3 ms·

Isn't Google's monetization for Search results the primary reason for not allowing crowd funded quality metrics? If only good results get to the top how do they

Isn't Google's monetization for Search results the primary reason for not allowing crowd funded quality metrics? If only good results get to the top how do they make money? Google's Search business model appears to be predicated on poor results getting disproportionately prominent listing.

mcv 5y ago
The actual sponsored links end up at the top anyway. I don't see how bad regular results would contribute to their revenue; it would just drive people away.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  >I don't see how bad regular results would contribute to their revenue Let's say you run a good song-lyrics site that has the correct lyrics for everyone's favorite songs. You happen to be on page 2 of google results for common queries; all of page 1 is taken up by spammers, fake pages, etc. How can you possibly drive traffic to your site? Maybe you can invest in SEO but no promises there. You'd be competing against people whose whole focus is SEO and nothing else. The only option left is to buy ads.
  - mcv 5y ago
    Yeah, but so can the spammers and fake pages. And it all works together to make Google worse. I agree that it would work as long as Google has an absolute monopoly on search. Google wouldn't care how bad their search results are, because there's nowhere else to go. But if there are alternatives, users should stop using Google and use the alternatives instead, and then Google has an incentive to improve their search results for users again.
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 5y ago
  Let's say we have three search results, good, average and bad, displayed on one result per page in that order. The user is happy, Google is unhappy as there is no motivation for the site owner of the best search result to pay Google for their listing. The only way Google gets money is if it enables the result order to be modified, i.e. the owners of the average or poor sites to disproportionately effect their listing prominence by appearing on page 1. Google do this by allowing paid adverts. Bad or average search results thus get disproportionately high prominence in the listing with the knock on effect that the owner of the best search result now has motivation to pay Google to regain their primary listing. And even further, if the site owner of the best search results now has to pay Google for the prominence of their listing why waste money on continuing to provide the best results? The user is unhappy, Google is happy.

mcv 5y ago

The actual sponsored links end up at the top anyway. I don't see how bad regular results would contribute to their revenue; it would just drive people away.

cool_dude85 5y ago
>I don't see how bad regular results would contribute to their revenue Let's say you run a good song-lyrics site that has the correct lyrics for everyone's favorite songs. You happen to be on page 2 of google results for common queries; all of page 1 is taken up by spammers, fake pages, etc. How can you possibly drive traffic to your site? Maybe you can invest in SEO but no promises there. You'd be competing against people whose whole focus is SEO and nothing else. The only option left is to buy ads.
- mcv 5y ago
  Yeah, but so can the spammers and fake pages. And it all works together to make Google worse. I agree that it would work as long as Google has an absolute monopoly on search. Google wouldn't care how bad their search results are, because there's nowhere else to go. But if there are alternatives, users should stop using Google and use the alternatives instead, and then Google has an incentive to improve their search results for users again.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn 5y ago
Let's say we have three search results, good, average and bad, displayed on one result per page in that order. The user is happy, Google is unhappy as there is no motivation for the site owner of the best search result to pay Google for their listing. The only way Google gets money is if it enables the result order to be modified, i.e. the owners of the average or poor sites to disproportionately effect their listing prominence by appearing on page 1. Google do this by allowing paid adverts. Bad or average search results thus get disproportionately high prominence in the listing with the knock on effect that the owner of the best search result now has motivation to pay Google to regain their primary listing. And even further, if the site owner of the best search results now has to pay Google for the prominence of their listing why waste money on continuing to provide the best results? The user is unhappy, Google is happy.