3 ms·
Replying to self since we are at the max depth. So, from the perspective of a business analyst, you are saying that Google has no incentive to ensure the quali
by rryan 15y ago
Replying to self since we are at the max depth.
So, from the perspective of a business analyst, you are saying that Google has no incentive to ensure the quality of their search results because they don't receive any additional money from the people who use it?
That sounds like very short-term thinking to me, and Google is a famously long-term thinking company.
OT your line of reasoning reminds me of Excite when they were considering using Google's results. "[Google] was too good. If Excite were to host a search engine that instantly gave people information they sought, [Excite's CEO] explained, the users would leave the site instantly." [1]
[1] http://cdixon.org/2011/05/16/accurate-contrarian-theories/ http://cdixon.org/2011/05/16/accurate-contrarian-theories/
- gaius 15y agoNo, of course they do, but only so you'll come back and can be shown more ads. And "incentive" is quite literal: ads are Google's main (only?) revenue stream. If they don't get eyeballs, they have no inventory of product to sell to their real customers. Look, I'm not saying this is good or bad. But it is what it is.
- scott_s 15y agoWell, you're saying "it is what it is," but you're only providing arguments, not evidence. I think rryan has presented actual evidence in the form of how Google is structured.
- gaius 15y agoBut don't you see that if Google sells no ads, those people working to make your search better don't get paid either?
- scott_s 15y agoI can see that, but you're making the fundamental mistake that just because something is plausible that it is actually happening. There's enough moving parts here that arguments are not sufficient.
- wnight 15y agoNo, it is a valid point. To lose sight of that is to forget they're a business. You don't pay them directly. Yes, they get paid based on your repeat usage, but they get paid by advertisers.