Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: goodroi
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Google Inc.'s methods for recommending websites are being reviewed by Texas' attorney general in an investigation spurred by complaints that the company has abused its power as the Internet's dominant search engine.
The antitrust inquiry disclosed by Google late Friday is just the latest sign of the intensifying scrutiny facing the company as its enters its adolescence. Since its inception in a Silicon Valley garage 12 years ago, Google has gone from a quirky startup to one of the world's most influential businesses with annual revenue approaching $30 billion.
The review appears to be focused on whether Google is manipulating its search results to stifle competition.
The pecking order of those results can make or break websites because Google's search engine processes about two-thirds of the search requests in the U.S. and handles even more volume in some parts of the world. That dominance means a website ranking high on the first page of Google's results will likely attract more traffic and generate more revenue, either from ads or merchandise sales.
European regulators already have been investigating complaints alleging that Google has been favoring its own services in its results instead of rival websites.
Several lawsuits filed in the U.S. also have alleged Google's search formula is biased. Google believes Abbott is the first state attorney general to open an antitrust review into the issue.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 1:15 pm (utc) on Sep 4, 2010]
[edit reason] added link [/edit]
Those who can not compete blame Google for their failures. That's the bottom line.
I think the inquiry phase is over. Google is being sued now. [jumpinternetmarketing.com...]
I don't think that's the case - it's just inaccurate reporting. The only link the article offers as a resource is the Yahoo News coverage of the inquiry.
It is not responsible reporting to say an "inquiry" is the same as "being sued". Sorry if anyone here is affiliated with JumpMarketing, but I'm calling it like it I see it. There's too much tendency to run for the pitchforks and torches as it is.
Suggesting competitors as a "spelling alternative" is a bit off though init really
They p!ss me off with the "searches related to" also, which tend to list direct competitors.
Elsmarc: Those who can not compete blame Google for their failures. That's the bottom line. Google doesn't owe any person or company a high ranking in their serps for any reason unless the person or company pays for an advertising slot.
Google doesn't owe any person or company a high ranking in their serps for any reason unless the person or company pays for an advertising slot.
Problem is, all the top listed sites have thousands of paid backlinks. If you want to compete with the top spammy sites, you have to participate in black hat actions.
The caffeine update was a can of worms, an Adwords catalyst by design
Lots of people are quite happy with