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

How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

knife-depot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 341 posts

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#251

Post by bigiain »

DanBC wrote: post #176
bigiain wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did anybody else read through that keyword-heavy body text, and think "I wonder if they'll really get away with trying to own the organic SERPs while the Adwords team are swatting down their paid placements?"

I can't see any easy link from their blog to their webstore, so that tactic might fail.

That's not a particularly uncommon technique - get a page to rank first, without any obvious commercial links on it - then once it's generating traffic add the desired links.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#252

Post by janesvilleseo »

throwaway420 wrote: post #247
capo wrote: post #227

Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar. I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.

> I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page. Your anger is misplaced. The blame is solely on Google for not having an adequate customer service department. When Google has arbitrary decided that your business is in violation of some of its rules, you end up falling into a Kafkaesque nightmare of form respon…

I partly agree about the customer service issue. However, they have really been stepping up as of late (if you are an AdWords customer that is). However the striking thing for me is the "voiced" doublestandard. Cutts is pretty consistent on the Organic side of things, but I don't think I have seen the same from their AdWords department. Which is a shame as it does need to be policed.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#253

Post by capo »

throwaway420 wrote: post #247
capo wrote: post #227

Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar. I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.

> I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page. Your anger is misplaced. The blame is solely on Google for not having an adequate customer service department. When Google has arbitrary decided that your business is in violation of some of its rules, you end up falling into a Kafkaesque nightmare of form respon…

So HN has to be the consumer service?! that's not what this place is about.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#254

Post by retrogradeorbit »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #217
smsm42 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>> They have an obligation to the shareholders. Turning down paying customers because of some moral objection to pointy objects is a little bit crazy. Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. I, personally, cancelled my account with them the next day and would never buy from them anymore. I am completely certain them and th…

>Happens all the time. For example, Groupon recently dropped all firearms-related deals on the wave of the craziness that is going on. That's something else entirely. There is an argument to be made that doing things like that could actually be good for the shareholders, if you assume that a majority of customers are pro- gun control and doing that could get you accolades from them instead of boycotts. Maybe the oppo…

Maybe it's the agency problem. The mid level manager making the decisions is not a shareholder.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#255

Post by mscarborough »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #178
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

You cannot wield the kind of economic power Google does and not be evil, at least for the working definition many people have of "evil". We've put a huge hunk of our intellectual and economic capital under the control of a marketing company. I really, really like Google, but I don't see this situation as being stable over a period of decades. Maybe 5-10 more years or so, but not a lot longer. These kinds of decisions…

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was…

No, the Stalinist party was criticized plenty. Not in an effective way, clearly Stalin was good at running a dictatorship, but still.

Wearing an Anti-Flag shirt is kinda 2002, and Congress is certainly not passing laws against it.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#256

Post by jlgreco »

archon wrote: post #249
tehwalrus wrote: post #205

(from UK, and happy to accept your downvotes): I'm shocked that people litteraly sell knives designed to hurt people on the internet, and that people on HN come to the defence of these arms dealers . I assumed this was about kitchen knives when I clicked on the link. The US constitution was written with a right to bear arms so people could overthrow the government , not protect themselves from criminals. Since then,…

> This is the sole reason I would never ever consider living in the USA Just to provide a counter-anecdote, the fact that I couldn't legally own weapons capable of leveling the playing field between me and an armed criminal makes me disinclined to ever consider living in the UK. The best I can do for protection is a baseball bat? Terrifying.

To be honest, as an American, either position strikes me as irrational. The chances of being the victim of random violent in either country is not worth worrying about.

My habit of jaywalking probably puts me in far more danger than either not having a weapon in the UK or simply living in the US where others do, but I rarely give jaywalking a second thought.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#257

Post by wyager »

rdl wrote: post #149
wyager wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The compliant issues you mention (for the most part) do not exist. There are very few extra legal limitations for selling ammunition over the internet. These legal limitations could be shifted to third-party retailers, with Amazon as a middleman only. There are literally no extra legal limitations or regulations for a company selling (non-firearm) firearm parts, which Amazon does not allow. Selling ammunition require…

I didn't realize Amazon didn't allow non-firearm firearms parts, since I've bought ~10k in knoxx stocks, slings, sidesaddles, ammo holders, holsters, etc. through their marketplace. It's possible they just don't enforce it very well. Apparently their policy ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2... ) allows a lot of things, but not other things, in a not entirely consistent way. Primers and br…

Sorry, I should clarify. I mean things that are functional pieces of a firearm ("functional" is hard to define here), even if completely legal and unregulated, are not allowed on the Amazon marketplace. Example: FCGs or upper receivers. Cosmetic parts like stocks and handguards seem to be allowed, as you noticed.

As for Magazines introducing liability, Amazon stocks thousands of items like Knives, Tasers, Pepper spray, etc. that are illegal in some states but legal in others (just like magazines).

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#258

Post by gknoy »

throwaway420 wrote: post #247
capo wrote: post #227

Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar. I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.

> I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page. Your anger is misplaced. The blame is solely on Google for not having an adequate customer service department. When Google has arbitrary decided that your business is in violation of some of its rules, you end up falling into a Kafkaesque nightmare of form respon…

Given how important being able to advertise can be for some startups, it seems that inconsistent enforcement of AdWords restrictions would be very interesting to most readers here.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#259

Post by citricsquid »

jameszol wrote: post #244
tehwalrus wrote: post #205

(from UK, and happy to accept your downvotes): I'm shocked that people litteraly sell knives designed to hurt people on the internet, and that people on HN come to the defence of these arms dealers . I assumed this was about kitchen knives when I clicked on the link. The US constitution was written with a right to bear arms so people could overthrow the government , not protect themselves from criminals. Since then,…

I've been interested in crime stats and arguments for some time; thus, I'm interested to know where you are getting your data to make such assumptions that UK criminals don't use weapons on civilians when sources dictate that the UK is among the most violent in Europe and perhaps 2x more violent than in the USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#United_Kingdom http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-o…

The UK is not more violent than America. Most years we have less than 1000 murders total across every single type of murder, the US has 10x that from firearms alone with only a 6x larger population. You hit on the reason why our violent crime seems to be so high, almost every crime that could be violent is counted as violent (for example if someone broke into my apartment while I was out) and in most other countries that isn't the case. What crimes does the UK have (that are violent) that are higher in number than America? Every single crime type that I've been able to find comparative statistics for shows the US to be higher. The UK certainly isn't a crime free utopia where nobody locks their doors but it is not the violent place you paint it as, especially when compared to the US.

Also for some hilarious reading, why not read this article from THE SAME publication that you linked to that says the UK has a massive knife crime problem: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-...

    The different between the two estimates - derived from the questioning of 
    around 600 under-25s  about whether they had been "knifed or stabbed", 
    and then extrapolated to the wider population, with all the statistical 
    vagaries that entails - reflects the lack of precise information about the 
    scale of knife crime in England and Wales.

Re: How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads

#260

Post by joseph_cooney »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #178
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #16

You cannot wield the kind of economic power Google does and not be evil, at least for the working definition many people have of "evil". We've put a huge hunk of our intellectual and economic capital under the control of a marketing company. I really, really like Google, but I don't see this situation as being stable over a period of decades. Maybe 5-10 more years or so, but not a lot longer. These kinds of decisions…

>This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..." I don't buy it. People don't criticize a king at all . You don't criticize the communist party in Stalinist Russia, tactfully or otherwise. Doing that gets you sent to the gulag. The reason people say that it was…

Historically, people DID criticize the kings, often at their own peril. France and England executed one each.
Post reply on HN