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

Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

liveside.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#51

Post by chc »

jrockway wrote: post #28
kenjackson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty big whole for Bing to miss. Probably doesn't track as well since it requires a mistyped query -- most people doing comparisons of relevance compare correctly typed queries. But a big hole for real world usage... at least I'd think so.

I agree. The first thing I would do, if writing a search engine, would be to do Google-style phrase corrections. (Although lately, I find it too aggressive. When googling obscure error messages, it usually "do you mean"-s it into a less obscure error message that I already understand. Sigh.)

I really think Google is getting to be too clever for its own good. When I try to search for some Mac API, it will give me a blog post about an iPhone app, no matter how much I beg and plead. Bing returns precisely what I wanted for those "Where the heck did Google get that SERP from?" kind of queries.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#52

Post by jrockway »

asnyder wrote: post #47
jrockway wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't bother me. If my website got delisted from Google, I'd find traffic in some other way. If my ads didn't get run by Google, I'd just advertise somewhere else. Honestly, Google is not that big of a company. I checked out the Fortune 500 list, and Google is not even in the top 50. Amazon.com, Bank of America, and CVS Carkemark know a lot more about you than Google. And they don't care -- you come to them, a…

Unlike the other companies mentioned there is very little alternative to Google. Especially if you target the technical demographic. If CVS does something bad, I can go to Rite Aid. However if Google delists you, your customers most likely won't go to Bing, or DuckDuckGo, you'll be dead. Furthermore, if you're not "relevant" to your search term, then advertising for that term will be prohibitively expensive. So you'r…

Why is it not OK? You are not their customer or shareholder; what obligation do they have to you?

Nobody else likes other search engines and can't find your site? Tough shit. That's not Google's concern and it's not the government's concern, which makes you responsible for dealing with it.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#53

Post by asnyder »

jrockway wrote: post #52
asnyder wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the other companies mentioned there is very little alternative to Google. Especially if you target the technical demographic. If CVS does something bad, I can go to Rite Aid. However if Google delists you, your customers most likely won't go to Bing, or DuckDuckGo, you'll be dead. Furthermore, if you're not "relevant" to your search term, then advertising for that term will be prohibitively expensive. So you'r…

Why is it not OK? You are not their customer or shareholder; what obligation do they have to you? Nobody else likes other search engines and can't find your site? Tough shit. That's not Google's concern and it's not the government's concern, which makes you responsible for dealing with it.

What is wrong with you? First, you have no idea if I'm a customer or shareholder. Second, they have an obligation to their users and customers to conduct business in a reasonable way. If you actually read what I've been saying, which I know is very hard, because we have a tendency to skim and let our biases let our emotions get the best of us, I'm not saying anything crazy.

All I'm saying is that Google should set up some processes so that issues that can be major, such as an accidental delisting, or similar be addressed with some level of human interaction, whether it's an actual response, or an automated response letting you know the issues, nothing more.

In my opinion, and hopefully sometime in the near future the US Congress will agree, that it's not OK for something to have that much sway over the web and not be accountable or have any reasonable processes in place for corrections. It's just not.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#54

Post by jrockway »

asnyder wrote: post #53
jrockway wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not OK? You are not their customer or shareholder; what obligation do they have to you? Nobody else likes other search engines and can't find your site? Tough shit. That's not Google's concern and it's not the government's concern, which makes you responsible for dealing with it.

What is wrong with you? First, you have no idea if I'm a customer or shareholder. Second, they have an obligation to their users and customers to conduct business in a reasonable way. If you actually read what I've been saying, which I know is very hard, because we have a tendency to skim and let our biases let our emotions get the best of us, I'm not saying anything crazy. All I'm saying is that Google should set up…

You keep saying the same thing over and over; you use the word "obligation". Why do you think they are obligated to reply to your emails? Are they legally obligated? Are they morally obligated? If so, why? How many people have to email them every day before they aren't obligated to reply anymore? Why?

Your point would be a lot clearer if you had said, "I wish" instead of "obligation". I wish a human at Google would reply to my email when they accidentally delist my site. I wish someone would spend $100 of Google's time to research my problem and talk to me. I wish Google would mail me ice cream and ponies once a week.

If you actually read what I've been saying, which I know is very hard, because we have a tendency to skim and let our biases let our emotions get the best of us, I'm not saying anything crazy.

If your sentences focused on one topic, and didn't diverge to psychoanalyze me, which I know is very hard, because we have a tendency to let our emotions get the best of us, causing a run on sentence, where the word obligation is used a lot, and holy shit this sort of thing is hard to read, emotions or not, and what was I saying? Oh yeah, your points would be easier to follow.

Anyway, Google's philosophy is to make decisions in general rather than in bulk and then they let the computers do the real work. It's the only sane thing they can do; there are billions of websites, and if they had to research every delisting case, they'd be out of business. It's no loss to Google or its users if your site doesn't show up in search results.

You just aren't all that important to Google or the rest of the world. Nor is anyone else.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#55

Post by asnyder »

jrockway wrote: post #54
asnyder wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with you? First, you have no idea if I'm a customer or shareholder. Second, they have an obligation to their users and customers to conduct business in a reasonable way. If you actually read what I've been saying, which I know is very hard, because we have a tendency to skim and let our biases let our emotions get the best of us, I'm not saying anything crazy. All I'm saying is that Google should set up…

You keep saying the same thing over and over; you use the word "obligation". Why do you think they are obligated to reply to your emails? Are they legally obligated? Are they morally obligated? If so, why? How many people have to email them every day before they aren't obligated to reply anymore? Why? Your point would be a lot clearer if you had said, "I wish" instead of "obligation". I wish a human at Google would r…

As with our exchanges in the past, this one is fruitless. You're words are untrue and inflammatory. I use obligation only once throughout all of my comments on this topic, and only in response to your usage of it. To say that the word obligation is used a lot is false, just like everything else you're saying.

You say you're not trolling but you just think this way, I'm sorry but I can't have any meaningful exchange with someone that's grasping at things that just aren't there.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#56

Post by jrockway »

asnyder wrote: post #49
gsmaverick wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart has similar power to destroy your business if they refuse to sell your product. Google has no obligation to help keep your business afloat in the same way Walmart doesn't owe your product a spot on its shelves.

You can bet that if there wasn't Target, A&P, Pathmark, and local grocery stores, etc. Walmart wouldn't just be able to refuse selling your product without some sort of reason. Google is significantly more dominant than Walmart, they're the only channel to your product for many, which isn't true with Walmart.

Walmart is the only place to get Walmart's house brands. That's not a monopoly, that's merely inconvenient.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#57

Post by asnyder »

jrockway wrote: post #56
asnyder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can bet that if there wasn't Target, A&P, Pathmark, and local grocery stores, etc. Walmart wouldn't just be able to refuse selling your product without some sort of reason. Google is significantly more dominant than Walmart, they're the only channel to your product for many, which isn't true with Walmart.

Walmart is the only place to get Walmart's house brands. That's not a monopoly, that's merely inconvenient.

What are you talking about? Nothing you said has anything to do with anything I'm saying. You and the other commenter are skewing my comments with your responses into something they're not.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#58

Post by zaphar »

asnyder wrote: post #47
jrockway wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't bother me. If my website got delisted from Google, I'd find traffic in some other way. If my ads didn't get run by Google, I'd just advertise somewhere else. Honestly, Google is not that big of a company. I checked out the Fortune 500 list, and Google is not even in the top 50. Amazon.com, Bank of America, and CVS Carkemark know a lot more about you than Google. And they don't care -- you come to them, a…

Unlike the other companies mentioned there is very little alternative to Google. Especially if you target the technical demographic. If CVS does something bad, I can go to Rite Aid. However if Google delists you, your customers most likely won't go to Bing, or DuckDuckGo, you'll be dead. Furthermore, if you're not "relevant" to your search term, then advertising for that term will be prohibitively expensive. So you'r…

How much do you think they can tell you without revealing the signals they use to determine relevancy?

The fact is their current policy is in all likelihood the one that allows them to serve relevant results to the greatest number of people for the lowest cost. If they start giving it the personal touch as you say then the cost will go way up it won't bed just you and the occasional accidental delisted site owner but will be every spammer, con artist, and fly by night SEO expert. The support costs would be astronomical. And your hoped for solution is to have a government entity step in and mandate they spend that money in a hopeless attempt to let you talk to someone in person? In short you want the government to force Google to reduce its profits, potentially drastically, for your own personal benefit.

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#59

Post by jrockway »

zaphar wrote: post #58
asnyder wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the other companies mentioned there is very little alternative to Google. Especially if you target the technical demographic. If CVS does something bad, I can go to Rite Aid. However if Google delists you, your customers most likely won't go to Bing, or DuckDuckGo, you'll be dead. Furthermore, if you're not "relevant" to your search term, then advertising for that term will be prohibitively expensive. So you'r…

How much do you think they can tell you without revealing the signals they use to determine relevancy? The fact is their current policy is in all likelihood the one that allows them to serve relevant results to the greatest number of people for the lowest cost. If they start giving it the personal touch as you say then the cost will go way up it won't bed just you and the occasional accidental delisted site owner but…

Won't someone please think of the OP's failed business model? The government needs to protect the lucrative business of owning a link farm!!

Re: Eric Schmidt: “Our competitor is Bing”

#60

Post by rodh257 »

Arun2009 wrote: post #41

I like how his cool confidence stands in contrast to Steve "I'm going to fucking kill Google" Ballmer's aggression. Notice how generous he is with compliments for Google's competitors.

Probably easier to do when you're on top. If he seemed anything but confident it would raise a fair few flags (media would be all over it too).
Post reply on HN