5 ms·

This article, and the one it references about AMP, all throw the word 'force' around a lot. No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to

This article, and the one it references about AMP, all throw the word 'force' around a lot. No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to be top of Google SERP is optional.

bytematic 8y ago
That typically applies to all monopolies in free countries
saagarjha 8y ago
> No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to be top of Google SERP is optional. Not if you want people to be able to find you…
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Maybe it's time people stop giving a fig about Google search. It probably wouldn't work for a site that is trying to pull in a national or international audience, but local and regional web sites can. Someone I knew socially operated a very successful web site and did exactly zero SEO. Instead he went the old-fashioned route: Advertising. He started with ads in regional magazines, then went to billboards, public radio sponsorships (those HD2/HD3/HD4 channels are incredibly cheap to sponsor), and eventually some pretty craptastic local TV ads. It wouldn't work for every site, but it worked for him. His site is the leading property in its space in its region. He's proud to boast that not once did he get in the Google hamster wheel.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > Instead he went the old-fashioned route: Advertising. Not the best point to bring up, considering that Google owns a significant portion of online advertising…
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      Real advertising. Not online "advertising" that is so full of fraud and bogus traffic that it's worthless.
justinph 8y ago
I work for a large publisher. Google isn't putting a literal knife to anyones throat, but they are not so subtly suggesting that search traffic is tied to your usage of AMP. That qualifies as `force` in my book.
- skybrian 8y ago
  But this is the opposite of force.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    A threat can be a way to force. Saying a threat is the opposite of forcing is definitely wrong.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      The original post talked about "a literal knife to anyones throat" which means physical force. But what is supposed threat about? We are talking about whether or not Google links to a website, which has nothing to do with that. Linking is purely voluntary and there is not even a contract. Of course, at scale, financial incentives are still very important for businesses, but let's be clear about this. There are no goons or threat of goons involved.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        > The original post talked about "a literal knife to anyones throat" which means physical force. Here is exactly what you replied to: > Google isn't putting a literal knife to anyones throat, but they are not so subtly suggesting that search traffic is tied to your usage of AMP. 1. Notice the use of isn't. I'm not a native English speaker but it still seems clear that you are reading something that isn't written. 2. The threat of being shunned is still a threat. Also there is something about abusive relationships where the abuser will say: I didn't force anyone, but everyone knows there would have been "consequences" if the victim didn't do what they were told.
IAmGraydon 8y ago
Are you kidding? If someone controlled most of the world's food supply, and said that each night you had to do the moonwalk to have access to their food supply, would you say they are forcing you to do the moonwalk? I would, and I'm pretty sure any sane person would. Because the other option is starvation, which leads to you ceasing to exist. How anyone can actually believe the "logic" you're proposing here is really beyond me.
lubujackson 8y ago
So the pro-Google argument I'm hearing is something like: "Google is making a better experience for users and no one is forcing you to use Google." If you think Google is in the right here you have to say Microsoft was totally right to push IE and make it the default on Windows machines and make certain pages only load in IE and all the rest. After all, you could simply go install Firefox or not view pages on Microsoft.com. The problem is that Google is using it's market advantage to do things that takes control from websites and affects their economics directly. Google using it's influence to dictate best practices is nothing new (and has always been worrisome), but AMP directly affects websites owner's control of their content and they are continuing down a path that weaken the economics of site owners, especially smaller sites. You can say it's great to strip out bloated stuff from pages, but if Google strips more value from websites and gives them nothing in return, it just leads to sites closing down or producing less content because Google is absorbing their value. And also don't forget good content that doesn't care about AMP or isn't part of an economic machine that jumps when Google says jump. That content just gets further pushed down the SERPs for big entities that follow Google's rules, regardless of it the content is better or if it has any "bloat" to strip in the first place. How exactly is that good for users?

This article, and the one it references about AMP, all throw the word 'force' around a lot. No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to be top of Google SERP is optional.

bytematic 8y ago

That typically applies to all monopolies in free countries

saagarjha 8y ago

> No one is 'forcing' you to do anything with your website, wanting to be top of Google SERP is optional. Not if you want people to be able to find you…

reaperducer 8y ago
Maybe it's time people stop giving a fig about Google search. It probably wouldn't work for a site that is trying to pull in a national or international audience, but local and regional web sites can. Someone I knew socially operated a very successful web site and did exactly zero SEO. Instead he went the old-fashioned route: Advertising. He started with ads in regional magazines, then went to billboards, public radio sponsorships (those HD2/HD3/HD4 channels are incredibly cheap to sponsor), and eventually some pretty craptastic local TV ads. It wouldn't work for every site, but it worked for him. His site is the leading property in its space in its region. He's proud to boast that not once did he get in the Google hamster wheel.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Instead he went the old-fashioned route: Advertising. Not the best point to bring up, considering that Google owns a significant portion of online advertising…
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    Real advertising. Not online "advertising" that is so full of fraud and bogus traffic that it's worthless.

justinph 8y ago

I work for a large publisher. Google isn't putting a literal knife to anyones throat, but they are not so subtly suggesting that search traffic is tied to your usage of AMP. That qualifies as `force` in my book.

skybrian 8y ago
But this is the opposite of force.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  A threat can be a way to force. Saying a threat is the opposite of forcing is definitely wrong.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    The original post talked about "a literal knife to anyones throat" which means physical force. But what is supposed threat about? We are talking about whether or not Google links to a website, which has nothing to do with that. Linking is purely voluntary and there is not even a contract. Of course, at scale, financial incentives are still very important for businesses, but let's be clear about this. There are no goons or threat of goons involved.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      > The original post talked about "a literal knife to anyones throat" which means physical force. Here is exactly what you replied to: > Google isn't putting a literal knife to anyones throat, but they are not so subtly suggesting that search traffic is tied to your usage of AMP. 1. Notice the use of isn't. I'm not a native English speaker but it still seems clear that you are reading something that isn't written. 2. The threat of being shunned is still a threat. Also there is something about abusive relationships where the abuser will say: I didn't force anyone, but everyone knows there would have been "consequences" if the victim didn't do what they were told.

IAmGraydon 8y ago

Are you kidding? If someone controlled most of the world's food supply, and said that each night you had to do the moonwalk to have access to their food supply, would you say they are forcing you to do the moonwalk? I would, and I'm pretty sure any sane person would. Because the other option is starvation, which leads to you ceasing to exist. How anyone can actually believe the "logic" you're proposing here is really beyond me.

lubujackson 8y ago

So the pro-Google argument I'm hearing is something like: "Google is making a better experience for users and no one is forcing you to use Google." If you think Google is in the right here you have to say Microsoft was totally right to push IE and make it the default on Windows machines and make certain pages only load in IE and all the rest. After all, you could simply go install Firefox or not view pages on Microsoft.com. The problem is that Google is using it's market advantage to do things that takes control from websites and affects their economics directly. Google using it's influence to dictate best practices is nothing new (and has always been worrisome), but AMP directly affects websites owner's control of their content and they are continuing down a path that weaken the economics of site owners, especially smaller sites. You can say it's great to strip out bloated stuff from pages, but if Google strips more value from websites and gives them nothing in return, it just leads to sites closing down or producing less content because Google is absorbing their value. And also don't forget good content that doesn't care about AMP or isn't part of an economic machine that jumps when Google says jump. That content just gets further pushed down the SERPs for big entities that follow Google's rules, regardless of it the content is better or if it has any "bloat" to strip in the first place. How exactly is that good for users?