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?
It is simple economics...
DON'T buy the food and those restaurants will close.
The same philosophy can be applied to your other complaints.
[edited by: Duke51 at 9:32 pm (utc) on April 14, 2004]
You talked about advanced technologies and your Labs...OK. Why aren't you able to resolve even elementar problems, damaging Google's reputation? The most primitive techniques still work...more than before the famous updates (Florida, Austin, Brandy...).
1....no answer
2....no answer
3....no answer
4. Why doesn't Google stop the subdomain spamming: keyword1.keyword2.mydomain.de.vu...it's simple, isn't it?
It's quite easy to repeat permanently the marketing-phrases of your sales people:...democracy, making results better, etc. Unfortunately, current SERPs don't confirm these statements. Just try to make things better concerning search technologies and not trying to copy trivial web services strategies...If you do this, I think Google will still remain No 1.
Respectfully, Moricante
lets stop with this spurious inference that inhabitants of one continent or one country are superior to those of another.
Why do you twist people's words? Read again, I never made any reference to Europeans being better than anyone else so please do not try to suggest that I did. I have had the privilege of visiting the USA many times and in general the people there are more welcomng, friendlier and more mannerly than those in most European countries including my own.
My comments were in no way critical of the American people and I take offence that you suggest otherwise. What I was criticising was the American style of world dominating commercialism, which I fully believe is flawed. I also believe that if this is the direction that Google is headed then the Internet will never be the same again.
The current debate has some "monopoly fears" to it, ie. when a company becomes sufficiently large within any field, will they still be able to deliver? Also, it is true that Google, while growing in basic search, has also spread across quite a few other subjects, the relatedness of which might be hard to see at first view.
Yahoo have recently made a search move, and to me it seems they deliver good results (on par with the ATW search experience of late, which, imho, were on par with Google). I doubt that we will see the hot air otherwise known as The All-new Microsoft Search anytime soon (just a feeling, no specific evidence, and i might be wrong).
I think the Google people have a lot of very high expectations running against them. Somehow they have been so far ahead in the search game for so long that when another SE delivers results that are on par or only marginally worse it gives the impression that Google is lacking seriously behind.
Because of the expectations, they simply have to be very much better than the rest on basic search and not just "better" or "just as good" in order to be perceived as succesful. For competitors, this means that they don't really have to be quite as good to be perceived as being so. All the other nice things that Google does with the labs and email and all just doesn't count in this equation, as the perception is that of a Search Engine, so the focus is on SERPS.
This could be dangerous, as it lowers the barriers for competitors - people could very well perceive a benefit in using a competitor that offered less features than Google - as long as it delivered well on the most important part (the SERPS). Quite similar to the start of Google itself, really.
OTOH, there are probably diminishing returns to algo improvement - meaning: Some kind of level might exist where all kinds of different algos tend to give results of a similar quality, ie. improvements may happen, but they're incremental, not drastic. If so, index size becomes very important - not only how many pages are included, but potentially also what isn't, and why. (pure speculation, of course)
Added: ...and working with offering more options on that first page of course, eg. choosing the top 10 in a different manner than the rest, or doing clusters or whatever. I forgot that, sorry
dont' go there ..don't begin panics ...don't use the "U" word.....
he's just goofing off from whatever he does for real ...after all he has said he isn't in PR ;))
(re-edited due to typing mistakes on "bloody" french keyboard )
[edited by: Leosghost at 10:59 am (utc) on April 15, 2004]
The issue arose when it was suggested that Europeans don't seek profits. In fact I was trying to educe that it is possible to make a profit, without being so commercially obsessed that you lose sight of your original mission. Companies that lose sight of this don't last. That is my concern with Google. I would hate to think I have offended any of my American cousins.
Regards
