3 ms·
"If they were that great they wouldn't need Google to send a steady stream of new users their way." Right. Like Amazon not needing roads. Or Walgreens needing
by ransom1538 8y ago
"If they were that great they wouldn't need Google to send a steady stream of new users their way."
Right. Like Amazon not needing roads. Or Walgreens needing a working Pharmacological system.
"When I search "Chinese Restaurant XY" and Google ranks results that would hide the information I seek behind annoying interstitials lowly - then I can't blame them. They're doing something that is in my best interest as their user."
Ugh. Yes. That is called a monopoly.
So this is the behavior as GOOGLE:
1) Remove all traffic to site
2) Re-create same site on Google
3) Point all traffic that was in 1) to google.
4) The site will try to move traffic to mobile -- but users will just get upset at the site. Because the interstitial is hard to tap on.
Is this really all they need todo to capture users? Sad.
- chmod775 8y ago> Ugh. Yes. That is called a monopoly. The sentence you replied to wasn't even tangentially related to the definition of a monopoly. It is something every search engine should do whether they have a monopoly or not, which is ranking things highly that are most useful to me. Sites hiding stuff behind interstitials just aren't. Now Google sure aren't angels, but the "penalizing interstitials" part hardly is the evil part. It might've been the creation of a competing product with a decent user experience that was evil. But then yelp was hardly sitting on a secret sauce. A 10 year old with 1 year of programming experience can build a review portal, and it'll likely be more pleasant to use than one that is intentionally crippled by it's owners.