According to WebProNews he also said:
quoting "In response to an inquiry for advice about appearing more popular on Google, Schmidt told the magazine publishers, "We don't actually want you to be successful...the fundamental way to increase your rank is to increase your relevance.""
Interesting article in that it may show that Google ranks sites by branding as I have always surmised. Schmidt on the other hand fails to mention where this cesspool of bad sites originates from and why they should exist if there is no profit motive involved.
Quoting Schmidt :
|That said, magazines and other professional content creators are essential for Google's efforts to help people find desirable content, he explained. "We don't do content," he said. "You all create content. It's a natural partnership." |
It may be a fine partnership for Google but once magazines start giving away content their subscriptions likely drop dramatically. That said they are dependent on Google guaranteeing them rankings to exist and profit.
|On the subject of print, especially newspapers as we have known them, Mr. Schmidt was decidedly gloomy. "The evidence is not good," he said, guessing that the print business will eventually comprise a smaller piece of publishers' much larger online businesses. |
Won’t the same eventually happen to the magazines, as they become dependent on search engine rankings. Plus the rankings would likely have to be guaranteed if I was encouraging a magazine to go in Google’s direction.
Print will migrate to mobile.
Bah. The internet's no more of a cesspool than it was 10 years ago. And if it is, I know where I'd be pointing the finger as to much of the cause.
|The internet's no more of a cesspool than it was 10 years ago |
I completely agree. Schmidt's statement was either flippant or that of someone who is losing touch with the real net.
|Print will migrate to mobile. |
Mobile will migrate to telepathy.
|Mobile will migrate to telepathy. |
Then personal freedom will cease to exist. I can't wait!
Google has become about sending visitors to people who have the money to brand. An individual who writes content without branding used to have a friend in Google and now has an enemy. Branding makes it easier for GOOGLE to FIND THEM. More importantly, by focusing on outlets with money, they can also monetize their own services more easily.
But that doesn't mean branded content is of higher quality than independent content without the funds to brand.
Without passing judgment on Schmidt's comments, what he's commenting about is a big problem. IMHO.
The net makes getting information a snap. But getting trustworthy, reliable information is a misery.
The net's founder, Tim Berners-Lee has been on the warpath about this issue lately, too.
It's now possible for anyone to lie and rumor-monger on a global scale that was, only a few years ago, available only to a handful of mass-media companies that, at least, were answerable to stockholders, the public, and relevant government agencies. Today, you can lie to the whole world without any significant investment whatsoever.
What to do? Damned if I know.
They don't seem answerable at all. At least if everyone can lie, it's closer to a real democracy. Let the small fish lie a bit. The small fish lie smaller. The big fish lie big while eating the small fish.
It should be everyone's God Given right to lie ;)
|Today, you can lie to the whole world without any significant investment whatsoever. |
Today you can also tell the whole world the truth with no investment. Truth being relative you can't do away with one and keep the other.
Isn't most of the cesspool that's out there actually monetised by Google Adsense? Seems a rather hypocritical comment to me really.