System: The following 4 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/5001046.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 2:44 pm on Jul 31, 2020 (utc -5) Fantastic testimony by the creator of CelebrityNetWorth.com.
I'll probably re-post this in the August split-off thread.
RedBar
10:14 am on Jul 31, 2020 (gmt 0)
Excellent testmony, let's hope it helps gets The Net into a far better place than it is right now.
StupidIntelligent
11:15 am on Jul 31, 2020 (gmt 0)
From the testimony:
On April 23, 2014, I received an email from a Data Researcher at Google. In subsequent calls and emails theData Researcher explainedthat net worthqueries were one of Google’smostconsistently popularcategories of search. As such, she was tasked with finding an API or dataset from our site that would help “enhance user experience at Google Search”. If we granted Google access to an API, any user who searchedfor a celebrity’s net worth would be shown a large box with ouranswer at the top of the search resultpage.
Iasked the Data Researcher why we would ever allow this.What benefit couldgiving away our most valuable asset possibly create for CNW? Clearly this would cause a catastrophic drop in traffic since users would no longer need to visit our siteand therefore would no longer generate ad revenue.When pressed, the Google team said it would be good exposure for our brand. What they left unsaid was that the implementation of such a scheme would have accelerated our demise. Google’s diminutive (and sometimes non-existent) attribution to original content creators means fewer clicks and eyeballs to the web.
The nebulous suggestion that “exposure” would make up for this somehow demonstrates how starkly different Google’s motives are today.On this same call I asked if we could be paid a flat fee or a royalty for providing anAPI. I was told they would not pay a fee and if we did not agree to givethem an API they would either make one on their own or scrape one together from other sources.
I declined Google’s request to provide an API to our data.
-- Wait, I thought Google organic was all automated algorithms. There was no manual manipulation by staff. Seems it's NOT the case.
-- This proves that Google CAN and will give privilege to sites that they seem important for their business. So all SEO concepts should go down the drain.
-- And that Google is nothing more than a blackmailer.
Dooku
12:28 pm on Jul 31, 2020 (gmt 0)
If anyone still needs convincing how G actually works and what their priorities are than just relay them to themarkup.org article.
What is really scary is that a company like G is actively searching out websites like CNW and try to squeeze them out of their assets as much as possible. CNW is not a very "big" website, so this is just mind boggling that G even tries to pocket "chump change" because of their screwed up attitude. So this means that they are (trying to) do this with many websites because it all adds up to a big sum.
In an earlier thread I asked "what kind of people" work at these companies like G? Well, now we know. They do not have any excuse like "I am only doing my job".........because as an employee you obviously do not have ANY objection in actively doing REAL harm to your own society in the worst possible way and for the worst reason of all: unbridled greed.
JorgeV
6:01 pm on Jul 31, 2020 (gmt 0)
Hello,
Indirectly regarding CNW. Remember, some years ago, Google published guidelines and recommendations. In these recommendations, Google was pushing sites to publish articles being made of a list of things, like "10 best way to xxx", "50 ideas to xxx", etc etc... and their guidelines were also recommending page layout and so on. One year later, answer boxes were appearing in Google SERP. To me , it was obvious that it was to make scrapping easier.
Same for structured data.
[edited by: goodroi at 7:50 pm (utc) on Jul 31, 2020] [edit reason] thread formatting [/edit]
JesterMagic
1:09 pm on Aug 1, 2020 (gmt 0)
Has anything been talked yet about Google pushing their own products like Youtube in the SERPS?
The government is going to have to force Google to revert back to a Search Engine instead of becoming a Knowledge Engine since all they are doing in stealing content. They are the biggest thief and black mailer out there.
The FAQ structured data is running rampant in our niche again. Sites are using it in the hopes it increases rankings... which it may do but then all it does is keep users on Google as Google is just displaying the content itself.
brotherhood of LAN
7:10 pm on Aug 1, 2020 (gmt 0)
Good to see the facts in black and white.
Something to add that may be unpopular, I think Wikipedia is also part of the problem. WP could have a page on each celebrity and reference this site. It could even become a Wikidata "property" if deemed important enough. Wikipedia/Wikidata is a dataset that anyone can download and replicate, like Google already does. It's like a death from a 1000 papercuts, taking all those little nuggets of info from a site to the point where no one needs the original site anymore.
Also noticed wrt the recent anti-trust news with Google, a lot of people assume that "one boxes" are derived from structured data. This kind of example goes to show that it's not always structured data that Google 'infers' knowledge from.
I do like the idea of structured data, but it's dangerous in this kind of scenario where it becomes some sort of absurd 'fair use' that forgoes anyone looking at your site.
JS_Harris
4:26 am on Aug 8, 2020 (gmt 0)
Google has wanted to be the content destination for some time, even if they don't create content.
As google said though, this is a high volume search term and they could just feature your site in the snippet, So why don't they? I took a look at your sector and all of the top ranking sites don't provide a clear answer to "how much" in the first paragraph or title and Google sometimes only considers the top portions of a page worthy and simply won't dig to the bottom algorithmically to find such a number.
It sounds to me like they have a less than reliable way of getting trustworthy information through traditional methods and were looking to improve that..
riccarbi
9:12 pm on Aug 9, 2020 (gmt 0)
Sorry to say it, but Wikipedia is part of the problem, a big part of it. An unvalidated "encyclopedia" that provide answers (sometimes good, sometimes pretty bad and amateurish) on everything and that, thanks to its "special relationship" with Google, dominates the SERP for almost every possible "evergreen" query, only harms the web ecosystem diversity.
JesterMagic
11:55 am on Aug 10, 2020 (gmt 0)
Wikipedia is hurt as much as the rest of us by Google borrowing it's info as they have lost visitors.
The problem is an entrenched monopoly like Google wanting to become a knowledge engine on the backs of everyone else and only using algorithms to determine the answers to questions.
In a way Google is the key master to the Library. In the "old days" if you wanted to find out some information we went off to the library and looked through the books until we found 1 or more that we think had the answers. We then signed out those books and read through them. Now days Google owns the Library building, the shelves, and our websites are the books. Google is the Librarian. We go ask the Librarian a question and instead of coming back with books they come back with the answer but only from a special selection of books. They also then tell us to go check out the local Google Video Store.
jmorgan
7:10 am on Aug 11, 2020 (gmt 0)
I think the difference is that Wikipedia was built on the premise that its content was to be freely shared, so I'm not sure if it really is "hurt" by Google (or anyone) using it's content for their personal benefit.
In some ways, though I wouldn't know for sure, maybe Wikipedia might even be grateful for Google taking some load off their servers.
However, I do agree that Wikipedia, in concert with Google, have hurt publishers in the ways already mentioned (e.g. Wikipedia using content from other publishers, then ranking higher, and Google using that content, etc.)
JesterMagic
1:06 pm on Aug 15, 2020 (gmt 0)
Even during the enquiry Google and Apple are being bully's. They are obviously not worried about the outcome of these hearings.
Epic the maker of the really popular Fortnite game had their app pulled from both stores for trying to get around Google and Apple's extraordinary 30% fees on all sales. Spotify also has made noise about it as well. These companies really need to band together to fight or it will only get worse. It's a perfect time with the hearings going on. Of course most are scared and worried about retaliation and cannot afford to make a stand like Epic can.
