MrSavage - 4:40 pm on Sep 16, 2011 (gmt 0)
In terms of what's better or not better? I think it needs to be asked because it's relevant to this discussion.
Let's say YouTube was owned by MS. Would video be taking up real estate on page 1? Let's also consider the fact that there is a link on that same page that says "videos". So if the searcher actually wanted videos, they can read and click a link correct? That's a double dip of sorts imo. Again, if that was a MS property (YouTube) would Google be showing video links? Afterall it's presumptuous to assume a search I type in like "green widgets" can be ironically interpreted as "green widgets videos". Again, the tell tale is whether a MS owned YouTube would be granted that same "priority".
I think what I'm saying is that webmasters notice the small changes. People wouldn't notice them to the extent we do. Therefore our complaints for the most part, as just noise. They are virtually meaningless on the bottom line and on searcher satisfaction. The obvious goal, as it should be for Google, is to see where that tipping point really is.
And I certainly hope that we all agree that all the current conversations about Google, it's algo, and their philosophy are all about organic traffic. All these layout designs, additions etc are all about organic traffic. It's all about the free traffic out there. It's the great debate but it's not exactly open here.
There is 2 mind sets. One is that you aren't entitled and Google isn't obligated to provide anyone enough organic traffic to earn a living off ads and affiliate programs. The other mindset is that Google does have to provide non biased search results and an algo that isn't geared to their own ever expanding enterprises. That's it. You are one or the other. Not both. It's either a right or it's just something that "was" and in the real world "should never exist". Free traffic that is. Or shall I say enough free traffic that somebody could actually earn decent income at it.