| 9:25 pm on Feb 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Worth noting, perhaps, that Schmidt said "Search engines", not just Google.
The above comment in the article followed comments about "Anonymity" and some governments wanting to know who is associated with "each online account". This cuts multiple ways, of course, though the WSJ article didn't precisely connect any dots, simply introducing Schmidt's comments (and I quote) with...
|Here’s a lines we thought were notable: |
Clearly, though, legitimate concerns about personal privacy are going to be pushed by desires for the precise kind of social information that Google, Facebook, Bing, Apple, Amazon, and your friendly credit card provider are using for marketing and personalized services.
Schmidt's comments anticipating that tech company lawyers will be busy suggest that he feels that legal reform is necessary, but that it may take a long while coming.
|Litigation will always outpace genuine legal reform, as any of the technology giants fighting perpetual legal battles over intellectual property, patents, privacy and other issues would attest. |
With regard to search... the days of no one knowing you're a dog on the internet are likely to be fading.
| 10:15 pm on Feb 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Before everyone rushes off to start tying in their "verified online profiles", it's probably worth pointing out that this is an article entitled "The Future According To Google's Eric Schmidt" and that it isn't 100% clear if what he is saying is a personal view or a company view. Yes, he is in a position of influence but right now, it may well be simply conjecture.
| 10:24 pm on Feb 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Also, to be noted, it's a review of an unreleased book by Schmidt, not a summary of a discussion with Schmidt about these topics.
| 2:55 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Worth noting, perhaps, that Schmidt said "Search engines", not just Google. |
In his mind, is there a difference?
| 3:27 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
1) Go to the mall, or a train station, or some other suitable public place with a decent cross section of people.
Stop the first 1000 people you see. Ask each one:
- Do you have a Facebook profile?
- Do you have a Google Plus 1 profile?
2) Tally results.
3) Decide whether having a Google +1 profile should have any influence over anything at all.
4) ? ? ?
| 7:45 am on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
does this mean that wikipedia rankings are going to drop?
| 3:12 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|does this mean that wikipedia rankings are going to drop? |
Yep, I was thinking exactly the same, how are the search engines to differentiate between corporate blogs/sites without a +1 as opposed to possibly an SME/private with a +1?
| 4:08 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
There has been a big, a really big influx of SEO consultants into Google+ in the past couple of months and a lot of noise from them about the importance of getting in early and building a reputation.
Whatever Eric Schmidt implied seems to have rattled their cages even more.
| 4:48 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|There has been a big, a really big influx of SEO consultants into Google+ |
Is this similar to an "expert" = a drip under presssure?
I find it extremely amusing that these "consultants" are so readily available, from where do they come complete with proven "qualifications"?
| 4:57 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I would not count on it.
| 5:04 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
You have a mixture of high profile people like Mark Traphagen to the humble Indian blogger. I'm not saying that they are correct in their assumptions and what qualifications are needed to be a consultant but they are there, and if proven correct are going to make a lot of people here look silly.
| 5:07 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Yep you can have all of the world if you just fall down and worship google. No thanks, damaged goods. I'm holding out for what's behind door number 3.
| 5:17 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|and if proven correct are going to make a lot of people here look silly. |
Excellent stuff, as if Google hasn't already made an a$$ of themselves the past couple of years are they taking in even more theoreticians to screw-up things even further?
Lol...they want to try and reduce their cost of bandwidth meanwhile they pay "consultants" a small fortune...what a mad, mad world.
| 5:32 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|if proven correct are going to make a lot of people here look silly. |
No one here will look "silly" if Google rig their serps to favour sites by giving them higher SERP positions ( because said sites use G approved pushed and promoted tagging systems..or sites which are members of G+ )..it will merely confirm that Eric is prepared to be an evil schmidt[sic?] to try to coerce private data/ information out of others..
Eric's own data/ private information is, as we know, not to be indexed , nor to appear in serps..
So.. he was in NK getting lessons from the "norks" on how to be big brother ( he already does "creepy uncle" so well ) from Kim Jong-un ..
Next ? ..Larry going to threaten to go nuclear unless we all sign up to G+ ?*
I'm noticing a lot of singing, dancing , jumping animated image ads pushing G+ in adsense ( was all over an "el reg" article ) these days..
| 6:24 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
We've all had plenty of signals that Google Authorship profile is going to help with the original content owner. That has to be a good thing if you are an originator of the content.
It's a shame that the authority sites aren't already considered a strong enough signal so that we don't need the google ecosytem, which is just another layer.
Whilst that is a quote from the draft of the book, it's most likely a correct statement, but may yet get pulled.
| 6:41 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Simon says = Google says "jump on one foot". "Touch your nose". Ah ah, I didn't say Google says and what they say goes.
| 6:49 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Is it agreed then that all though he just says 'will' that we can take that as an 'is' in the very near future? I know some insightful individuals have stated that he was simply forecasting where Google may go with authorship, but is it the consensus that it is where they're going. Personally, I am with the yea's.
| 7:06 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
This is from a book, not actually practice.
| 7:19 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It's not fear mongering it's bribery on google's part. I can't remember if they ever resorted to bribery before or not but now they have that base covered too. Just my humble opinion of course.
| 8:00 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
So does this mean that an article by a biased ignoramus who joins Google+ will outrank an article by the world's foremost expert who doesn't join?
| 8:09 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I would have thought so...the lowest common denominator usually wins!
| 8:31 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance |
Unless you post your content on a big brand domain, then it will automatically go to the top of the SERPS, regardless of who's wanna-be social network you donate your personal data to.
The push for Google+ use is pathetic.
If I owned Google, and had their billions, I'd make Google (the search engine) back into the clean, honest search engine it was and run it with the smallest amount of advertising to pay the overhead (hmmm... like WebmasterWorld does), then go make more billions off the Motorola, Android, Maps, Glasses or other products.
"Google" the search engine is no longer innovating -- they are simply a scabby, nosy, advertising company with no ethics and nothing said by anyone remotely related to the company, (from Schmidt to someone selling SEM services), about how, why or what goes in or out of the algo is for any other reason than to obtain marketing data about individual users and sell advertising based on that data to large corporations.
Hey! Schmidt --- if you're reading this (or Larry or Sergey), GO DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE WORLD BETTER AND STOP PRETENDING YOUR SEARCH ENGINE ISN'T JUST A FAT CASH COW WITH NO CONSCIENCE... (I know you won't reply here because you want to maintain your privacy online, and you won't even see this because it won't rank, because I don't have a Google+ account)...
| 8:34 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance. |
The true value of remaining anonymous is irrelevance.
Being deemed irrelevant by greedy corporations and aggressive marketers has its attractions.
And it actually saves them all that wasted effort.
| 8:57 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|And it actually saves them all that wasted effort. |
Scraping effort which they do by machines...If I were a Google employee I would wonder if there is to be any future relevance by my employer's ever-intrusive and belligerent attitude towards all and sundry.
| 9:03 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Verified doesn't mean: Google+ Profile.
Google does make a profile group or a Site to see if it's from a Reputable " and identifiable" Source , but those factors are not tried solely to a Google Plus Account.
They are tied to Incoming Page Rank, Twitter, Facebook and other social media signals, Whois information, etc.
If you're site stood on it's on, had not reputable sites linking to it, had a private whois registration, and no verified "Real" followers on Social media, then your site would appear suspect, and probably wouldn't rank as high as a equal site with verified creditably from Incoming links, social media, public identifiable Whois info.
I personally don’t trust site with Private Whois info. I have a possible advertiser, but after
| 9:37 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I'm pleased to see that Clarence has an idea about what it's all about and is not just repeating himself like so many people here saying what an evil company Google is. Lets try and keep this thread on track, it's not about how bad Google is but whether your Google profile will impact SERPs
| 9:48 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|it's not about how bad Google is but whether your Google profile will impact SERPs |
The answer to the second question seriously affects the answer to the first.
| 10:11 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|They are tied to Incoming Page Rank, Twitter, Facebook and other social media signals, Whois information, etc. |
On the "web according to Google"...
Google can't crawl behind the wall of Facebook.. so that signal is limited.
Incoming Page Rank: that's a Google factor.
Twitter: as a social signal to infuse credibility on the rank of a particular web page -- that would mean that the HTML, linking and credentials were setup in just the right way for (Google) to recognize "Oh, that's from Fred, he's more trustworthy than Joe, because more credible people follow on him on Twitter"... quite a stretch.
It's all BS to push people to sign up for Google+
The sooner everyone gets off the Google Koolaide, the better.
| 10:18 pm on Feb 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Lets try and keep this thread on track, it's not about how bad Google is but whether your Google profile will impact SERPs |
Interesting..I don't remember getting the sticky, or seeing it pinned to the top of the thread, that said that you decide what a/the thread is about..
To many of us, and many many more not posting because of the G+ button that identifies/tracks all posters here to Google the moment they post ..( the G spy on every page at WebmasterWorld..why ? ) ..read the button code..your IP calls it straight from Google..
It is about whether your Google profile ( or lack of Google profile ) should impact SERPs..
How it will ..depends on how "hot" your G profile picture is ( if you have a G profile )..I suspect ..and history and biology teaches us ..
That hot blonde under 25 year old female G profile pics ..will get more "click throughs" .. and be "stickier" ..and thus raise the sites SERPs place and thus popularity..
Just like high school ( most popular girl/boy) ..or reality TV "voting"..
Quality of what is posted will have nothing to do with the clicks..
But Eric and Larry know this too..But they just want to know who says what..and to be able to control..
| This 79 message thread spans 3 pages: 79 (  2 3 ) > > |