Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
[edited by: aakk9999 at 11:35 pm (utc) on Oct 15, 2013]
[edit reason] Removed screenshot link [/edit]
Encourage happy customers to review your business on Google. Research shows that reviews play a significant role of placement in the carousel.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:34 am (utc) on Oct 16, 2013]
[edit reason] removed personal comment, per Charter [/edit]
Call me cynical but this push to get everyone on google plus and “authorship” now benefits the advertisers as displaying their photo in the adds pushes the organics yet further down the page….
Was this the end goal motive behind “authorship” and getting people on it in the first place with carrot on stick phrases like “will be a ranking factor…one day”?
Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users..we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.
Funnier if you look up who said it.
8 Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives
Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine one of the top results for cellular phone is "The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention", a study which explains in great detail the distractions and risk associated with conversing on a cell phone while driving. This search result came up first because of its high importance as judged by the PageRank algorithm, an approximation of citation importance on the web [Page, 98]. It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.
Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's homepage when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine. In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.
we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.
they don't see themselves as an advertiser -- but in reality they are. they are advertising their own products
Nothing funny about that. It's insightful as to the origins of their policy for separating their departments.
...in google's mind, putting youtube links and page links (for businesses) at the top of every serps is helping the consumer. they don't see themselves as an advertiser -- but in reality they are...
The NYTimes is an editorial content destination. It is expected for them to self-refer to other parts of their site. Google is not an editorial content destination. Google's mission is to organize the Internet to make it easier for the public to find content within it. Two different scenarios. We're all entitled to opinions and it's mine that it's not common sense for Google to self-refer, particularly with content that originally was not it's own.
Google's mission is to organize the Internet to make it easier for the public to find content within it.
If you look at the number of complaints in this thread [webmasterworld.com], you can come to your own conclusion as to how publishers are benefiting from Google's growth.
Google must use more of its real estate and leverage this real estate to promote their other products, services and companies. It's pretty clear this is exactly what they are doing.
The increase in paid clicks is consistent with a shift away from sharing revenues with publishers ...
You can tilt at windmills, or you can focus on the real world...
To compete with the carousel, paid ads, Google shopping blocks, image blocks, YouTube videos, etc., one is *almost* forced to join Adwords for many search terms to appear above the fold.
The real world, for legitimate businesses anyways, involves the sale of goods and services. The consumption of these goods and services drives 2/3 of our economy in the USA, at least according to what leading economists say.