NPR: Matt Cutts wants websites to be packaged like Apple products

[robert76]

Listen to this interview from NPR yesterday:

Google's Search Tweak Puts A Company At Risk [npr.org]

I know we'll have fun picking apart and analyzing this statement!

[edited by: tedster at 5:52 pm (utc) on May 4, 2011]
[edit reason] make link clickable [/edit]

[Play_Bach]

> Bing's share will continue to rise as people realise that they are better off (...)

When? Most people use Google and will continue to do so. Many even think Google IS the Internet, not just a search engine! That's a lot of ground for Bing or any other also-rans to make up. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[mrguy]

Most people use Google and will continue to do so.

64% of the people in the US use Google. That is only 14% away from being half.

Give it a couple years.

[Panthro]

Many even think Google IS the Internet, not just a search engine!

That's the idea.

[heisje]

Matt Cutts wants websites to be packaged like Apple products

People : wake up!
Matt Cutts is part of a very sophisticated, clever, vicious and abundantly funded PR machine designed and fine tuned to spin the "mantra" that developments at Google have the sole objective and purpose of "improving search results", "improving user experience" and "banning spamers".

Not true : the sole objective of Google is to stifle competition by any means and method, fill the gap, take over the internet - and exponentially increase profits. The PR spin is there merely to cover up their evil purposes.

This has worked extremely well up to now. We have all been very naive up to now (me included) about this and we have fallen victim to the PR spin. True, search results need improvement. True, there are spamers and scrapers. But it is also true that Google is using these real facts to cover up its agenda, intentions and actions that have a single objective only : to banish competition and take advantage of the gap thus created.

Action by authorities is long overdue.
Heads must roll.

.

[walkman]

Google is throwing some sand in our eyes.

Why did my site get slammed when content is great, plenty of links....?
Well, it doesn't look 'good enough.'

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The company used stock boilerplate text only, did they really expect to outrank a site with real human attention paid to writing?

I think the fact that many who are complaining don't even realize that their site was 99% repeat content really did deserve a drop in rank speaks volumes.

[walkman]

I think the fact that many who are complaining don't even realize that their site was 99% repeat content really did deserve a drop in rank speaks volumes.

Because pictures, prices, shipping, service, tax or not are 1489 times more important to a furniture shopper than a bunch of stupid text. The fact that you didn't know that, speaks volumes.

[tangor]

I'm just curious as to how so many Google guys got appointments under Obama's administration? Could it be to maintain their monopoly? And before getting slammed, this ain't THAT kind of politics, it just looks like Chicago politics (scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). And take the Cutts "apple" aside as a grain of salt... Google has no use for Apple and vis versa!

[aristotle]

Google doesn't have a monopoly. Just because a lot of people choose to use their search of their own free will, that doesn't make it a monopoly. It's their free market choice. If evrybody suddenly switched from Google to Bing, would you start saying that Bing has a monopoly?

[netmeg]

Because pictures, prices, shipping, service, tax or not are 1489 times more important to a furniture shopper than a bunch of stupid text. The fact that you didn't know that, speaks volumes.

This forum (and a few of the other G-related) is becoming more and more unpleasant every day.

[tangor]

This forum (and a few of the other G-related) is becoming more and more unpleasant every day.

Perhaps with reason? I switched from G to other some time back and have not regretted. I continue to read these forums to discover what ISN'T working so I can make my new direction work better.

G is a monopoly in all regards even if not so named, with all the powers of monopolies in past years. I'm not here to trash G. I really want G to Do No Evil and get back to what made them great. These recent (last three years) roll outs of "enhancements" has buggered the ball game and the players are not happy.

I chose to join a different league, but that doesn't mean I don't have an interest in the old league!

[walkman]

Google doesn't have a monopoly. Just because a lot of people choose to use their search of their own free will, that doesn't make it a monopoly. It's their free market choice.

Doesn't work that way. People could buy Apple computers too instead of Windows, no one stopped them. Or install Netscape

Edit: Google will be nailed for using the search monopoly (as much as 95% in EU) to push its other sites (shopping, Youtube, Places etc) and harm its competition. And does Google use the algo to harm its competition? Who /why decides that a certain type of site be penalized this update or the other? Is it done to benefit Google's other properties? They will not take Matt Cutts' word for it either.

This forum (and a few of the other G-related) is becoming more and more unpleasant every day.

Sorry for not being G cheerleaders, NOT. Why didn't you say the same for the comment I answered to?

[edited by: walkman at 9:24 pm (utc) on May 6, 2011]

[aristotle]

This forum (and a few of the other G-related) is becoming more and more unpleasant every day.

I agree. The moderators need to start a special thread called "Rants against Google". Let the habitual ranters go there and read each others rants over and over. That will make it easy for the rest of us to avoid them.

[Leosghost]

I agree. The moderators need to start a special thread called "Rants against Google". Let the habitual ranters go there and read each others rants over and over. That will make it easy for the rest of us to avoid them.

+1
I have severe problems with G and their activities around privacy issues ..and their attitude to copyrights ..but

Ranting about how ones site isn't doing as well as you'd like in the search results of what is a company..strikes me as like the fleas complaining because the dog is scratching ..

G does not owe any of us a living..and if someone comes back with "well my business is built on my position in search" or its many variants ..then the business model is parasitic ..and badly thought out..

the S/N ratio here in some threads is out of whack and as netmeg said "its getting unpleasant" ..and absurd ..to the point to be that even content thieves get defended..and Google is called wrong and broken because they got hit ..and its always the same voices .

[walkman]

Who defended the content thieves?

[Leosghost]

[webmasterworld.com...]

In flagrante delicto

[tedster]

I agree - the signal to noise ratio is out of whack and reading a never ending litany of complaints is a waste of time. This thread is done.