing for a new company and a new disruption of what is essentially Google monopoly.

Re: How Google is Killing Organic Search

#180

Post by chii »

tomkarlo wrote: post #173
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You provide payment using the card. The card expires and can't - supposedly - be used beyond the expiry date to make a payment. There is no expectation of continued payment beyond the expiry date. Guessing the new expiry date in order to exact a payment is taking an unauthorised payment. It can't be authorised because the card-holder can't authorise payments beyond the expiry date. Taking a payment that isn't authori…

No, you provided initial payment using the credit card account, but you signed up for the service until you cancel it, not until your method of payment expires. Even if you cancelled the card outright, you're generally technically (and legally) still on the hook for a subscription if you don't go and cancel. Read the ToS for just about any recurring subscription. It's your obligation to cancel, not their obligation t…

interesting - so there is a business opportunity to collect these overdue amounts in large numbers, and exact the payment along with a "fine"…
Post reply on HN