| 2:57 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|...the stock will be more likely to fall rather than rise after the deal. |
Anyone else waiting to buy AFTER the fall? Buy low, sell high!
|Separately Wednesday, Google found itself facing a trademark complaint by the owners of a children's Web site called Googles.com. |
I wish people wouldn't give this kind of thing the time of day! I just can't see Google being truly hurt by this. And the timing is awfully suspicious.
| 3:21 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|And the timing is awfully suspicious. |
I am not a lawyer or stock broker, but isn't it in the best interests of the plaintiff for the defendant to be financially successful doing business so they get more when they sue? (if they win)
| 3:28 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Google Considers SEO to be a Top Threat |
A bit OTT, don't you think.
The article says "spammers" are a threat, not SEO.
As I recall Matt Cutts said at PubCon 6.0 that Google likes (ethical) SEO; it makes their results "better".
| 3:40 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
but a "spammer" in search-engine-speakese is SEO.
| 3:43 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Search is such an odd industry.
Every site in a search engine's index would like to place high in the SERPS. Many sites' financial viability depend on receiving search engine traffic. So virtually every site has an incentive to optimize to some extent.
The Search Engine with the biggest market share and the most traffic to distribute will attract the most attention from optimizers, causing the industry leader to be most susceptible to the manipulation / deterioration of 'organic' search results.
Eventually, it would follow that manipulated SERPS will lead to loss of market share (with some lag before users figure out that that better options exist).
When the market share shifts, the primary focus of optimizers will shift to the new leader.
The only way for SEs to protect their organic search results is to throw more resources at the issue - people, software, etc, which will eat into their margins.
No matter how many resources are thrown at trying to prevent manipulation, there is no way a single company can defend itself from the optimization efforts of the bulk of the SEO community.
So it's almost like the Search industry has a built in equalizer. There will always be the opportunity for new players, operating under the SEO radar, to make a splash, and there will always be natural economic forces giving an advantage to the 2,3,4, etc. players.
This seems to me to be a fantastic phenemonon for the consumer, who will benefit from the competition, and a bummer for would be investors, as a long term 800 lb gorilla would seem unlikely in this particular industry.
To make the comparison to the Browser industry, it is not surprising that the dominant browser is attracting the majority of attention from hackers and viruses. And the incentive for a virus creator pales next to that of the incentive for an SEO.
| 3:44 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't understand how UCE can ruin Googles results.
| 3:53 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wish Google shared your "there is no spam" theory JC. Despite my automated e-mails they STILL won't refer to it as "chaffe" ;)
| 4:17 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nice post lorenzinho2.
| 6:50 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Eventually, it would follow that manipulated SERPS will lead to loss of market share (with some lag before users figure out that that better options exist). |
Only if the manipulation leads the users to disenfranchisement by misdirection. If the manipulation guides the user to viable information or products that satisfy, the SE gains.
Once again, its the color of the hat that helps or destroys.
Personally, I take a bit of offense at being automatically labeled as a "spammer" but c'est la vie...
Google should be paying me for my help, but I work for their competition too! :) :)
| 7:02 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The only reason SEO is a viable thing is that very few know what it is and even fewer know how to do it. Google is right if SEO really caught on like flash developing they would have some problems. It would be hard for G to index with everybody gunning for them. It's already heading that way. Very recently I have noticed a lot of junk sites taking up the results. I was looking for some coding help the other day and everything I typed in brought up a bunch of spam sites. They were going after a keyword and had no other redeeming value. It just had ads. There is a group of people out there putting together every possible phrase typed in G and making a spam page for it. The will be everywhere at some point. I have to tell you I think G has to take some of the blame. AdSense has played a big part in these types of sites.
Cleaning up SE results is like keeping a city bus on the bad side of town free of graffiti.
| 8:49 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|AdSense has played a big part in these types of sites. |
AGREED in spades...
I get really angry when I am misdirected to a spammy directory style page that has Adsense in the middle, where I can click on something CLOSER to my search, or in some cases - search again. The fact that someone is being paid to misdirect me really ticks me off.
Of course, without pointing the finger at Google, they have a disincentive to root these!@#$% out.
Hey GoogleGuy - how about a bounty paid to folks ratting on spammers who make you look bad? :) :) Might just save you time and money, and USERS!
| 9:15 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think we're making a big deal out of the obvious.
Of course people who try to SEO their site to be #1 are the "enemy"....by definition. Also, they have to present EVERY risk by law so potential investors know. Otherwise, they're begging to be sued by securities lawyers once they go public and if they lose market share.
| 9:18 pm on Jul 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|There is a group of people out there putting together every possible phrase typed in G and making a spam page for it. |
I think I saw one of these lists of keywords selling on Ebay the other day...
| 12:59 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>The article says "spammers" are a threat, not SEO.
Most or all "spammers" call themselve SEO.
| 1:50 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Being a so called "spammer" now for 7 years here's the truth about SEO.
If SEO didn't exist, most high quality sites wouldn't exist either.
Google couldn't even begin to deliver any reasonal results if all they have to work with was what most web developer put out there.
Every search engine that has gone by the wayside has started their own demise by attempting to end SEO.
I shutter to think what Google's SERPS would look like if no one's site was optimized.
Google frowns on SEO for only one real reason - every website that is well placed has no need to spend money with the Big G.
And finally - if you know the Google corner-stone, Google is by far the easiest search engine to optimize for.
| 3:03 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>I shutter to think what Google's SERPS would look like if no one's site was optimized.
I would like to see it. I am sure Google would like it too otherwise why are they "Google Considers SEO to be a Top Threat"
| 3:33 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'd like to say, Google will not survival and growth without SEO, and SEO rely on Google as well. The relationship between Google/Other SEs and SEO is same as the one screw and screw cap.
| 3:39 am on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I shutter to think what Google's SERPS would look like if everyones site was optimized
| 10:10 pm on Jul 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think it should be obvious that "pure search" is waning. Many users will start to move to "editorial indexes" when companies start to offer well vetted databases of results.
Old-school search like Google's won't die, but it certainly will not retain dominance.