4 ms·

How has market cap got anything to do with monetizing the site? You're suggesting that if Google was smaller then that would make this site more appealing to a

How has market cap got anything to do with monetizing the site? You're suggesting that if Google was smaller then that would make this site more appealing to advertisers? That having more advertising companies would make this site more valuable?

jdewerd 3y ago
The complaint was about Google's "talk to the hand" onboarding/feedback process, not the preferences of advertisers.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Sure, I think we can agree that at Google scale the business interactions with me as a potential supplier are automated and soulless. On the other hand there are several large supermarket chains where I live, and while I have a small artisinal cheese making hobby, so far my interactions with any of them to put it on their shelves have been equally soulless. Perhaps in this context the issue is not monopoly, but rather that I have nothing of value to offer them.
  - MadnessASAP 3y ago
    I cannot tell you how much I despise this idea that a company can be too big to talk to their customers/partners/products. If your relationship to a company is so worthless that they can't spend 5 minutes of an employee's day talking to you, then what value could they possibly be providing you?
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      They could be a monopoly, then the equation works.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      It seems in Google's case, a lot of value.
    - bruce511 3y ago
      In this situation it's not "google providing the site owner with value." It's the site owner providing Google with value (that they want Google to pay for). It's not incumbent for companies to interact with every person who thinks they _should_ be a supplier to said company. I get people cold calling me every day wanting to be my supplier. I absolutely ignore most of that. In this case Google's algorithm did not ignore the potential supplier. It evaluated the site and sent a reply saying basically "thanks, but no thanks". Now, I understand your gripe - an algorithm did this, not a human. But this has been the Google way since long before they were a fifth of this size. So it's not like a competitor changes Google's way of doing business. And Google's way is not a secret. If you don't like it, then don't have a business relationship with them (as a supplier or customer.)
Dylan16807 3y ago
Google thinks the value is zero, which is definitely wrong, and yes competition would help with that.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on what the value of the site might be, to say a competitive advertiser, and how that value might be unlocked?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > Can you elaborate on what the value of the site might be, to say a competitive advertiser, Lots of ads don't care very much what site they are on, even if the purpose of the site is somehow unknowable. But google knows the traffic it sends there. And it's able to show ads alongside those search results. Why can't it put similar ads on the page? And apparently adding the dumb text unlocked ads, so there's the value being put to work. The old site has the same value, google just refused to recognize it. > how that value might be unlocked? Uhh, put ads on the site and the ads will get valuable views. I don't know what you're asking here. Or are you asking how competition between advertising networks would help? You wouldn't see several big networks in healthy competition all having the same bad requirements that a superpower can get away with.
    - bruce511 3y ago
      I think that if you had 5 advertising networks, they'd all operate the same. I think Google (probably rightly) sees no value in this site from an advertising point of view. I think if there were 5 advertising aggregators they'd say the same. You're suggesting Google is leaving money on the table, not just for this site, but a lot of others like it. I'm suggesting that if this category of site had value to an advertising aggregator, someone would be leveraging it (and that someone eould likely be Google.)
      - jfoster 3y ago
        "No value", meaning $0 CPM? Not really plausible unless the site has barely any human visits.
konstantinua00 3y ago
if Google didn't make site more appealing, Google2 or Google3 or Google4 or SomeOtherCompetitor5 might but the problem is that there are no "2,3,4,5' options - there's only one. And it has no incentive for "good people" to leverage
- bruce511 3y ago
  Ok, theres only one option. But let's imagine you're CEO of option 2. What do you think you might do differently which would make this site, in its original form, appealing to advertise on? Having multiple ad companies doesn't sound like an improvement when the advertising space on offer doesn't seem to be good for advertising. Or to put it another way, do you feel this space does have value, but Google is leaving that value on the table? If so, why hasn't some other company taken advantage of this value?
  - a_dabbler 3y ago
    The new unneeded content doesn't make the site more appealing to advertise on, instead it exists purely to satisfy arbitrary standards set by Adsense. I feel you've missed the point of the article
    - bruce511 3y ago
      I get it. The unnecessary content games the Adsense algorithm, convincing it that the site now has value as a "place for adverts". That, in itself, is not actually a win. There would need to be traffic, clicks on ads, and so on to be a win. There's no evidence (either way, it's simply not mentioned) if the site actually makes any revenue from the ads that are now on it. Perhaps the automated Adsense algorithm was correct "the original site isn't a good ad site" - and the mistake is that it can't see what "seems" to be true to us, which is that the new site is no better.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
    A calculator sounds like a pretty good place to advertise actually. Any tool where a user spends a lot of time instead of rapidly scrolling through it could be decent ad space.
EasyMark 3y ago
The point is that if google ads were busted up into more corporations it would be more competitive and there would be other ad companies that would offer superior options.

jdewerd 3y ago

The complaint was about Google's "talk to the hand" onboarding/feedback process, not the preferences of advertisers.

bruce511 3y ago
Sure, I think we can agree that at Google scale the business interactions with me as a potential supplier are automated and soulless. On the other hand there are several large supermarket chains where I live, and while I have a small artisinal cheese making hobby, so far my interactions with any of them to put it on their shelves have been equally soulless. Perhaps in this context the issue is not monopoly, but rather that I have nothing of value to offer them.
- MadnessASAP 3y ago
  I cannot tell you how much I despise this idea that a company can be too big to talk to their customers/partners/products. If your relationship to a company is so worthless that they can't spend 5 minutes of an employee's day talking to you, then what value could they possibly be providing you?
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    They could be a monopoly, then the equation works.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    It seems in Google's case, a lot of value.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    In this situation it's not "google providing the site owner with value." It's the site owner providing Google with value (that they want Google to pay for). It's not incumbent for companies to interact with every person who thinks they _should_ be a supplier to said company. I get people cold calling me every day wanting to be my supplier. I absolutely ignore most of that. In this case Google's algorithm did not ignore the potential supplier. It evaluated the site and sent a reply saying basically "thanks, but no thanks". Now, I understand your gripe - an algorithm did this, not a human. But this has been the Google way since long before they were a fifth of this size. So it's not like a competitor changes Google's way of doing business. And Google's way is not a secret. If you don't like it, then don't have a business relationship with them (as a supplier or customer.)

Dylan16807 3y ago

Google thinks the value is zero, which is definitely wrong, and yes competition would help with that.

bruce511 3y ago
Can you elaborate on what the value of the site might be, to say a competitive advertiser, and how that value might be unlocked?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > Can you elaborate on what the value of the site might be, to say a competitive advertiser, Lots of ads don't care very much what site they are on, even if the purpose of the site is somehow unknowable. But google knows the traffic it sends there. And it's able to show ads alongside those search results. Why can't it put similar ads on the page? And apparently adding the dumb text unlocked ads, so there's the value being put to work. The old site has the same value, google just refused to recognize it. > how that value might be unlocked? Uhh, put ads on the site and the ads will get valuable views. I don't know what you're asking here. Or are you asking how competition between advertising networks would help? You wouldn't see several big networks in healthy competition all having the same bad requirements that a superpower can get away with.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    I think that if you had 5 advertising networks, they'd all operate the same. I think Google (probably rightly) sees no value in this site from an advertising point of view. I think if there were 5 advertising aggregators they'd say the same. You're suggesting Google is leaving money on the table, not just for this site, but a lot of others like it. I'm suggesting that if this category of site had value to an advertising aggregator, someone would be leveraging it (and that someone eould likely be Google.)
    - jfoster 3y ago
      "No value", meaning $0 CPM? Not really plausible unless the site has barely any human visits.

konstantinua00 3y ago

if Google didn't make site more appealing, Google2 or Google3 or Google4 or SomeOtherCompetitor5 might but the problem is that there are no "2,3,4,5' options - there's only one. And it has no incentive for "good people" to leverage

bruce511 3y ago
Ok, theres only one option. But let's imagine you're CEO of option 2. What do you think you might do differently which would make this site, in its original form, appealing to advertise on? Having multiple ad companies doesn't sound like an improvement when the advertising space on offer doesn't seem to be good for advertising. Or to put it another way, do you feel this space does have value, but Google is leaving that value on the table? If so, why hasn't some other company taken advantage of this value?
- a_dabbler 3y ago
  The new unneeded content doesn't make the site more appealing to advertise on, instead it exists purely to satisfy arbitrary standards set by Adsense. I feel you've missed the point of the article
  - bruce511 3y ago
    I get it. The unnecessary content games the Adsense algorithm, convincing it that the site now has value as a "place for adverts". That, in itself, is not actually a win. There would need to be traffic, clicks on ads, and so on to be a win. There's no evidence (either way, it's simply not mentioned) if the site actually makes any revenue from the ads that are now on it. Perhaps the automated Adsense algorithm was correct "the original site isn't a good ad site" - and the mistake is that it can't see what "seems" to be true to us, which is that the new site is no better.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
  A calculator sounds like a pretty good place to advertise actually. Any tool where a user spends a lot of time instead of rapidly scrolling through it could be decent ad space.

EasyMark 3y ago

The point is that if google ads were busted up into more corporations it would be more competitive and there would be other ad companies that would offer superior options.