5 ms·

What do you think are additional things that Google could do? I can imagine how hard this is to police. For example: - Let people mark different links as spam

by gbasic 11y ago

What do you think are additional things that Google could do? I can imagine how hard this is to police. For example: - Let people mark different links as spam - Hire a larger team to police this

Someone1234 11y ago
> What do you think are additional things that Google could do? Certain searches should NOT be monetised at all. When people are looking at entering sensitive personal information (e.g. passport, visa, birth certificate, arrest record, tax filing) it is too dangerous to allow adverts which may contain phishing scams into the mix. Too many people click ads thinking they're search results.
- gbasic 11y ago
  Do you remember when ads were called out in gray? Now most non-techy people I know seem to click on the first entry (the ad), converting good SEO into a payment to Google.
AJ007 11y ago
From a different standpoint: - How much money does Google make from 'bad' ads? (Or how much does Alibaba make from 'counterfeit' product ads? Or Amazon, etc.) - How many false positives will 'good' actors tolerate before they substantially reduce their spending on your platform? - How many resources do you put on the problem while making sure you continue to earn a large % of revenue from the 'bad' actors while minimizing negative consequences from your users or regulators?
- gbasic 11y ago
  One point I make is that even if Google makes significant money from bad ads, they still may be incentivized to ensure the experience is not substantially diminished (i.e., there's value to their reputation)
  - AJ007 11y ago
    That would fall under the third point. However, they have some big advantages that other companies do not get. For example, if you buy a bad iPhone once, that is really bad for Apple. Google as a search engine falls under a strange category. On one hand, users put more trust in what they see on Google, making the ad inventory more valuable. On the other hand, if something bad happens they understand it isn't from Google -- something which may not be as clear cut as say, purchasing a defective product off Amazon from a third party seller. (Then there is the revenue that comes for display ads, syndicated search feeds, things that 99% of users had no idea it was Google gaining much of the monetary benefit in the first place.) On top of all of this a large portion of users who do click on ads on Google have no idea they even clicked an ad in the first place.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kolbe 11y ago
One thing that I can't prove, but is likely true, is that .gov links are highly undervalued by google rankings. There are many many cases where a government web site provides the most obvious best result, but the fact that they don't do SEO or pay google forces the result too far down the page.
- chipperyman573 11y ago
  Their websites are also pretty... awful. I usually find much more valuable information on non .gov sites just because it's not hidden fifty links deep. The only valid reason (imo) to go to a .gov site is to e-file (or whatever they're calling it) something.
  - kolbe 11y ago
    I completely disagree. The site design is usually web 1.0 cringeworthy, but the content is trustworthy, accurate and truly free.

by gbasic 11y ago

What do you think are additional things that Google could do? I can imagine how hard this is to police. For example: - Let people mark different links as spam - Hire a larger team to police this

Someone1234 11y ago

> What do you think are additional things that Google could do? Certain searches should NOT be monetised at all. When people are looking at entering sensitive personal information (e.g. passport, visa, birth certificate, arrest record, tax filing) it is too dangerous to allow adverts which may contain phishing scams into the mix. Too many people click ads thinking they're search results.

gbasic 11y ago
Do you remember when ads were called out in gray? Now most non-techy people I know seem to click on the first entry (the ad), converting good SEO into a payment to Google.

AJ007 11y ago

From a different standpoint: - How much money does Google make from 'bad' ads? (Or how much does Alibaba make from 'counterfeit' product ads? Or Amazon, etc.) - How many false positives will 'good' actors tolerate before they substantially reduce their spending on your platform? - How many resources do you put on the problem while making sure you continue to earn a large % of revenue from the 'bad' actors while minimizing negative consequences from your users or regulators?

gbasic 11y ago
One point I make is that even if Google makes significant money from bad ads, they still may be incentivized to ensure the experience is not substantially diminished (i.e., there's value to their reputation)
- AJ007 11y ago
  That would fall under the third point. However, they have some big advantages that other companies do not get. For example, if you buy a bad iPhone once, that is really bad for Apple. Google as a search engine falls under a strange category. On one hand, users put more trust in what they see on Google, making the ad inventory more valuable. On the other hand, if something bad happens they understand it isn't from Google -- something which may not be as clear cut as say, purchasing a defective product off Amazon from a third party seller. (Then there is the revenue that comes for display ads, syndicated search feeds, things that 99% of users had no idea it was Google gaining much of the monetary benefit in the first place.) On top of all of this a large portion of users who do click on ads on Google have no idea they even clicked an ad in the first place.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kolbe 11y ago

One thing that I can't prove, but is likely true, is that .gov links are highly undervalued by google rankings. There are many many cases where a government web site provides the most obvious best result, but the fact that they don't do SEO or pay google forces the result too far down the page.

chipperyman573 11y ago
Their websites are also pretty... awful. I usually find much more valuable information on non .gov sites just because it's not hidden fifty links deep. The only valid reason (imo) to go to a .gov site is to e-file (or whatever they're calling it) something.
- kolbe 11y ago
  I completely disagree. The site design is usually web 1.0 cringeworthy, but the content is trustworthy, accurate and truly free.