21–30 of 36 posts
Why does the hell that somebody think that they have the right to force Google to have its algorithm published? It's not like the government is propping up Google or that if anybody is locked in as a user in the search market. There are already a huge number of search engine and information filters.
I'm only half a Google fan, I think they do a lot wrong, but keeping their search algorithm a secret isn't one of those things. If people really didn't trust Google, they'd go elsewhere. There's an agenda at work here, very obviously.
That's a bit of a strawman argument. There's a wide gap between the "totally trust" and "do not trust" groups. I would think most people would fit in that gap. The ones who do go elsewhere are in the "do not trust" group. I can't be sure, but I would think the "totally trust" and "do not trust" groups are minorities in Google's user-verse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he did not exist, and the best triumph of Google's PR campaign is convincing developers that any developer interested in Google rankings who is not an employee of theirs is by definition a web spammer. Disclaimer: I am very freaking interested in Google rankings, since they determine my ability to eat.
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?
I know for a fact that the "just provide good content" line by Google is complete bullshit.
Search engine providers who are also advertisers have a agent problem -- there is moral hazard. Anybody who has money betting on where an item shows up in a result list should not also be able to create the list. This is like going to the Ford car dealership and asking for an analysis of all the types of cars to buy. Even if the Ford guys give you an independently-created report recognized as the world's best authority on car purchases, it doesn't feel right. In ethics, if it looks wrong, it is wrong.
Having said that, regulating anything that returns a list is idiotic. Even regulating Google because of it's gatekeeper status doesn't work -- these things always sound good for the edge cases, but once you let the camel's nose in under the tent, the rest of the camel is soon to follow
I think what's called for here is an industry-sponsored certification program. Use outside auditors, establish quality metrics, create a set of public ethical guidelines. You can always have trusted outsiders check your work against those guidelines, even in IP-rich, and trade secret areas. Companies do this all the time.
Google's (and Microsoft before it) main problem is that it is successful. Lots of political-type folks see that success and imagine all sorts of ways that the government can/should get in there and muck around. In this case I'm on Google's side.
But as far as thinking Google is somehow magic, that SEO is evil, that "writing good content" is all you need for rankings? All of that is bullshit put out by Google to make themselves more of an authority than they actually are. They run a program to put things in an ordered list. People are going to hack the program. Neither of these two things are good, bad, or especially interesting. The interesting thing here, to me, is the degree of Google fanboy-ism that some folks have. Wish I could bottle that up.
Google is just an advertising agency who had some cool ideas on ranking a decade or more ago. They are not a bunch of knights riding in on white horses. Oddly enough, their success is the very thing that's hurting them.
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.
Your competitors are working the google game. If google was open with how they rank sites it would get much much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he did not exist, and the best triumph of Google's PR campaign is convincing developers that any developer interested in Google rankings who is not an employee of theirs is by definition a web spammer. Disclaimer: I am very freaking interested in Google rankings, since they determine my ability to eat.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he did not exist, and the best triumph of Google's PR campaign is convincing developers that any developer interested in Google rankings who is not an employee of theirs is by definition a web spammer. Disclaimer: I am very freaking interested in Google rankings, since they determine my ability to eat.
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?
I have been participating on this site for a year. Do I strike you as a spammer?
I care that my site ranks at the top of Google, and I also want the results to be useful. Those aren't in opposition, any more than "I want to make money" and "I want to help customers teacher their children better" are in opposition. Google would love people to think they are in opposition, though, because that means that any change they make in favor of their business interests over other business' interests feels like an unquestionable command handed down by God.
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?
Then you are a "spammer", because you care for your results to be high, but I care for the results to be useful. I have been participating on this site for a year. Do I strike you as a spammer? I care that my site ranks at the top of Google, and I also want the results to be useful. Those aren't in opposition, any more than "I want to make money" and "I want to help customers teacher their children better" are in opp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To clarify, Google does not de facto nor de jure have a monopoly even if they are wildly popular. I'll call Google a monopoly when they buy off Microsoft to shut down Bing and buy out DuckDuckGo. Their practices are occasionally questionable, but that doesn't constitute a monopoly in and of itself.
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.
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.
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.