71–80 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is completely false. The effect on revenue is not used to make launch decisions for ranking changes.
So when Google's Panda update killed tons of user-generated-content sites like Mahalo, eHow, HubPages, etc., and greatly improved YouTube's (which is 99% garbage) rankings, that was pure co-incidence? What about when Google rolled out universal search only after buying YouTube?
They left out the part where they index your emails and choose items you agree with over items you don't :)
I think you're joking, but just for those that don't think that, we don't actually do that.
"In order to provide some of the core features in Google Apps products, our automated systems will scan and index some user data. For example:
-Email is scanned so we can perform spam filtering and virus detection.
-Priority Inbox, a Gmail feature, scans email message to identify which messages are considered important and which are considered not important.
-If you are using Google Apps (free edition), email is scanned so we can display contextually relevant advertising in some circumstances.
-Some user data, such as documents and email messages, are scanned and indexed so your users can privately search for information in their own Google Apps accounts.
*Google Apps data is not part of the general google.com index, except when users choose to publish information publicly."
Source: I do hacking on top of lucene.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're joking, but just for those that don't think that, we don't actually do that.
I don't remember if hotmail used to run ads.
At one point the "homepage" of Hotmail was a huge ad space, stories from MSN, and a tiny link to "Inbox."
The new Outlook is so much better. If Hotmail had evolved that way earlier, I would not have switched to Gmail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be about 38K searches per second. Does this include Google instant searches? Google search results show a time value for each search. E.g.: About 2,210,000,000 results (0.12 seconds). Is this time machine time per search? This number is often around 30 ms, give or take a factor of two. If so, each machine can handle about 30 searches per second. If so, 38K searches per second need about 1000 machines. Soun…
You didn't define 'machine'. If the 'machine' is Google's supercomputer grid cloud cluster, then yes, each search takes 30 ms of machine time.
"We write programs & formulas to deliver the best results possible" There's a slight oversight, it should be: "We write programs & formulas to deliver the most profitable results possible for this quarter"
As to your point, yes, Google does utilize its power, leverage, dominance to favor itself and its own products - and don't feel to bad others are demanding you show your proof - how quick they are to forget (and apparently Google's own employees who replied to your comment forgot also) that the FTC spent the last year investigating Google's behavior on this front - some of those charges into Google's behavior include using its knowledge of search and advertising to determine the most profitable online businesses, entering the space with their own product to compete directly or just drive up the price of the advertising terms (sometime 1000%). So imagine you were buying key word "y" for "$x"/click - Google comes along and competes, now their product is at the top of the organic results and you will need to pay (1000 x "$X") for the same advertising - oh by the way when they pays (1000 x "$x") for the same ad space that money just goes back to its own pocket.
So do not feel to bad - the FTC spent millions investigating Google to find said evidence and ultimately allowed Google to settle for $22.5 million, Google allowing others to use the Motorola patents is acquired, and changing their AdWords API. And keeping with their motto: "Don't be evil" it appears in the last 24 hours media has gone wild alleging Google spent $25,000 to honor the FTC Director during the investigation - I know when I am being investigated for federal anti-trust allegations I too like to honor the investigator, and like Google I do not give the investigator the money directly, I give it to a 3rd party who in turn gives it to the investigators office, this allows the investigator time to close the case before allegations are made and when allegations are eventually made it allows the investigator the opportunity to say at the time it was unknown who "donated" money for the honorarium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And with real evidence" what would qualify as "real" evidence to you? A hidden camera catching Googlers talking about this?
It seems you're making an argument of the form "it's too difficult to collect real evidence. In fact, here's an example of a way to collect real evidence that is ridiculously difficult. Since we cannot collect real evidence, we need not use it to make arguments." Just because it's difficult doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions based on speculation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And with real evidence" what would qualify as "real" evidence to you? A hidden camera catching Googlers talking about this?
Well, with the certainty you speak of this with, yes. Oh also, I'm being facetious because I work there and I'm interested in this secret pile of evidence you have. All things being fair, I won't deny that you've seen the things you've seen, it's just that you might be attributing them to the wrong places. Hence, the need for actual evidence.