Forum Moderators: open
It seems Google can't please anyone these days.
What is the root of it all?
a) The Florida update?
b) Big - just plain bigness (everyone loves to pick on the big guy)?
c) Poor management?
d) Public relations dept screw up?
e) Competitors planting seeds of division?
f) All of the above?
I hope it can be done effectively -- and wish them well in the attempt.
Seems like the old Altavista had something like that. There seemed to be two problems with theirs:
(1) At the time, I get the impression people couldn't figure out how to use it
(2) The affiliate spammers took the whole search engine down -- with what amounted to a DDOS attack on all the useful results. (Sort of like what Hotel-rezzers have done to Google.)
I'd like more powerful "reprocess" tools, but Google has so far aimed for simplicity instead. I end up going after what I want by more complex searches, or alternating between search and browse -- which usually works. (But I may not be the typical user.) If all the commercial results could be weeded out of my searches, I'd be much happier -- and obviously the commercial webmasters would be happier if would-be customers could go shopping instead of having to stumble over all those boring wikipedia pages.
And I don't know whether the general surfing population is ready to have to pick out a niche first. And after all, if you start fractally bifurcating your niches, pretty soon you look like, um, a directory, which is great -- for maybe 10% of users.
Of course it’s fair if you build a brand via PR (not google PR ;) ) you have to take the good with the bad, Google has had a good run with great PR but hey, so did David and Victoria Beckham , they built the Beckham brand via PR and used it to the max, now that the Beckham’s pr is about a different set of balls it does not look so rosy on the front pages.
But Google knows this, they will ride the bad PR until the next wave of good PR comes a long.
DaveN
...I have against Gmail's use of emails from people who send emails from non-gmail accounts and have no idea of the advertizing for which it is used...
I don't know, who does the email belong to? the sender or the recipient. Most people would agree is the later, and he is the one agreeing to GMail so there is no problem IMHO.
Comparing that situation to GG's posts being used without his consent is like comparing apples to oranges.
Regarding the posting of other people's information on a website, without permission and for profit, forget about GMail, isn't that what Google is founded upon? (And all the other search engines too of course!)
...Member comments are owned by the poster....
Did anyone see that?
Yes it is a forum, but there is also a TOS.
Regarding the posting of other people's information on a website, without permission and for profit, forget about GMail, isn't that what Google is founded upon? (And all the other search engines too of course!)
FWIW I think theres a big difference between stealing someones copyright and presenting search results in some sort of rank order for the benefit of users and the web sites returned in the results.
Scraping words from a discussion to present elsewhere, out of context, and with comments that give a slant through incorrect interpretation is (I think) parasitic.
Presenting ordered results for mutual benefit is, well mutual so fair enough.
Best wishes
Sid
[google.com...]
It tells you exactly how to have web pages that won't be cached in google.
It may be bad manners for them to cache the stuff without explicit prior permission, but at least they make correcting the problem fairly painless.
All gmail needs is a no-scan header to keep the content away from Google's prying electronic eyes. Maybe they could allow 5% of the 1gig to be filled with no-scan emails. That way we can all send emails to gmail users, but we can avoid signing up to Google's Big Brother ad server at the same time.
Presenting ordered results for mutual benefit is, well mutual so fair enough.
Sid you are of course correct there is a difference and where would we be without search engines?
However, whether we like it or not, the guy who displays this information would no doubt argue that he is also "presenting ordered results for mutual benefit". Maybe he has an IPO on the horizon too?
Scraping words from a discussion to present elsewhere, out of context, and with comments that give a slant through incorrect interpretation is (I think) parasitic.
Sounds like the tabloid press to me, LOL!
BUT - can someone please post a quick summary of the main points, I think I only got up to about page 10.
