Ersebet - 4:16 am on Apr 4, 2013 (gmt 0)
Tedster, I understand that, but there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites. Like product reviews, opinions, Mommy blogging, non-mainstream social topics, etc. In these queries, I see a dismaying number of corporate sites lacking relevant content on the topics outranking the sites that actually know what they're talking about. In these cases, I think there is room for improvement.
Additionally, even in the medical vertical, a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints because Western medicine has totally failed them and their only option is to search beyond what Mayo Clinic is reporting from studies. These queries tend to be topped by brands AND spam.
What's the source of the data for your conclusions?
Forgive me TheOptimizationIdiot but no source needed for what is obvious. "a LOT of people are looking for "alternative" viewpoints" and "there are queries where people prefer small, independent websites" so what he said is true. You argue maybe about what is "a LOT" or how many queries but more helpful to forum reader than just "What's the source of the data for your conclusions? " This is not school but people helpin each other without terse reply.
It's clear to us but Google no admit because claim to be fair to all. Brands use Adwords
Sorting out the cesspool that they chose to index/rank was going to be remedied by looking at brands. That was clearly stated in an interview a few years ago. Right?