homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.220.79
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

This 188 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 188 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 > >     
Google shares are plunging today
indyank




msg:4509457
 4:53 pm on Oct 18, 2012 (gmt 0)

Google shares are plunging today

[businessinsider.com...]

 

bsand715




msg:4510781
 12:45 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Yes they should. "Banjaxifcations" Has to be important - Google could could not find the term :)

jmccormac




msg:4510785
 1:03 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Proof that Google is banjaxed. :)

Regards...jmcc

ohno




msg:4510793
 1:09 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Yet Bing finds it fine. Excellent stuff :)

TypicalSurfer




msg:4510798
 1:20 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

The irony is that they demanded trust from us while becoming less trustworthy themselves.


bingo.

Matt Cutts plays the webmaster community with all his talk of trust signals, egregious SEO, dodgy link schemes, etc. when the fact is he is simply running interference for the executive suite who is clearly focused on driving commercial queries to monetized destinations at the expense of organic listings. His pontifications in regards to "quality" are wholly dishonest. You now have webmasters playing with the most recent distraction, a "link disavow" tool, how pathetic that webmasters are so easily conned.

helleborine




msg:4510814
 1:53 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Oops, wrong thread.

Naj0rt




msg:4510824
 2:07 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

I couldn't stop but to think "ho...the scum" while shifting through the piles of junk they served in response to my query.


Yeah we've all seen it. I just did a search for "Eve Nicholson" and imdb was buried in position 14. If imdb cant rank above xhamster, tube8, nudevista etc something is wrong.

Then theres the lack of domain diversity. Look at results for "Teodulo Cabrera Reyes" 7 of the top 10 are low quality starnostar results. 70% of the top ten are what I consider a spam site.

So would the solution for Google be to fire those who came up with the plethora of banjaxifcations and revert to a pre-May Day/pre Animal Farm indexing strategy and search structure?


I say yes on both counts but they can't do either. They can't fire all those carefully selected highly paid staff because where would it stop? If some of the most senior staff were poorly selected what does it say for the rest of the staff? It would be a disaster.

They can't roll back the changes because the same highly paid staff get paid to praise how good google search now is. It's wonderful they say, just look how good the results for "tom hanks movies".. search is awesome now and it fits perfectly with our revenue model. Sheesh.

In a nutshell googles anti spam efforts have made search worse, not better. But that's just my uneducated opinion and google has hundreds of highly paid engineers to prove me wrong.

nickreynolds




msg:4510830
 2:24 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

I think we need to wait a little longer to determine whether Google is in a long term decline as far as share price is concerned. Although shares have dropped, my reading of the share prices (courtesy of Yahoo Finance!) is that the share price is exactly the same as it was two months ago.

TypicalSurfer




msg:4510835
 2:33 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

@Naj0rt

Do you think that the engineer employees are making the decisions or would you consider standard business principles where the employees execute the will of management? I doubt if the engineers are running around like renegades thumbing their noses at management, that would be a bit of a stretch.

helleborine




msg:4510840
 2:50 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Ridiculous Pinterest pages are clogging up the SERPs, lately.

But looking at the big picture... computing is changing.

Keyboards are slowly disappearing. Desktops are dinosaurs. Growth in using computers as tools to build and create is stalling. More and more, we're using handheld devices to consume. We're looking for the nearest pizza place. We're sending short, trivial, but immediate, ephemeral messages to each other. That's what computers have become. Nail-salon homing devices and meetup coordinators.

We once needed search engines to locate encyclopedic knowledge. That was Google's golden age.

bsand715




msg:4510850
 3:10 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

This is starting to sound like the late 90s and early 00s when the talk on WebmasterWorld started leaning toward Google and away from Altavista, yahoo and the rest.

IMO WebmasterWorld and its webmaster members helped build Google. Its time to let go of google as their path is headed in a different direction.

They have throw us under the bus. Start promoting Bing, Yahoo or ?SE? as we did google in their early years.

Some SE will fill the void google is creating' unless they change. I believe this community with its members and new ownership can play a big part lifting up a SE to do that. I don't believe SEO or Organic Search is ready to dye.

It just seems we're running circles trying to please G and they just keep changing the rules.

.

Naj0rt




msg:4510851
 3:12 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

@TypicalSurfer

I'm not trying to suggest engineers are thumbing their nose at management at all... the opposite if anything [edit-they are just doing what they were asked to do]. Sorry I don't always explain myself clearly. And I've never worked at google so I'm just guessing based on my experience of how the corporate world works. I guess what I'm trying to say is that once these balls get rolling they can become unstoppable. It's a snowball effect that can be seen more clearly in law and politics but obv thats way off topic.

helleborine




msg:4510869
 3:40 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

No other search engine has been as good to publishers has Google has.

There is no equivalent to the AdSense network. I think Yahoo tried something, but only for US-based webmasters. I'm not sure if they're still doing it.

I still have to hope that Google pulls through.

bsand715




msg:4510881
 4:19 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

"No other search engine has been as good to publishers has Google has. I still have to hope that Google pulls through."
I agree thus far.

bsand715




msg:4510884
 4:36 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

Trouble At Google by Ed Liston [seekingalpha.com...]

backdraft7




msg:4510996
 8:36 pm on Oct 22, 2012 (gmt 0)

@bsand - here's the correct article URL: [seekingalpha.com...]


@helle -
Keyboards are slowly disappearing. Desktops are dinosaurs. Growth in using computers as tools to build and create is stalling. More and more, we're using handheld devices to consume. We're looking for the nearest pizza place. We're sending short, trivial, but immediate, ephemeral messages to each other. That's what computers have become. Nail-salon homing devices and meetup coordinators.

You got THAT right!

xcoder




msg:4511058
 12:27 am on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

No other search engine has been as good to publishers has Google has.


No other search engine has stubbed so many publishers in the back too...

Hard to remain optimistic after seeing all the crap they've been doing in the last 2 years and continue to do but in a much more accelerated manner now.

jskrewson




msg:4511061
 12:53 am on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

...after seeing all the crap they've been doing in the last 2 years and continue to do but in a much more accelerated manner now

I was telling my wife this the other day. Its as if the big G knows its days of unregulated action are numbered and it is trying to do as much damage as it can, while it can.

Kenneth2




msg:4511072
 1:59 am on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

What comes around goes around. They wanted a quick financial gain by killing the livelihood of the little guys, and now the little guys (who also employs more little guys) can no longer spend like they used to be or cannot spend at all. Given enough time, the damaging domino effect would eventually reach Google.

Someone sends Mr Eric a copy of Monopoly game.
[pbs.org...]

Panthro




msg:4511078
 2:27 am on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Thanks for that article backdraft, twas a good one!

Green_Grass




msg:4511158
 7:28 am on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I just read through this thread.. So much Google hate ? This is alarming in itself. Goes to show how much they have lost in goodwill. This will cetainly translate into further stock slide.

superclown2




msg:4511279
 12:57 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Love that Earnings Call. When did Larry Page morph into Stephen Hawking? :-)



He sounded dreadful and there has been a lot of speculation about his health for months now. The guy must be under a lot of pressure with legal cases falling on Google like confetti, imminent possible government action to curb alleged abuses, moves in some countries to oblige the company to pay for content, privacy battles, the first profits fall (with a very worrying drop in average price per click) and and no doubt a whole host of other wierd and wonderful issues we couldn't even imagine.

Plus the resentment of so many people who would just love to see the company brought to it's knees, and who would jump at the chance of helping it on it's way if they could.

Google may well weather these storms eventually but in the medium term the future doesn't look rosy. A lot of investors must be wondering if they should take their profits now or risk losing the lot. I bet the shares will be on a rollercoater for some time now with a huge drop if/when the FTC announce they are proceeding against the company. How will all this affect us, I wonder ....

heisje




msg:4511284
 1:34 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

.

150 posts in this thread, and not a single tear . . . . .

.

helleborine




msg:4511321
 3:04 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

;_;

My tears don't count?

Google has been really good to me, we go back 10 years. Google almost left me once, but I reminded him of the purity of my love, and he came back running.

My success is tied to Google's success, to a significant extent.

ohno




msg:4511322
 3:11 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Your success is only tied to their success because they are so dominant. Personally I'd rather not rely on the fortunes of one company. If their downfall means others get a look in then bring it on.(Bing it on:))

diberry




msg:4511330
 3:46 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

This didn't happen because of any one or two recent events. This happened because this is what always happens.

Google got in on the ground floor of two evolving industries - search and online ads. Part of their success was due to their innovation, for sure. But there was also a dire lack of competition, and the fact that advertisers had nothing to measure them against. Could another ad broker outperform Adsense? Who knew? None of them ever lasted long enough for us to tell.

But now there's Facebook, other social media, Bing, and all those small companies that sprung up with an interesting twist on online advertising only to get crushed by Google's weight. After 14 years, it forms a picture of what else is possible, outside and beyond Adsense.

Advertisers aren't as willing to spend on Adsense now because they're beginning to question if they can't do better some other way.

This is all a very natural evolution, and it's been bound to happen from day one for Google. It may feel like karma coming around, but the truth is no matter how Google had behaved, eventually advertisers were going to wonder if the grass wasn't greener somewhere else.

Google isn't screwed. But Google's total dominance may be, and I hope it is - not because I want to see them hurt, but because it's just not good for competition. Google could still thrive in a more competitive atmosphere, and fine by me if they do. I just want the more competitive atmosphere, and I think that's where this is leading, and that's what I'm happy about.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4511342
 4:23 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Your success is only tied to their success because they are so dominant. Personally I'd rather not rely on the fortunes of one company. If their downfall means others get a look in then bring it on.(Bing it on)
Precisely! Better for all of us. :)

[edited by: BeeDeeDubbleU at 4:46 pm (utc) on Oct 23, 2012]

helleborine




msg:4511346
 4:34 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

There is no guarantee that Google's downfall would inspire Bing to copy the AdSense network.

SevenCubed




msg:4511354
 4:57 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Hurting small businesses is bad but hurting small investors is OK?


If there was an impression from my previous post that I don't care about the small retail investors I want to clear the air.

First of all the largest percentage of the stock markets today are only playgrounds for the institutional investors. I haven't bookmarked any financial articles from any sources that I can post a link to but there many out there that explain how retail investors (moms and pops) have been chased out of the market in the last decade. Moms and pops are probably less than 10% of market participation. Institutional investors are big boys, they know how to play the game and can take care of themselves. In fact they often times manipulate the game for their own benefit, at the peril of retail investors. But, for the retail investors who can afford to buy board lots of goog shares at $500+ I can only assume that they didn't have that much spare money kicking around by being careless in life's events. Therefore, they too no doubt have the intelligence to know when to get in and when to get out of the share. Right now we need to be more concerned about countless businesses that are being adversely affected worldwide. The ratio of affected small investors as compared to affected small businesses is what causes me to lend my support to the small businesses (sorry backdraft7 no offense, I've always respected your posts and still do, and as you pointed out you are a goog shareholder). I have to stand by the majority rather than the minority.

Stock market "investing" has changed dramatically in recent decades from the perspective that their has been a major shift away from the long term strategies of "buy and hold" to the short term "instant gratification" crowd. In fact most of the retail investors that are left are now what we know as day traders. It's purely gambling. With few exceptions individuals no longer buy at age 25 and hold until age 55 to then sell their shares to take their capital gains profits for their retirement years. Also along the way a company typically reaches a stage of financial maturity when they become known as blue chip stocks. In a nutshell they are no longer expected to have significant growth so they then need to begin paying investors dividends. Younger public companies typically don't pay dividends but it is commonly accepted that they are going to reinvest profits back into the company to grow the business. But when you consider the EPS that goog has been making they should have been rewarding the common share holders by now with dividends. Instead they just continue to go on a spending spree buying technology companies. They ARE NOT INNOVATORS, they simply buy up innovative companies.

I want to make one more comment about what I quoted previously:
Destroying business? Really? Those businesses have decided that they want to make money based upon some other company's algorithm. Thats not a business, model that is gambling.


What do you suppose google's business model was? They decided that they could make money based on the intellectual property of other companies and frame it with ads. That type of relationship is healthy as long as it is symbotic as I explained earlier. But goog in all their mighty wisdom (they are after all a "knowledge team" with a "knowledge engine") have decided they can go it alone and just take and take and take with no consequences. It doesn't work that way. There REALLY is a law of karma; I'm not using that term loosely. An entity like goog can only inflict so much damage on others before it snaps back on themselves. The writing is on the wall. They brought people up to the top of the mountain(view) and proclaimed that all the world can be theirs if you only worship them like so many of us webmasters have been doing. It's time to reclaim our dignity. I took mine back with my harsh words in my previous post. If I suffer a -950 karma point penalty because of it, meh, it was points well spent. And it gets goog off the hook for their indebtedness to me so I did them a favour even though they don't deserve it.

Finally, I don't want to see the company itself in ashes, but the share prices, I couldn't care any less if I tried. If they go belly up (extremely unlikely) then we will only have to deal with a new monopoly a decade from now when a new player is unable to control their gluttonous greed. We need them to remain as a search engine company but we also need at least 2 more equally as dominant ones to keep them in check. If SEM was shared equally among at least 3 players the healthy competition would ensure that no single one could run all over us like goog has been doing in recent years.

I really don't feel like wasting any more breath on goog. I could go on for another 1000 words here to reinforce my point but I have more productive interests to devote my time to. But I did just check my karma balance before writing this and I realized I can afford another -950 point penalty if need be so I'm not here to make any apologies this time. Defiant little bugger eh?

Let it ride...

ohno




msg:4511357
 5:05 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

There is no guarantee that Google's downfall would inspire Bing to copy the AdSense network.

I'm not interested in Adsense.

Jez123




msg:4511406
 7:22 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

No other search engine has been as good to publishers has Google has.

There is no equivalent to the AdSense network. I think Yahoo tried something, but only for US-based webmasters. I'm not sure if they're still doing it.

I still have to hope that Google pulls through.


Maybe. But as time goes on they get less generous don't they. I will never forget the way they treated us with google checkout. Get us on board and then screw us with the old switcharoo! Good luck with relying on google to keep their word.

As far as I can see on just about every forum I read the love for google is gone. Along with the trust.

TypicalSurfer




msg:4511409
 7:38 pm on Oct 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Google is in between the proverbial rock and hard place, they have to grow in order to survive, being a monopoly means nothing (think greyhound bus) to the market, the only thing that matters is sequential revenue growth, that means new markets, new products, new anything that makes money. With CPC declining the only short term fix is to max out revenue per query, squeeze more out of those serps.

They are also running big burn rates in other areas, handing out tablets and laptops at cost, building out fiber networks, etc. in an attempt to gain a foothold into the future. The only thing allowing that burn rate is ad revenue. I expect them over the medium term to further amplify their ad layer, SERPs at this stage of their game are nearly irrelevant to them, a bit of window dressing maybe but not the foundational product it once was. It is a monetization game now, the query must be monetized at all costs. I believe they take their traffic/market share for granted now and maybe they are right. Maybe not, time will tell.

This 188 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 188 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
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