Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: LifeinAsia & httpwebwitch

Message Too Old, No Replies

Why Google is bad for business

Business owners are held ransom



10:11 am on Apr 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

I believe that Google is becoming a negative force in Internet Business for the following reasons and should be subject to anti-competitive examination under US and European legislation.

1. Google is not merely a search engine carrying out it's stated mission of 'Organising the World's Information', it is also a middle man publisher of the worlds information by:

(a) Republishing literature that's the foundation to our societies, the online library will be the equivalent of Digital Ownership as readers pass through the Google doors to reach it, monetising it on the way.

(b) Publishing snippets of sites in response to the search query instead of passing the traffic to the author sites.

(c)Taking payment for advertising beside those snippets without sharing with the creator.

2. Creating a financial burden on business through SEO, while continuously moving the goal posts creating an bleed on enterprise resources.

3. The ineffectiveness from a business viewpoint of the main Google product; The Search Engine, is surprising for the following reasons:

(a) The serps for my business (holiday rentals) are full of spam and MFA sites.

(b) Google favours Big Brands over accurate results.

(c) It incorrectly values the real world importance of Wikipedia (a troll den), DMOZ (a closed fiefdom), and .gov/.edu links.

For example the world's largest maker of cement can be lost in the serps for a long tail query to an MFA site with DMOZ and Wikipedia links.

Why should the Cement company worry about the internet? But people interested in it's products get duff information because of a faulty algo.

.gov is the US Government. Can the whole world have a link from a .gov? It's a clear big brand, US only advantage.

4. Google is a brand, but the accuracy of the Yahoo serps is much better. 8 times more people use G that Y because G is a better brand that used to be 100 times better at searching, only now it's not.

In summary, Google is supposed to analyze and collate the internet and help people find what they are looking for, and make a profit through advertising for doing that?

What they are doing now, through short sightedness and downright bad algos, is actually having the internet created for their bots and algos.

Webmasters writing for a robot, while it's come to be the norm, is actually obscene and a waste of global resources. People STILL are starving out there folks.

If one is to do business online, then that's great and thanks to the Giant Hadron Collider, CERN and Tim Berners Lee who spawned the idea, but I believe we are faced with the equivalent of an online Somalian pirate operation that is standing in the way, unless of course you pay.

Whether it's Adwords or SEO, you do pay.

So Google might not have intended to be, but in my opinion it has become a business evil. It may be a necessary evil, but an evil is most certainly is.


3:10 pm on Apr 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rocknbil is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

You'll probably have a lot of people in your court. IMO, there is always some Big Dog out there that can be attributed as the source of evil. Just to throw another view on the table:

Whether it's Adwords or SEO, you do pay.

Case one: My wife's business is turning five this year. She is in a very specific and small niche. We live in a small town of 20K and she gets zero to nil business locally. Her web site is built on common sense, for the end users, no "stupid web tricks" to game the search engines. No budget thrown to SEO. (Although I will admit we used adWords for the first year only to get it started.)

Page one for the main keywords, pages 3-5 for lesser ones.

Case two: Built a site for a client in which I was given carte blanc. Repeat scenario above: no stupid web tricks, built for the visitors, plenty of in-page textual content. This site consists of maybe 20-25 pages, not a huge spam-fest of articles. Not only page 1, number 1 for the core description of his business, out of 11 million.

Neither of these businesses would stand a chance of survival without the help of search engines, the traffic, and subsequent conversions they bring.

No SEO budget. No $100/day AdWords budgets (The aforementioned "starter" budget? $5/day first 6 month, $35/day last 6 months.) Just common sense and allowing myself the chance to learn and improve. Without G, Y, MSN, and others, most of us - let's face it - would be out of a job, on a corner somewhere with the sign, "Will HTML code for food."

The glass is half full or it's half empty, the choice of which is yours.


3:43 pm on Apr 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator lifeinasia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

My responses:
1a- Granted, libraries don't directly monetize the books they loan. But libraries are depriving publishers and authors of revenue by making those book available for free. Given your position, why shouldn't we shut down the libraries as well?

1b- So if a user gets 1.5 million results back for a search query, Google is supposed to automatically redirect that person to ALL 1.5 million sites?! And if not, how should Google determine which of those 1.5 million sites to automatically send a person to? Sorry, but if I was automatically redirected to an arbitrary site, I would never use that search engine. People want t choice in which site they go to. So how do you suggest you offer people a choice without showing those snippets of information?

1c- If you go into a Barnes & Noble or some other book stores, you can usually find a coffee shop or some other concessionaire selling food and drinks. Are THOSE revenue shared with publishers and authors?

2- Amazingly enough, quite a few companies managed to survive (and prosper) BEFORE Google. So the argument that Google is a necessity doesn't hold water. And many companies survive without spending any money related to Google. Believe it or not, there are still quite a few companies that do not have a web site (and thus aren't concerned or even know about SEO or PPC).

3a- Most likely true for most business areas. And if you can find a search engine where it is NOT true, then the world will quickly flock to it. (And just as quickly, the MFAs and SPAMMERS will most likely find ways to game that system as well.)

3b- Who says a big brand is never an accurate result?

3c- Again, who says those results are always inaccurate? Some definitely are. But some definitely are accurate and probably more relevant than any other sites for that particular category.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that for non-U.S. sites a link from a .go domain is less authoritative than a .gov link?

Before Google came along, people focused on tweaking their sites for Yahoo. And if someone dethrones Google, webmasters will be tweaking their sites for the new king's algo.

You have your opinions, and I have mine as well. I rarely find Yahoo's SERPs any better than Google's. That's why I mostly use Google.

Similarly, I started PPC with Goto (which became Overture, then bought by Yahoo). My spending is almost nil now on Yahoo because it doesn't show results. I spend money on Google because it shows results. (And also because Yahoo's interface, in my opinion, is much more difficult to use) If/when it stops showing results and a better dog comes around, that dog will be my money.


4:57 pm on Apr 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

google are just the microsoft of the internet. you can spend your entire life on the internet just using google products. people caught up with microsoft eventually and they will catch up with google in time.

the difference with google is that they don't have so much of a monopoly like microsoft did with windows. but now they have started bringing out stuff like their own browser, maybe the courts will get interested.

i don't think it's healthy that one company can run your entire internet experience, from the software that you use (chrome), through the sites that you use to find them (the search engine), the sites themselves (all the sites they own like blogger and youtube), and the way the sites are paid for (google checkout, adsense, adwords etc). and then there's all the google products that gather data on you -- analytics, their toolbar, their behaviour tracking cookies etc

not forgetting all the emails that you send with gmail, the news that you read on google news, the photos they take of our houses on google maps...

has there ever been a company with so many thumbs stuck in our pies?


6:15 pm on Apr 9, 2009 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

News just in, which is a better description of the literary problem. [webmasterworld.com...]


8:30 am on Apr 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member

Its funny how companies with a large share of the market can go down.
Word Perfect once ruled word processing.
Yahoo were top search engine.
First Choice had a good suite of "office" software.
IBM used to sell millions of PC's
So did Gateway.

I predict that one day Google will loose their way.

All companies that get too big and dominate get "corporatized" and fat and lazy.


1:14 pm on Apr 14, 2009 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Its funny how companies with a large share of the market can go down.
Word Perfect once ruled word processing.
Yahoo were top search engine.
First Choice had a good suite of "office" software.
IBM used to sell millions of PC's
So did Gateway.

I predict that one day Google will loose their way.

All companies that get too big and dominate get "corporatized" and fat and lazy.

and Henry Ford once had 66% of the world's car market, then GM was the biggest car maker, now Toyota is......

I agree - every large company will fall sooner or later. Google is only 10 years old after all. What will they look like when they are as old as Microsoft?


Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month