homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.198.213
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 119 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 119 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >     
Google antics moving me away from Internet business
Stopping web development
rbacal




msg:758913
 8:32 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a number of ways to make money as an author, business and management consultant, seminar leader, etc, and also web revenue comes in there. I have to tell you that google is really starting to push me away from developing new sites (all my sites are real content based), writing for the web, or even bothering much.

If things don't get more stable, I'm moving on to other things.

Example: Domain I've owned for 1 year plus. Decided to develop it, but it had been in google search results previously. Developed the thing. Put adsense search on it. Guess what? Not getting spidered, and this is breaking the adsense search. No in google. Why? Who knows? And I'm starting not to care.

MSN is talking up a lot of slack and compensating for traffic loss when google twitches (which seems to be at least 2-4 times a year, sometimes for the good, sometimes not, but when I take 30-50% traffic drops across a number of sites on different servers, and different content, seemingly randomly, what IS the point?

And google search results (speaking as a searcher here, for high quality factual information, articles, research, is simply terrible for me.

Am I the only one that is looking at google, and it's influence, and realizing that website owners are now moving away from business strategies, and more into gambling (which is what depending on google is starting to be).

Is there a damping effect on site development here?

PS. I've dealt with the chaos of the Internet for almost a decade, and I've been in it for the long haul through the booms and busts. I'm trying to figure out why I should write for Internet sites (mine) when I could be doing other things.

 

nzmatt




msg:758973
 12:43 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

'inequity to poor results' bec' G isn't displaying to the user all the relevant sities/pages that it is aware of.

Google isn't what it was - money has seen to that.

BD I think we can agree to disagree. Thanks.

incrediBILL




msg:758974
 12:53 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

My goodness what a steaming heap of whining.

Everyone can't be in the top 20 all the time, or even the top 50 when you're fighting with hundreds of other web sites for the same spot. Let's say 300 people optimize the heck out of their web sites for a single keyword, I'm sure 270 of them will be posting "Google stinks" or "I'm Sandboxed" the next week.

Yup, time to move on to other things if reality cramps are setting in.

BigDave




msg:758975
 1:08 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

'inequity to poor results' bec' G isn't displaying to the user all the relevant sities/pages that it is aware of.

Why should it display them all? No search engine has ever done that, and no searcher has ever checked everh possible page on a popular subject. Google doesn't show all the results on *any* search that has over 1000 results anyway.

In general, a searcher only wants an answer to their question. In most cases there are many pages that can answer that question, and they only want one or two answers.

This morning I was searching for a site that would help me understand the relationship of water saturation levels of dissolved oxygen at different temperatures and pressures.

I suspect there were thousands of pages that could have answered my question.

First page discussed the differences, but didn't have the detail I wanted.

Second page had the calculations. That was what I wanted.

But wait, the third page looks like it has a JS calculator for what I want.

I would rate those results excellent. I found my answer, by the second result, and the third result was even better.

If there are any sandboxed pages for that search, it doesn't matter one little bit to the quality of the results.

That is what rating the quality of the SERPs is about.

robster124




msg:758976
 1:17 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been reading Google News threads on WebmasterWorld for over a year now and there has never been a popular thread that hasn't been complaining about Google incompetence at the top of the category in that time.

Google is big, so it attracts more scrutiny. Get used to it. It's actually damn good at what it does. Could it do better? - yes, of course. But as far as I'm concerned, it's a seriously impressive piece of technical engineering.

BTW - I have 3 sites stuck in the sandbox and the latest G update has made me cancel my holiday this year ;)

nzmatt




msg:758977
 1:26 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

This morning I was searching for a site that would help me understand the relationship of water saturation levels of dissolved oxygen at different temperatures and pressures.

Some users want to search for the best model and best price of widgets. They won't find the offerings that SB sites have and therefore have less market choice...equal and fair competition is the capitalist way...bla bla whatever...

PS BD, are you making a fish tank? ;)

BigDave




msg:758978
 1:52 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Some users want to search for the best model and best price of widgets. They won't find the offerings that SB sites have and therefore have less market choice...equal and fair competition is the capitalist way...bla bla whatever...

And they never have had the full selection to search for sites selling the best model at the best price of widgets. Not even before there was any sort of grumbling about the sandbox.

Even in those cases where there are less than 1000 pages selling something so they are all available, it is rare for a shopper to compare more than 5-10 pages.

Are you saying that only new sites are able to have the best quality at the best price?

If you want to be a choice for them, get your froogle feed in order, and buy ads on appropriate sites.

PS BD, are you making a fish tank?

Not even close. Using a pressure vessel to grow aerobic thermophillic bacteria. The temperature decreases the O2 capacity of the water, but the pressure increases it.

nzmatt




msg:758979
 1:58 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

The temperature decreases the O2 capacity of the water, but the pressure increases it.

Actually its around the other way (unless you mean "the increase in temperate decreases...") - and I didn't need google to know that, even if G is consciously holding back some of the SERPS!

The amount of oxygen (or any gas) that can dissolve in pure water (saturation point) is inversely proportional to the temperature of water.

BigDave




msg:758980
 2:39 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since thermophilic means heat-loving, the temperature I was referring to was around 60 C. It is very difficult to maintain aerobic conditions when the you have such a narrow margin between saturation and anaerobic conditions and you have a bacterial bloom happening.

I wanted to figure out what pressure I needed to maintain to have a sufficient margin of DO to maintain the bloom without going anaerobic.

There is a difference between knowing that there is an effect and knowing what I was interested in finding out.

And to bring this back on topic, it was google that enabled me to find that precise information.

nzmatt




msg:758981
 2:47 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK BD, Cool

rbacal




msg:758982
 3:29 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since I started this thread, I was going to try to bring it back to what I was trying to get across, but, the heck with it. I expected people to be able to see the larger implications of google search techn (and the other two), in terms of stifling web development, etc.

I shouldn't have bothered.

nzmatt




msg:758983
 4:31 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

What do you think I have been saying?

europeforvisitors




msg:758984
 4:43 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I expected people to be able to see the larger implications of google search techn (and the other two), in terms of stifling web development, etc.

If the Google search team can stifle the viruslike growth of get-rich-quick sites, more power to them.

steveb




msg:758985
 6:30 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google hasn't done anything to stifle web development. It sounds like you intend to though.

gomer




msg:758986
 6:36 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I feel for you rbacal.

Your post that started this thread was a fair one - but the preachers showed up. They couldn't/didn't try to see any bigger picture to what you were saying so they decided to just preach the usual lessons about business diversification and why Google doesn't owe you anything.

We should start a forum called "Business Diversification" and then the preachers could all go there and stay out of the Google forum.

bears5122




msg:758987
 6:54 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have been against many of Google's recent moves, and the fact they turned on those that made them popular, the webmaster. But I honestly don't find merit in your argument.

Everybody can't be #1, and it wouldn't be fair to users to have traffic distributed evenly to all 8 billion sites. The problem I see with your argument is that if they move you to the position you want, you are simply dropping down other people who have spent time developing sites. Is your site more important than their site?

What I'm saying is that there is only so much traffic to go around. If you aren't ranking, it just means someone else is.

As for basing your entire web development existence around another company? I'm not going to preach. If you build sites strictly for Google, and don't care about anything else, then maybe it is time to move on.

I'll tell you this though. The sites I frequent most don't appear anywhere in the rankings of Google. I'm sure if you look through your most traveled sites, many of them are non-existent in Google. If you have quality content, that people will want to read, people will come.

europeforvisitors




msg:758988
 3:35 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gomer wrote:

Your post that started this thread was a fair one - but the preachers showed up.

The preaching began with this thread's title, "Google antics moving me away from Internet business." Sounds like a sermon (and a rather heated one) to me. :-)

incrediBILL




msg:758989
 5:56 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have been against many of Google's recent moves, and the fact they turned on those that made them popular, the webmaster.

Has this thread been treated for paranoia yet?

If google turned on webmasters what would they be serving up as search resolts?

Excerpts from the Farmer's Alamanac?

rbacal




msg:758990
 8:34 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

My last post on this:

First, I DO NOT believe that google, or any search engine is very effective in determining "quality sites", (I don't need to go throught the dozen reasons, but there's a lot of subjectivity anyway).

Second, google and the other 2 search engines influence and effect billions of dollars of business and commerce.

Third, because of their effect on economies, it's important that these companies take on some ethical obligations regarding fairness (at some point government is going to look at this issue).

Fourth, I said earlier that ANY business requires some level of stability around it, political, economic, etc. Without stability, business simply move away from instability or don't open.

Fifth, Google is introducing incredible levels of instability into the Internet business system, I think probably for the best of intentions.

SIxth, I think that one possible solution is to realize that it's impossible to rank sites in any absolute meaningful way, and therefore this should be recognized, and a level of randomness be introduced so that the results for a particular search vary somewhat.

..and of course that new sites be added properly and promptly.

Finally, I have some old sites (very old) and some newer sites My new sites are MUCH better and much more valuable to those interested in the topic areas, better content, better nav, better everything.

My old sites site (on a large number of keywords) in the top four or five in searches (and for searches where the overture/adwords bids are running $15-20 per click.

DO they deserve to be there JUST because they are old? I'm not complaining, but what sense does this make for users?

What point is there in creating new sites, when older, and perhaps inferior sites will not only rank higher, but the newer sites won't even rank?

My worst designed sites rank best because they are old. And, because of the instability and lack of predictability of the search engines, I'm not making ONE iota of a major change for those sites, because I simply can't risk the chance that I will make changes that google won't like, and will end up tanked.

glitterball




msg:758991
 8:57 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

If these is one fair point contrary to what the 'diversify, google doesn't owe you a living' etc posts it is this:

To many Joe Surfers - read morons who type URL's into the search box, the internet is Google.
It's become a verb that they use on TV shows. They didn't look it up on the internet, they 'googled it'.

Google is dominating, the real question is whether it is a good thing that one company is so dominant in this market.

I have been making a living from my websites for about 6 years and there can surely be no question that it was a lot easier for 'Mom an Pops' to create successful online businesses then rather than now.

I also have a sneeking suspicion that many of the people who are defending Google's near-monopoly are the same people who slate Microsoft's near-monopoly at every opportunity.

At the moment Google still have the best SE by a long way, although that gap is narrowing. I can't see their dominance ending until someone comes up with a search technique that is as ground-breaking as Google's was when they started. But I have no doubt that their dominance will end, I think it was doomed from the day that their Search Engine started to influence their very means of measuring it, i.e. links.

Just my 2 cents.

BigDave




msg:758992
 9:15 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

First, I DO NOT believe that google, or any search engine is very effective in determining "quality sites", (I don't need to go throught the dozen reasons, but there's a lot of subjectivity anyway).

I don't believe that anyone working on serch engines believe that they are actually very good at determining quality. They are trying to determine appropriatness.

The goal is not to give the user the highest quality site. It is to give the user a site that at least meets the user's needs.

Second, google and the other 2 search engines influence and effect billions of dollars of business and commerce.

Yes they do. Pretty cool to be able to do that, don't you think?

Third, because of their effect on economies, it's important that these companies take on some ethical obligations regarding fairness (at some point government is going to look at this issue).

You mean things like marking their ads as ads *before* the government started requiring such distinctions? Indexing their competitor's sites? Not discriminating against a site just because of the owner's gender, race or creed?

Fourth, I said earlier that ANY business requires some level of stability around it, political, economic, etc. Without stability, business simply move away from instability or don't open.

Yes they do. Though there are many forms of instability that businesses must plan around. One of them is called The Holiday Season.

No business is owed stability. They may require it, but it is not owed to them. That is why the vast majority of businesses fail.

And many of the posts here were trying to point out how it is your responsibility to create your own stability, given your knowledge that the search engine part of the equation is unstable.

Fifth, Google is introducing incredible levels of instability into the Internet business system, I think probably for the best of intentions.

Try adding <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> to your files. It will make great strides in stabilizing your business.

SIxth, I think that one possible solution is to realize that it's impossible to rank sites in any absolute meaningful way, and therefore this should be recognized, and a level of randomness be introduced so that the results for a particular search vary somewhat.

Really? Why should they change what is working for them and for the users? If they start randomizing the results they will get all sorts of complaints.

Hell, I hate it when I go from page 3 in the SERPs to page 4 and I switch datacenters, causing me to see pages that were already listed for me on previous SERPs.

I'm not making ONE iota of a major change for those sites, because I simply can't risk the chance that I will make changes that google won't like, and will end up tanked.

It sure seems to me like that is your decision. If you are so sure that your only problem on your new sites is the so called sandbox, then change your old sites.

It sure seems to me that you have a lot of choices available to you, but you prefer to suggest things for others to do.

Don't expect things to change in your favor. If it bothers you enough to give up, then give up and go off on your merry way. Either that or start up your own randomizing search engine.

Essex_boy




msg:758993
 9:22 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good post an interesting read.

Yes I find that Google has stiffled any future plans for ecommerce sites its way too unstable for me to apply the time and effort only to have these wrecked at the drop of a hat.

Im only interested in running my sites part time as a hobby so will not spend on PPC or any external advertising, ok some people say here thats too limited a focus and I need to spread my marketing effert around.

The only thing I ask is that Google settles on an alogor whotsit and stay relativly stable. Its not much is it?

BigDave




msg:758994
 9:33 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I also have a sneeking suspicion that many of the people who are defending Google's near-monopoly are the same people who slate Microsoft's near-monopoly at every opportunity.

There is a difference between the Google and Microsoft monopoly situations.

Free search is not in and of itself a "market" as defined by antitrust laws. Nor is being a monpoly even illegal. It is some actions taken from a monopoly position that are illegal.

Read 15 USC 1 to get a better idea of what you are talking about. It is also known as The Clayton Act.

There are many things that Google could to to be in violation of the Clayton Act. To the best of my knowledge, they have never even considered doing such things. MSN and Yahoo have done some of these things, but with their market share it just doesn't matter.

If you want to make any monopoly claims against them, forget the search side of the equation. You need to look at the trade side of the equation and understand the law.

walkman




msg:758995
 9:35 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the original poster was misunderstood and attacked for no reason, using general statements. He said he loves the internet and would like to work more but G's uncertainty makes it hard to do so. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Google doesn't owe anyone anything but the same site shouldn't be #1 today and #4512477 tomorrow. One would expect to be recognized for the hard work and not fall through the cracks. If that happens too many times, you either cheat by spamming with disposable sites or quit.

Even WebmasterWorld needs the search engines, and it needed them a lot more before they were popular.

BigDave




msg:758996
 9:43 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Im only interested in running my sites part time as a hobby so will not spend on PPC or any external advertising, ok some people say here thats too limited a focus and I need to spread my marketing effert around.

Then what does it matter if your site bounces around?

Even if they are hobby sites that make you a little money, just set yourself up so that you are never depending on that money.

That is what I am doing with my new site. Once the hosting fees and taxes are paid, everything else goes into investments, and it is only the dividends on those investments that I will depend on. It is another way of diversifying to avoid concerns about the stability of the SERPs.

If you are depending on income from those sites, then it is no longer a hobby. Stop telling yourself that it is and start doing something to improve your stability.

You can't control what the search engines do. You can only control what you do. If you want stability in your traffic, look for it in places other than the search engines. It does not only mean PPC. Much of the time it only requires time and involvement.

WebFusion




msg:758997
 9:56 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I expected people to be able to see the larger implications of google search techn (and the other two), in terms of stifling web development, etc.

Please explain. We were in google's snadbox for a year and we never stopped developing our site's content & tools. Are you suggesting that just because google wasn't listing our site we should have allowed it to stagnate?

I have been against many of Google's recent moves, and the fact they turned on those that made them popular, the webmaster

Gee...and I thought it was the 200+ million searches per day that made them popular...

First, I DO NOT believe that google, or any search engine is very effective in determining "quality sites", (I don't need to go throught the dozen reasons, but there's a lot of subjectivity anyway).

I agree. Any software based ranking solution that eschews human intervention completely is open to too much manipulation from outside factors. The fact that google still tries to deal with spam with a minimum of human scrutiny of sites reveals they still feel a algo-based solution is possible...I myself do not. Eventually, a "quality assurance" department consisting of several dozen actual humans WILL HAVE to be employed to start hand-reviewing spam reports on an individual basis.

Second, google and the other 2 search engines influence and effect billions of dollars of business and commerce.

Agreed. So does Walmart, the exchange rate of the dollar, etc. etc.

Third, because of their effect on economies, it's important that these companies take on some ethical obligations regarding fairness (at some point government is going to look at this issue).

You're dreaming. As long as there is no barrier to entry in the search field, government regulation WILL NEVER be a factor in how a search engine ranks sites. While google has certainly demonstrated the best EXECUTION in both their marketing of their search product, and their monetization of it, they ARE NOT a monopoly in a business sense -hence, no regulation encessary. Letting the marketing place decide is always the best solution, both for businesses and the consumer.

A good example of this is the current "crisis" in the airline industry. The government did very little good giving billions in loans to these companies, as their business models are proving too weak to compete even in a healthy market. The best thing (at this point) would be top let a few go out of business - allowing the strong to survive.

Fifth, Google is introducing incredible levels of instability into the Internet business system, I think probably for the best of intentions.

I agree that the serps can be (at times) unstable (although I haven't witnessed this in my sector in several years). However, since the product is google's the perceived instability can also be interpreted as a defense mechanism. There are some sites in our sector which have me scratching my head as to why they rank, while other sites (of equal or greater value than mine) rank lower. I personally think that's a good thing. Attempting to drive webmasters away from designing for the engines back to designing for the users cannot be perceived (IMHO) as a negative.

SIxth, I think that one possible solution is to realize that it's impossible to rank sites in any absolute meaningful way

We'ved talked that one to death, I'll just agree to disagree. I think the serps look better than they have in months.

What point is there in creating new sites, when older, and perhaps inferior sites will not only rank higher, but the newer sites won't even rank?

Again, I disagree. Our site, while it took a little over a year to rank, does in fact rank. As much as I would have welcomed the traffic, I applaud any engines efforts at cutting down on the "fly-by-night" affiliate/scraper/doorway sites that build sites for the sole purpose of sending that traffic somewhere else. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of "middle-man" sites clogging the serps of almost every engine, and would rather see sites that are destinations unto themselves, not merely a thinly-veiled doorway.

And, because of the instability and lack of predictability of the search engines, I'm not making ONE iota of a major change for those sites, because I simply can't risk the chance that I will make changes that google won't like, and will end up tanked.

I can certainly understand your unwillingness to risk the current good ranking you have...but why not do this instead.....

Follow some of the advice given at various thread in regards to diversification, and build a site from the ground up using an alternate marketing technique, i.e. one that seeks alternate traffic sources from day one?

To many Joe Surfers - read morons who type URL's into the search box, the internet is Google.
It's become a verb that they use on TV shows. They didn't look it up on the internet, they 'googled it'.

Google is dominating, the real question is whether it is a good thing that one company is so dominant in this market.

The funny thing, it's nothing new. There's been Yahoo, Altavista, Excite, among others. Alot of big players have come and gone, and I'm sure a "google killer" is just waiting in a lab somewhere. the question is, with those currently suffering spend their time chasing engines, or chasing their market?

I have been making a living from my websites for about 6 years and there can surely be no question that it was a lot easier for 'Mom an Pops' to create successful online businesses then rather than now.

I agree. However, the "wild wild west" effect of the "anything goes" types of marketing were a (IMHO) detriment to realistic long-term expectaions.

At the moment Google still have the best SE by a long way, although that gap is narrowing.

I agree...in fact, I've ben using Yahoo for quite a bit recently, and am pretty impressed with it's quality (although they still have a spam/mirror sites problem).

WebFusion




msg:758998
 10:13 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google doesn't owe anyone anything but the same site shouldn't be #1 today and #4512477 tomorrow.

There are plenty of reasons that could happen. Bad links out, lowering of the quality of links in, connectivity issues, hosting issues, or even simnply a change in the way they calculate the content of a site/page.

One would expect to be recognized for the hard work and not fall through the cracks.

I don't need to be "recognized" by the search engines for my hard work, I need to be recognized by my customers for it.

If that happens too many times, you either cheat by spamming with disposable sites or quit.

It's always amusing when I see statement like that. Our site didn't rank for a year, yet we were able to function without "cheating". Further, even in periods of rather severe fluctations in traffic, were able to maintain an accetable (i.e. profiable) level of traffic via alternate means (i.e. the plethora of marketing solutions already added to this and other threads). To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why so many (seemingly) refuse to acknowledge there is any other road to profiability betond free traffic. If free traffic great & wonderful? Of course! Is there any other way to gain huge amounts of traffic?

Look at google itself....

Do you think they gained their huge following via free search engine traffic? Of course not. They simply set out to build the most superior product in their sector, utilizing an alternate means (i.e. word of mouth) to develop mindshare.

Why can't you do the same? What is preventing you from uilding the absolute best site for your nich, getting the word out via other free means (press releases, freelance articles on your subject area, etc.) and devloping a similar (albeit much more focused) following that goes directly to your site as oppsoed to needing to "find it" through an intermediary?

glitterball




msg:758999
 10:26 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

BigDave,

First of all I never mentioned anything about anti-trust laws. I don't believe my description of something being a 'near-monopoly' was inaccurate.

Finally, I am not a US citizen nor do I live there so your particular local legislation isn't really relevant to the definition of a word which is part of a language which is not from your country.

So there! ;-)

[edited by: glitterball at 10:49 pm (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]

bears5122




msg:759000
 10:38 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Joe Smith decides he is going to open up a sports bar right next to the baseball stadium. The team is great, and they sell out every game during the season. Fans pour into his bar before and after every game. Business is booming and he his rolling in dough.

Fast forward 2 years later and the team is horrible. Attendance is the pits and business is really slow. He put a lot of time and effort into the sports bar while they were good, but not much now. His friends in the town over are making a killing as their team is winning.

Moral of the story is that when you base your business and income on another business that has no association with you, you are asking for situations like this.

glitterball




msg:759001
 10:48 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

bears5122,

That's a pretty ruthless point of view don't you think?
By the same token, you are saying 'tough luck' to every business that was hit by the Tsunami in Asia for basing their businesses near the beach.

By the same token you would be saying the same thing to anyone who happens to base their business in a city and that city was hit by a disaster or terrorist attack or whatever. If you put a shop on a busy city street, you have put it there because of the traffic passing by it - which is out of your control too.

Where's the compassion, man?

BigDave




msg:759002
 10:52 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

glitterball,

You are a citizen of the Roman Empire? Or are you from ancient Greece?

If you are talking about the English use of "monopoly", explain which definition from the OED would apply?

As for not living in the US and therefore 15USC1 is not relevant, you are sorely mistaken. We are discussing a US corporation. The only monopoly ruling that will have any great impact would be one in the United States.

But to the best of my knowledge, Google does not come anywhere near the definition of monopoly in any country's laws or even their dictionary definitions of monopoly.

europeforvisitors




msg:759003
 10:52 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

The goal is not to give the user the highest quality site. It is to give the user a site that at least meets the user's needs.

There's one other goal: To give the user a site that at least meets the user's needs within the context of the search engine's corporate mission.

Google's corporate mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." I don't see anything in there about helping Web businesses profit from Google's search results. :-) (If we make money from Google referrals, great, but it's a happy side effect for us--not Google's mission or moral obligation.)

The only thing I ask is that Google settles on an alogor whotsit and stay relativly stable. Its not much is it?

Unfortunately, that isn't practical, because a static target is a lot harder for spammers to hit than a moving target. And as spam techniques evolve, Google's algorithm must evolve to keep up.

As long as there is no barrier to entry in the search field, government regulation WILL NEVER be a factor in how a search engine ranks sites.

A federal court has already ruled that Google's ranking mechanisms are "opinions" and are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. The government might be able to regulate Google as a business, but it can't control its search results.

[edited by: europeforvisitors at 11:02 pm (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]

This 119 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 119 ( 1 2 [3] 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved