The Senate Anti-Trust Hearing

What will the results be?

[superclown2]

Here is my take on it: Others may disagree .....

Google was given several chances at the Congressional Hearing to offer to clean up their act. All these chances were spurned. Very soon they may either have to come forward with a voluntary code, or face antitrust action. This could have a devastating effect on the company as day-to-day business is disrupted, bad publicity causes a loss of trust amongst searchers and advertisers desert them to avoid being tarred by the same brush.

Markets hate uncertainly so in the absense of a fast settlement shareholders will be nervous. Google pays no dividends to it's ordinary shareholders. They stay in because they expect the shares to rise. If they look like falling long term many will cut their losses and sell because in the absence of a dividend they are on a hiding to nothing and this will cause further falls. The fortunes of many googlers are in shares or share options. Google will have to pay ever higher salaries (as they have already started to do) to compensate for this and retain staff. All on a falling income. Eventually a settlement, most probably not to their liking, will be imposed on them, rather than be freely negotiated by them.

This could be the biggest corporate disaster in history if it is not handled properly. The big question for us now is: how will this affect webmasters, in the short and long term?

[MrSavage]

After watching 75% of the Schmidt hearing, I can say these senators are essentially out of their league in a lot of ways.

Brought up was the nice way Google was getting business into website with these free and easy services to get up and running. Take it one step further, is that noble, or is it self interest in that these business websites will amount to nothing without paying for ads? So in essence sure it's a nice thing for Google to do, but the more business they help get online, the more prospects for Adwords. They aren't the angels, they are a corporation.

I think the real question should be whether as a corporation, Google exists to make money. The core of Google is to make the world a better place first and foremost?

I think having Schmidt is rather misguided. He was then, Page is now. The assault on organic search started with that new CEO.

Is Cutts part of the hearings? He should be. The reason? The algo is what influences everything. Asking a CEO about an algo?

The bottom line to everything is what drives Google. Is it for the betterment of the world. Better, faster searches? Or is it to make money. It's one or the other. That should ultimately be understood. Android to Google? Not for the betterment of the world but as a way of expanding the reach of their advertising empire.

Google is what they are and they can't run from it. They are a corporation and those don't have morals. They make money and like Arnie in Terminator, they just keep going after their goal. Always pushing in that direction. It's a spade and that's fine. But to think that it's for the betterment of the world? That's a crock. With respect I say that. You can't yell at a kid for being young right? They just are young and that's what they are. Google is a corporation. The image that is trying to be maintained it that profits run second to the betterment of the world.

[micklearn]

After watching the entire hearing, I think that the most damning thing that was brought up was the reference made to the comment by Mayer about their finance link ranking first. She basically called into question anything that Cutts has stated over the years in a much larger sense. No? Also, the chart that was shown about G almost always ranking third in commerce related SERPS didn't help at all.

[albo]

Yep @MrSavage, that much seems obvious to webmasters who must make their living getting to the top rank in the fold. Google doesn't operate pro bono. AdWords. (I'll take "blue widgets" for $100, Alex.)

Webmasters are _some_ of our customers. The gripe is that Google is the _main_ customer.

(And we'll be right back after some sponsored links and AdSense gleaned from our users.)

[loner]

You can't yell at a kid for being young right? They just are young and that's what they are.

More like spoiled and could use a decent spanking.

[walkman]

I think having Schmidt is rather misguided. He was then, Page is now. The assault on organic search started with that new CEO.

Is Cutts part of the hearings? He should be. The reason? The algo is what influences everything. Asking a CEO about an algo?

That's the whole point for Google. Pass it with "I am not sure, but I doubt it..." but this is just the beginning. The Senate has been unto Google since 2007 when they announced the DblClick buyout.

Either way, Google is speeding up, either to (as gsmd said) change 10 so they'll have to reverse 8 after negotiations, make as much as possible knowing they'll hit a wall or a combo. They also need the money since they have declared war on everyone, from content owners, to At&T, handset makers, Apple, MS, advertisers (that are afraid to talk publicly), us, Oracle etc. Those of us, caught in the middle will have a bad 1-2-3 years. The senate committee has no power, and even if a law is passed it can be challenged in court after court.

Cutts is now mostly defending everything Google, from adwords to Appspot to deflecting any bad thing from the Google brand. Whatever title he had once, probably doesn't matter now. But I doubt they are eager to talk under oath about the algo. If the right questions are asked they could very well be screwed [content.usatoday.com...] and Google does not have the fanboys it once had. Their jig is up.

[MrSavage]

Okay I just completed watching that hearing video. The big bombshell was near the end. Yes, it was regarding the algo and the fact that nobody at the hearing knows anything about it. The suggestion was that a group goes in, looks at what is going on, and it's kept in private. That to me, is perhaps the single biggest moment, yet it's barely made a ripple. I think overall people underestimate the power of an algo when you combine that with search market dominance.

I'm not suggesting that Google is cooking results or aren't trying for the best possible and most relevant results. The issue I'm bringing up is whether the algo can be set to such a high level that the majority of free traffic goes to a few websites whereas before it was the a majority of the free traffic went to many websites. That's my version of what Panda is. Case in point? Wikipedia. The only solution to declining organic traffic is? Adwords, or one of those other many online ad solutions...

[Web_speed]

The only solution to declining organic traffic is? Adwords, or one of those other many online ad solutions...

Don't know about AdWords. I've been trying to revive my lost business with adwords for almost a month now (business has been dismal, almost non existent since they've introduced "instant", the "panda update" and the rest of their dirty traffic killing tricks).

Adwords prices are exuberant in my market and not a viable option... not to mention that the ad placement competition is furious.... they are milking webmasters dry to the bone with their "algorithmic" blood sucking "ad auction system".

I've now started to eat into my savings and the future is looking really bleak.... i wish for Google only one thing, that they'll get done to their business exactly what they've been doing to mine.

[gehrlekrona]

I am glad I didn't quit my day job 5 years ago when times were good, lots of traffic from Google and the other SE's but from back then it just has gone downhill. We can blame Google all we want but they are not going to change anything for a couple of reasons. One reason is that they can't go back. Too much invested into what they have now and what they think is really good. It meets everything that they wanted and probably more than that. We think that they really care about us web masters that serve them with free stuff that they make billions off of, but they couldn't care less. Just wait until they have all coupons in the world on their site, then they don't need us at all so then what do we do?
There has been lots of small tips here and there to where they are going but it has been all to subtle to figure out and then BAM! Panda strikes, and who knows what a Panda does? Probably nothing but eat and poop so they eat us alive and poop us out.
Then, for every "looser" in this game there is always a winner, right? There are lots of sites that probably wonder WTH? Why am I getting all this traffic suddenly? They probably think that they are the worlds best SEO's now and sell their services worldwide, using AdWords :)

[walkman]

Then, for every "looser" in this game there is always a winner, right? There are lots of sites that probably wonder WTH? Why am I getting all this traffic suddenly? They probably think that they are the worlds best SEO's now and sell their services worldwide, using AdWords happy!

True but most are robots at Amazon and Walmart.

Google with their greed has made the internet a scary place to venture out.

Inbound (from below), that's coming later when FTC starts. They are not crazy and don't buy their phony arguments. Meanwhile we shouldn't let them get away with it.

7% click PLUS they get to build a service AND kill their competitors. Bad deal, huh? Doesn't 7% sound like too high anyway?

True, many poor small companies and people will be ruined. Totally ruined and many lives uprooted even as we believed paid, multimillionaire liars and frauds from Google.

[edited by: walkman at 1:28 am (utc) on Sep 26, 2011]

[inbound]

What a load of nonsense that Google representatives came out with...

>>Getting "only" 7% of clicks on places pages is losing them money - I know that's incorrect (that's a very healthy profit, especially when places are in the organic space and not replacing ads).

>>People would find it difficult to scroll through 10 links on a phone - what a joke!

>>Facebook is the best place for a local doctor to get business - again, that's not true.

>>If Google "knows" the answer that's better than showing just organic results - so how is Google Shopping an "answer" - that leads to a page with advertising and then links to further links or out to sites

I have just spent 3 hours watching this and I'm so angry that they never go called on so many of the "poor answers". I'd happily volunteer to be part of a technical team that rips their arguments to shreds.

In reality, this is heading nowhere for a while, whilst many companies hit the wall.

[MrSavage]

@inbound, certainly it would seem that the senators are slightly out of their league. I thought it would be prudent for them to actually visit a forum like this so that they can actually get an idea of the landscape of Google search. I've actually been looking for contact emails for some of the senators at the hearings. So far, not great. However, I do think that they need to understand the grand scope of things and I do think that unless you are involved in the internet from a webmasters perspective, you won't grasp what's a stake.

I will also say that I'm a bit disppointed that this section of the forum feels like a group of people in the classroom being sent to the corner. Everyone who is part of this forum should have watched that hearing. If you own a website you owe it to yourself. I feel a bit segregated to be honest and I don't know why that is.

I think the hearing really missed the mark on what Google is today. If the company with its monopolistic power can shift organic traffic in a way that results in increased Adwords profit, shouldn't that be part of the hearing?

The whole thing gives me a headache to be honest. The arrows to Google+, the ads on the main search box page for their products, the changing of ad box colors. Isn't this current and I don't see these as being issues brought forward.

[diberry]

The government was also out of its league with the MSN trial, but they came out with a result that changed MSN's path so drastically that Google was able to fill the vacuum and become what they are today.

They may not understand it themselves, but they have advisors who get it, who can translate what's being alleged against Google into terms the government people understand, maybe a brick and mortar business analogy. I'm not too concerned about this initial hearing not getting into every problem or asking all the right questions. As this thing progresses, they'll dig deeper, with the help of advisors who actually know what's going on.

Of course, we can only hope they get advisors who give them objective information and maybe point them to some of the right threads in this forum. There are plenty of threads that make allegations that are verifiable, if you got the stats from webmasters and had someone qualified look at the data.

But I'm wondering if they can't get all they need from folks like Yelp and Nextag. If they would uncover things like traffic throttling - which I think could easily be proven or disproven by looking at the stats of a number of webmasters who think they're seeing it - that would really condemn Google. They're saying they don't owe us traffic (true), but in that case, where do they get off deciding how much traffic you should have *overall, from all sources*? (Which is what some webmasters have described seeing - if they get a traffic boost from Bing one day, they get less traffic from Google, as if to compensate. That's the freakiest thing I've ever heard of.)

[gehrlekrona]

if they get a traffic boost from Bing one day, they get less traffic from Google, as if to compensate. That's the freakiest thing I've ever heard of.)

@diberry, this is something I have noticed too but always thought it was just a coincidence, maybe the stats were wrong, maybe they couldn't handle the traffic or something, but I have always wondered about it. I don't get how it is even possible if they don'tcooperate or monitor traffic somehow over the Internet, but that can't be, can it?
It seems like traffic is about the same, a little lower from Google, but then you get a little bitmore from Yahoo and Bing and the other way around. If this is true in any shape or form, then it is a bigger issue than we ever thought, but I am probably just paranoid :)

[g1smd]

I reported a year or two back on a site that received the same number of visitors per week, within the margin of a single visitor, for something like 17 weeks in a row for a visitor count almost into 5 digits per week. I forget the exact details, but the repeatability was uncanny.

[diberry]

@gehrlekrona
@g1smd

You two are definitely not alone. Check out this thread - it gets positively creepy:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Be sure to read Drall's posts (and Tedster's responses) if you don't want to read the whole thread. Drall offers some solid numbers that solidly indicate *something* extremely unlikely is going on. No one can figure out how Google could be doing this (especially to sites that don't run Analytics), and yet no one can come up with another explanation (and they really do try).

I would LOVE to learn some day what's really going on with these sites. It's just too odd that it's always Google that seems to do the compensating to keep the traffic static. It's hard to imagine it's NOT something Google's doing, and yet... how can they know or even accurately guess our overall traffic? What could they have in place that would allow them to do that?

[Web_speed]

I reported a year or two back on a site that received the same number of visitors per week, within the margin of a single visitor, for something like 17 weeks in a row for a visitor count almost into 5 digits per week. I forget the exact details, but the repeatability was uncanny.

Not surprised at all...

They gather massive amounts of intelligence via their many beckons, and I mean MASSIVE.

To list a few.. Chrome, On-Page AdSense ad units, Analytics, Google toolbar, Picasa, Google Desktop search, Google "crash recovery" DLL which constantly appear in task manager for no apparent reason, the vast double-click network they've recently acquired and many many more beckons to list here.

They deliver some of their beckons into the target machines (read "average Joe") in a sleazy but “friendly” like manner. The machines the've missed they track via thier almost 100% spread of online/on-pages beckons (ad blocks etc.)

For example, did you know that the Google spy bar is bundled with the latest flash update from adobe (same story with many other popular downloads like adobe reader etc.). A major, major source of millions of daily installations. Once the bar is installed they have a back door to that particular system and from this point on only the sky is the limit. (average Joe is often clueless as if to "tick" or "un-tick" the spy bar option which appear selected by default when asked to update the adobe flash player plug-in).

They also massively promote their chrome browser almost everywhere you go online.
Lately I noticed they even offer free download of "angry birds" (a very popular game) to users, BUT you guessed it right...user MUST install the chrome browser.

You see, from the data gathered they would know precisely what every machine is doing at any given moment online, they know exactly which web site you visit, your fields of interest, shopping habits and most importantly whether you are currently searching the web looking to shop for something. Knowing that, they are capable of virtually shifting massive amounts of viewers at any given moment and push them to exactly where they want them to be, where they, Google, can make the mo$t out of it. And that is precisely what they've been doing lately masquerading under (now) weekly "index updates".

I don’t think it is too late to stop them yet and I sure hope this FTC enquiry will advance quickly. Google may have massive amounts of data already ghaterd but they are still in a "zombie acquisition" mode which has just started to accelerate recently.

P.S.
I'm very surprised so many virus companies out their still haven’t marked Google services as a potential treat...because that’s precisely what they've turned into on so many machines....a personal information gathering virus.

"Do no evil" my ar$e...

[gehrlekrona]

@diberry, DNS throttling?

[MrSavage]

I keep coming back to the same gut feeling. It's that feeling that Google could essentially buy out the world. Slight exaggeration, but I did not know until watching the hearing, that Google has 97% market share in mobile search. Traditional search is what? Say 80% or so?

I'm just saying that as the senate digs, I'm sure their concern will increase dramatically. The internet goes so far into the fabric of every persons life, and when a company has eyes and tentacles into most of that, and it keeps growing, surely that must be concerning.

Not sure, after some new information I've learned after watching, I'm feeling a bit different. Moving towards paranoid perhaps. I could trust a government for doing things for the "good of mankind" but certainly a corporation doesn't have a conscious. Individuals at Google do obviously, but all parts working together have really one purpose in life. It's almost like it's running on it's own now. In some ways I'm drawing parallels to the movie The Terminator.

I'm sounding alarmist. At least we all have stats and you can't really argue with those.

[Web_speed]

@diberry, DNS throttling?

My bet is on SERPs position throttling together with whatever else they do beyond the scenes. Once a site gets its daily allotment it is being moves to back pages

[diberry]

@Web_speed, I believe that was discussed in the thread I pointed to earlier - some people were seeing their pages be on the first page in the SERPs in the morning, then fall later in the day.

To be painfully honest, I don't really understand what DNS throttling is. Many of you here are years ahead of me with technical stuff.