That certainly isn't the most flattering Google article that has ever been written.
Sorry, could only get through the first 8 paragraphs before my winge filter cut in.
I personally would not take that article particularly seriously. I feel the arguments (for example:difficult for the typical user to even know this is happening - Erm I see a bright red indicator on my toolbar) are somewhat stretching credibility.
Just my opinion.
> I feel the arguments (for example:difficult for the typical user to even know this is happening - Erm I see a bright red indicator on my toolbar) are somewhat stretching credibility.
As for the typical user not knowing what is happening:
The #2 feature listed is "New! Eliminate pop-up ads". Google actually advertises this as being a feature why you should want to use it.
It's a hissy fit over a personal problem. No news.
The responses are quite interesting.
I also found the pop-up killer as part of the business plan a stretch. There were some good points. I don't agree or disagree. For sure, the person who wrote the article got hammered in Florida.
Obviously their disapproval of Google doesn't stretch to the removal of the Google Adsense banners ;)
>fit over a personal problem. No news.
yep - ftponline - lol - nuff said.
Just what we need - another of the zillion post-florida blog entries.
That does make sense to me. I would say, I agree.
Just waiting for the Google and Microsoft battle...
OK, since Brett changed the title, I'd like someone to explain to me how that rant has anything to do with Florida. The update is never even mentioned.
What I want to know is if in fact Google retroactively changes its EUA and then withholds payment in order to get publishers to sign up.
If there is any truth to that, then it would certainly qualify as a subject worth discussing.
I agree it is a rant, but as wg said it does not mention the florida update or poor results in SERPS.
I am sure there is a personal reason for the article/blog and since I have not contracted to place adsense or bid for adwords yet, though I am interested, I was hoping to hear some experiences of similar concerns or not.
>What I want to know is if in fact Google retroactively changes its EUA and then withholds payment in order to get publishers to sign up.
Would it be possible for the site to agree to the new EULA to get payment, and then remove Adsense from the site? If so, they'd get the money the previously earned, and yet would not be forced to use Adsense any more.
A lot of what is stated in that article is a bit silly, but if you actually read the entire thing all the way to the bottom, it raises several interesting and ligitimate points.
|Would it be possible for the site to agree to the new EULA to get payment, and then remove Adsense from the site? If so, they'd get the money the previously earned, and yet would not be forced to use Adsense any more. |
That's an option. But why should they have to pretend to agree to something they don't want to just to receive money they're already owed?
Calling a Google a "monopoly" even though it has "31%" of the market, simply because it has a better public image than, um, Microsoft is ... one of the stupidest arguments I've seen in a long time. The bubonic plague has a better public image than Microsoft.
And as for the googlebar, there are only two classes of people who'd download it anyway: (1) webmasters looking _only_ for PR data, and (2) power net users looking _only_ for popup blocking. The drooling idiots that popup banners target aren't bright enough to find an ad blocker anyway; the power users who so despise popups wouldn't buy from them anyway. So this particular excrescence on the body politick doesn't need to worry about Googlebar: what he needs to worry about is the eventual just recompense that will come from an outraged public to all popup-mongers -- involving tar, feathers, fire, and forcible extraction of intestines. Googlebar may actually help him eke out a few more years of parasitic activity before justice prevails.
Just an observation:
Historically, Bait-and-switch tactics have been used by many companies, not least of which search engines, along with changing TOS retro-actively.
Case in point: Look$martz
Those companies either fail or have enough power and money to weather the storm until it blows over.
Look for an IPO in April.
Dissagree, sounds like another case of "my sites not ranking where I would like it too so I hate Google".
Apart from an obsession with the word "leveraging" I found the letter to be extremely well written, structured, etc.
I have no experience of much that is discussed but all the arguments seem well-founded and logical. I have thought for some time that eventually search engines will have to be regulated to prevent abuse of power. This letter perhaps will bring that a little closer.
PS GoogleGuy, any chance you could get a new feature added to the toolbar - automatic translation of stupid buzzwords into plain english. Why can't people say "use" when they mean "use" rather than subvert the english language with a nonsense word like "leverage"?
I think the article was a little long... the most interesting point, was the requirement to accept the new EULA.... Google really should pay their bills.