homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.72.82.126
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
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 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 ( [1] 2 > >     
Hating Google for Success
"Big Search" is now responsible for your life's problems
PhotoStory




msg:731406
 8:58 pm on Nov 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why do you think people have such a problem with the success of companies? From Wal-Mart to Microsoft, it seems that being successful is enough to bring about hatred from naysayers.

I happen to like the integration that Microsoft has brought me. I can copy an Excel spreadsheet and paste it into Word or Outlook. It just works, and works well.

I happen to like that Adobe Photoshop can read my Illustrator files, edit them as a bitmap, and paste into Premiere.

I even like that WalMart brings me extremely low prices when mom-and-pops can't, and gives many, many more people jobs than mom-and-pops ever would dream to be able to do.

We tend to love to hate the rich and the successful. Why? The rich are the investors in small and medium (and large) businesses. I never got a job from a poor person.

So when Google becomes dominant in search and adverising and everything else "net" -- I admire them. I only wish I had bought at $135.

Google will continue to get better. More and more of its products will bring webmasters and advertisers - and visitors - together. I may switch to msn or yahoo because they fulfill my needs better, but I will NOT do it simply because Google is "too successful."

 

Brett_Tabke




msg:731407
 4:51 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Because people are threatened by anyone larger than they are. The natural reaction is fear. The natural out growth of that is verbal attack while they can.

jk3210




msg:731408
 5:16 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

That sort of attack serves a very valuable purpose. It allows us to subconsciously rationalize the gap between the success of others and the failure of ourselves. Otherwise we'd have to accept the crazy notion that we are all responsible for our own success or failure in life.

Who wants to do that? ;)

Atticus




msg:731409
 5:53 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anybody catch John Ralston Saul on C-SPAN this week?

He says that virtual monopolies such as Wal-mart are anti-competitive.

This is not a new idea and is central to the economic and political growth of the good ole USA. That's why Teddy Roosevelt -- a conservative Republican, acted the part of "Trust Buster."

On a related note, Thomas Jefferson said that the Estate Tax (now disingenuously refered to as the Death Tax), which stops individual families (such as the Waltons) from amassing fortunes over the course of generations, is the single most important mechanism in ensuring the continuation of democracy.

It's a simple fact that the rich get richer and that it takes money to make money. Only by limiting the exponential growth of individuals or corporations who amass wealth by means both foul and fair, can the rest of us compete in the marketplace.

And the only way that product quality and low, low prices can be sustained in by competition.

Patrick Taylor




msg:731410
 6:09 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the issue for Google is that it is too dominant for its own good. There aren't too many markets that affect so many people worldwide, and Google certainly dominates search.

People who believe they have lost out because of Google feel they have nowhere else to go, and resentment sets in. I look forward to the day when Google is still big, but has diversified, and when there are a few equal players in the search field.

walkman




msg:731411
 6:24 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

to add to what Brett said: people are also fearful of changes. Status quo is good for most.
Do you think GM or Walmart like the fact that they might have to change their business model (at a great expense) just because Google does x or y?

WebFusion




msg:731412
 8:05 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I even like that WalMart brings me extremely low prices when mom-and-pops can't, and gives many, many more people jobs than mom-and-pops ever would dream to be able to do.

I think you'll find (if you do a bit of research) that Walmart has cost thousands upon thousands more jobs than it has created.

From FastCompany:

"The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas."

So....if you think walmart has actually helped the U.S. Job market, you are sorely mistaken.

chopin2256




msg:731413
 8:21 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

We tend to love to hate the rich and the successful. Why?

Jealousy is the number one reason. Alot of people think that if a company is successful and makes that much money, they must be doing something illegal. People were very jealous over John D. Rockefeller's monopoly over the oil business. Why though? He was doing everything legal at the time. It was very legal to own a monopoloy in the 1900's. Yet, people were jealous over his success, because he made SO much money. How many conspiracy theories are there about Google? Google became a billionaire company in less than 10 years. Of course there will be some jealousy.

I happen to like the integration that Microsoft has brought me. I can copy an Excel spreadsheet and paste it into Word or Outlook. It just works, and works well.

Other operating systems have this integration though, and they have much higher quality software. Microsoft is a monopoly and people are too stubborn to change. I think Linux will become more popular as time goes on, as it is way better than Windows, no doubt, and Linux/Unix is figuring out ways to be compatible with MS Windows programs nowadays. Also, if Linux had a bigger marketshare, I am sure they would create a more user friendly interface. The point is, other guys can do it better than Microsoft, it just is that Microsoft was smarter at marketing.

outland88




msg:731414
 8:23 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Seems like a thread started by a Google employee. I'm beginning to wonder how many of their employees have infiltrated popular forums to keep that golden goose rolling.

>I never got a job from a poor person.<

And most people never got a job from a rich man or multi-national company either. 85% of the world is employed by small business.

Tapolyai




msg:731415
 8:40 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Because people are threatened by anyone larger than they are. The natural reaction is fear. The natural out growth of that is verbal attack while they can.

I think this is only a tiny piece of the puzzle, Brett.

There are several other large and dominant companies in various other industries, yet you hear no, or just a few outcries.

I think one of the problem is the "dominating" vs "dominant" part, and the loss of control within a large conglamorate.

In the case of Google, people have problem being forced to do something. However anyone would like to twist it, or word it correctly, Google is dominating the industry, and it is moving into other industries. It is not enough to have a motto that suggest a protective attitude, one must live it too.

Wal-Mart, lost control of it's own ethics and self-control. This is why I believe people are "revolting" against them.

Microsoft is doing both. It has become the dominant and dominating player in her industry, and has lost the ethics and self-control.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a monopoly, and in some cases it is beneficial to the customer.

The major problem comes in when the monopoly, or the dominant player forgets to implement checks and balances for unwanted dominance, ethics and self-control.

I am sure there are some petty, and shallow individuals with envy and jealousy. But it would be a grave mistake to underestime the issue, suggesting that most of these individuals are just jealous.

[edited by: Tapolyai at 8:44 pm (utc) on Nov. 26, 2005]

chopin2256




msg:731416
 8:43 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

85% of the world is employed by small business.

Isn't it something like 15% of the companies in the US account for our economy?

But nowadays, even big businesses are having a hard time. They aren't hiring nearly as much as they did 10 years ago. And it is the new "prestigious" businesses that "create" new jobs after all.

larryhatch




msg:731417
 8:51 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

My last dentist was a very good, kind and honest Chinese gentleman.
He blamed my dental woes on my age, now passing 60 years.

I argued for other causes, but Dr. Chang (phony name() was insistent.

"You get OLD!" said the dentist. " YOU ALSO GET OLD" said I.

"Yeah" said dentist, "Now I retire. Good bye. Please go away" said dentist.

I checked with the bleached-blonde receptionist. He wanted her to go away too. - Larry

Atticus




msg:731418
 9:06 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

One can speculate that some folks "hate" Google and Wal-Mart because they are fearful and jealous.

Perhaps it would be more interesting to speculate why some other people suck up to political or economic monopolies when the bulk of emipirical data shows that such entities undermine rather than reinforce our political and economic freedoms.

In other words, why do Wal-Mart lovers hate America? Do they display a grim sense of superiority over the clerks earning poverty level wages and do they get a jolly laugh at the homeless beggars they pass by on their way home with a car full of goodies produced by exploited Asian children?

Then again, perhaps that would be going overboard in the same way that the OP did, when he framed his "question" in such labor-unfriendly terms.

Some folks have looked at all the available data, both empirical and anecdotal, and have found that virtual monoploies such as Wal-Mart and Microsoft undermine competition and fair trade. I count myself among them and am happy to stand beside Mr. Jefferson and Mr. T. Roosevelt in support of competition, fair trade and a respectable standard of living for both management and labor.

keno




msg:731419
 9:23 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Why do you think people have such a problem with the success of companies? From Wal-Mart to Microsoft, it seems that being successful is enough to bring about hatred from naysayers.

lol - You could write a book (or a website?) on that.

I believe I don't know anyone who has a problem with corporate success, but they have a problem with corporate abuse and corruption. As we are mentioning corporate names, Haliburton is a great example.

"...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Historian Lord Acton (1834-1902)
[libertystory.net...]

>> Hatred from the naysayers - so you mean it's like being unpatriotic?

Fear? If every one were so afraid of the big guy there would be no competition, no revolution, no democracy.

The current threat to democracy is large corporations - you want fries with that?

If you are reading this, it means your mind is free of the propaganda machine - keep on reading :-)

outland88




msg:731420
 9:57 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Isn't it something like 15% of the companies in the US account for our economy?<

Small business actually accounts for most employment and the brunt of the economy in the US.

awall19




msg:731421
 12:06 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Perhaps it would be more interesting to speculate why some other people suck up to political or economic monopolies when the bulk of emipirical data shows that such entities undermine rather than reinforce our political and economic freedoms.

In other words, why do Wal-Mart lovers hate America? Do they display a grim sense of superiority over the clerks earning poverty level wages and do they get a jolly laugh at the homeless beggars they pass by on their way home with a car full of goodies produced by exploited Asian children?


I think society teaches us to be selfish. To feel that we deserve whatever good deals we get and that those doing worse just didn't try hard enough.

The main reason people vote against their own best interests is that they vote with their emotions. The people with lots of cash spend lots of it to ensure they can spin an emotional message. The people fighting that with logic lose because people are not entirely logical. George Lakeoff wrote a good short book about this called Don't Think of an Elephant.

Did you watch the Wal Mart Movie?

2by4




msg:731422
 12:29 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Perhaps it would be more interesting to speculate why some other people suck up to political or economic monopolies when the bulk of emipirical data shows that such entities undermine rather than reinforce our political and economic freedoms.

atticus, amazing, I ask myself the same question almost every time one of these threads come up, but you actually put it into very clear words. Just why is that attracts some people to these large entities? I've never been able to figure it out. Too much tv probably doesn't help, too many commercials watched over a lifetime. Could be lots of other reasons though, or just plain old greed, wanting to be able to do the same thing yourself, that's common I suspect. One thing's for sure though, the people who claim that these entities produce more and better jobs have never done any empirical research to support these claims, for obvious reasons, you can't make the claims if you have.

They've also obviously never applied for a job at walmart or whatever and then tried to pay the bills. Or at the assembly plants that walmart squeezes every last penny of profit out of.

Anyway, you'll never change how people think about this stuff, you're either sort of aware of the costs of getting cheap stuff or you're not.

"I think society teaches us to be selfish"

Some do, some don't. If you think being selfish is very normal, then your's does. If you think it's odd and sort of antisocial, your's doesn't.

re the idea that there is some kind of resentment behind this dislike, maybe sometimes, but sometimes it's just pure disgust that a reasonably sized company used illegal methods, and abused monopoly position, to get further advantage. This type of behavior has nothing to do with commercial success and hard work and almost everything to do with abuse and lack of business ethics, MS is a classic example. Pretending that MS's success for example is not directly do to their mafia style blackmailing and extortion from oems etc, to outright theft of code from smaller developers, shows a complete lack of knowledge about this company.

Anytime a company gets so big that it controls the market there is a serious problem, and antitrust stuff is supposed to kick in to open competition back up, but with high tech stuff etc that hasn't happened due to speed of development, industry is always ahead of watchdogs.

Anyway, no point, no one will change their minds from reading a thread, and few will take the time to read the real history of most of this stuff, or dig up the real numbers, so it's back to get ideas from tv and leave it at that, for those most.

Leosghost




msg:731423
 12:50 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would imagine that the OP also likes the concept of absolute monarchy ..and how one ( as non royal ) can play choose the "cutest princess" ..

Who will then choose wether "serf" or "slave" dies of starvation ..or not ..

Based upon a whim ..

Or because they can ..

The telling part is ..

I never got a job from a poor person

Which lets us know that in his opinion the height of ambition is to be employed by another ...and others are judged by their ability to allow you the means to provide via a salary ( to be paid at what ever level "they" ( the big guys ) determine ) food and shelter etc for yourself ..

or again starve ..if they dont pay you ..

This ( the first post ) is not an assesment of economic models ..just a statement of economic masochism ..

Stefan




msg:731424
 1:31 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Seems like a thread started by a Google employee. I'm beginning to wonder how many of their employees have infiltrated popular forums to keep that golden goose rolling.

Maybe not a Google employee, but obviously someone with an agenda.

[edited by: tedster at 4:51 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2005]

Alex_Miles




msg:731425
 2:54 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices.

Exactly. Walmart shows scant regard for anything and everyone except the almightly dollar. And if you've never seen the face of an Indian lady on 10c an hour when she finds out how much the clothes she made sell for, I recommend you do so.

As for Micro$oft, I have one word - 'SCO'.

These companies don't get where they are by respecting human rights and the rule of law except as far as law can be deniably bent and evaded to suit their purposes.

I haven't seen a Google suicide yet that I know of, but with its complete and utter disregard for the effects of its actions on other people, this can't be far off despite the best efforts of Google schills to clean up the evidence.

In fact the sudden flurry of Schill activity makes me wonder if it hasn't happened already.

LisaWeber




msg:731426
 3:07 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I learned in World History 101 that this is what we humans have done since the beginning of civilization. Those who are not part of the power-circle band together and try to tear it apart. We (well, not me, I love Google) gang up on the most powerful.

Alex_Miles




msg:731427
 3:21 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Mostly, in self defence.

Atticus




msg:731428
 3:28 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

awall19,

You sound like a libertarian. I'll have to admit that, at heart, I am a libertarian. Nevertheless, as an occupant of a planet with six billion other humans, some sort of fair trade/socialist system seems to be the most rational course in politics and economics.

I would say that American society currently preaches unselfishness to congregations and kindergradens but teach selfishness in very concrete terms in daily life and vividly replicates and amplifies those teachings via the media. But we should be mature enough to weigh the facts and make decisions for ourselves.

Don't be so quick to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. What seems to be in our best interest today is often detrimental to our longterm health and wealth. I believe in an economy which is based on fair trade -- an economy that rewards labor as well as capital, not out of some misplaced sense of charity, but because the working class is also the buying class.

Recently Wal-Mart made some statement suggesting that the minimum wage should be raised. Think about that. Seems that the lower class folks who make up the bulk of Wal-Mart sales just don't have much spending money these days. Wal-Mart needs them to make more money so that they can come spend it a Wal-Mart, but not so much that they will prefer more upscale wares, or worse yet, seek a more rounded education which might ultimately lead to a rejection of the Wal-Mart lifestyle entirely.

2by4,

One thread will not change the mind of anyone who already holds a strong opinion on this subject or has an existing connection to social or political groups which would obligate a specific stance be taken in this matter.

But it seems that in social or political considerations groups often break out in thirds. We can use the current shorthand of "Left, Midddle and Right" to describe what is really a breakdown that one can see repeated in many different places at many different times.

The Left and the Right know where they stand on just about any subject by sheer instinct, but the middle third remains swayable, either by argument or by convincing them that your side is the one that's bound to "win," so why not be on the winning side.

Therefore any post may be considered to be worthile and may, in fact, be the tipping point for some reader somewhere.

So post away.

King of all Sales




msg:731429
 4:35 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

There's a saying in reference to corporate cultures - "Sh** flows downhill." It means that if things are rotten at the top, the rotteness can't help but pervade the entire organization all the way to the bottom.

Contrary to what many of you are saying, Walmart is successful because they treat their employees better than the average for that level of employment. Happy employees = happy customers.

A free market economy is the great leveler. Nasty hijinx at the top always spells disaster eventually for a company. Google may or may not be directed by unethical motivations ( I think they are not), but if they are, the public will eventual catch on and leave them.

The fact that there is a lot more competition in search than just two years ago and that it is sure to increase is all good if your goal is to get more exposure on the web.

Atticus




msg:731430
 4:52 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

King baby,

Do a little research on Wal-Mart and you'll see that they pay and treat their employess worse than most comperable businesses do. Costco, for example, pays several more dollars per hour to their employees than Wal-Mart does. In fact, Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart said:

"I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment."

Did you know that some Wal-Mart personnel departments actually include information on signing up for food stamps and public assistance in employee packs? Do you like paying higher taxes to subsidize Wal-Mart's low, low wages? I don't.

Must say however, that I for one will not put Google in the same class as Wal-Mart (yet). Google's feet of clay have resulted from an entirely different set of circumstances.

texasville




msg:731431
 7:00 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>I even like that WalMart brings me extremely low prices when mom-and-pops can't, and gives many, many more people jobs than mom-and-pops ever would dream to be able to do. <<<

I didn't even read this whole thread to see if any one took exception to this statement. It just pi**ed me off to read it.
Wal-mart is the most sleazy outfit to come down the turnpike in American history. They work people to death for very low wages. SO many people work for that company for sub-standard wages and no benefits. They have to subsidize their income with government assistance. They can't even take a bathroom break when they need to.
It is pathetic that we have the largest retailer in this country dictating what goods we can receive because of wal-mart pricing. They single handedly have crushed many companies that will not adjust to a losing pricing structure. I can't even go into all the BS that wal-mart has done. I loathe that place.
When you have people working there and drawing government assistance because they can't make a living wage....just enough hours to only be part time but not enough left over to work a second job...it's sick. It is NOT welfare on the employees part but it is CORPORATE WELFARE! And too many companies are folllowing in wal-mart's footsteps.
Please do NOT put google and microsoft in the same category as sleaze-mart.

Beachboy




msg:731432
 9:44 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Where Wal-Mart is concerned, if you don't like the way they operate, don't shop there. Encourage others you know to avoid the place. For what it's worth, I don't shop there.

Jakpot




msg:731433
 12:54 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Someday Google will be sued for unfair trade practices.

As a public company Google will also be investigated by the FTC and the congress.
The internet is a free market system and Google has restricted participation by favoring
certain types of web sites and shunting others to their graveyard.

A huge number of honest webmasters and the general public are being shafted by Google's restrictive trade practices.
All the webmasters who have been knowingly shafted by Google since November 2003 would fill up several Superdomes.

Brett_Tabke




msg:731434
 1:43 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

> someone with an agenda.

Regardless, it is an issue that will apply to your own site and there is a great deal to be learned and studied here. If your site enjoys even a medium of success, you can face many of the same issues that G and Walmart face too. Many of the same people that enjoy bashing the big boys, will some day soon, be the big boys themselves.

Rollo




msg:731435
 2:38 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why do you think people have such a problem with the success of companies?

I don't think people have a problem sucessful companies for their sucess, I think they have a problem when they feel that the company becomes so powerful that it becomes unaccountable. Big is often bad because it tends toward monopoly capitalism which leads to less innovation and higher prices over the long run if nothing is done. That's why there are anti-trust laws. Market competetion must be perserved.

Right now Google is fairly innocuous, but it might not always be that way. On another note, as a webmater I can understand when why somone could hate Google, a great many people here have devoted their LIVES to making high-quaility websites, a small change in the Google algo can cause them to dissapear. Google doesn't seem especially concerned with legitimate sites disapperaing making them seem almost... unaccountable.

This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 ( [1] 2 > >
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.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved