3 ms·

The folks at Nextag (which by the way sells product listings without disclosing them and then complains about google: http://searchengineland.com/given-nextags-

by capo 14y ago

The folks at Nextag (which by the way sells product listings without disclosing them and then complains about google: http://searchengineland.com/given-nextags-lack-of-transparency-its-wsj-opinion-piece-asking-for-google-transparency-isnt-wise-124045 http://searchengineland.com/given-nextags-lack-of-transparen...) are telling the same sob story to every reporter who would listen. Their complaint is that they keep getting less free traffic from Google as if they are somehow entitled to it, they insist that they are living in a "Google world" and then go on to contradict that by saying that they are diversifying. It’s frustrating that the reporters are trying to cast doubt over every instance of a website getting demoted in rank as if the web is static and Google’s code base is unchanging, and they don't even give much consideration to inevitable errors in large and complicated systems. They offer no proof just speculations and innuendo. But what I find to be most frustrating is that this article shares the same blind insistence with Google’s opponents that search engines must only rank blue links, and only links to other websites, which is not only an ati-innovation stance but also an unintuitive one. As IBM’s Watson and to a lesser extent Siri has shown, search interface is about immediate answers, and the ultimate answer to these accusations still stands: if you don't like Google’s results use another service, if you can't reach a certain website via Google you can go directly to their website or get their smartphone app or follow them on Twitter or Facebook or bloody Instagram. It is also worth mentioning that the NYT ran editorials urging the government to investigate Google, and I think a disclaimer mentioning that ought to have preceded the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu3.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu3.html

schwabacher 14y ago
I am with you on all points until your last - Newspapers take great pains to keep news and editorial departments separate. I don't think it is common practice to disclose past editorials on the same topic as news articles, and if it were, the New York Times would have to disclose stances on both sides of many issues.
doctorpangloss 14y ago
If you don't like Google’s results use another service. Sure, but Google has two kinds of customers: searchers and websites. Maybe you believe websites shouldn't hide from Google because it makes no strategic sense. Twitter and Facebook don't let Google index their content. Why would they let Google front-run ads on their content? It's not a catchall rule, to hide with robots.txt. Maybe websites should just pay up: they should auction for higher results, if their business depends on search placement. But that's misunderstanding Google's role. Google isn't a salesperson. It's more like a road. Both bring business to your door (literally), but the latter gets used by everyone for everything. And it turns out it doesn't matter how you pave the road (roads have been public since the Egyptian times, yet road-building technology has changed dramatically) or whatever. To Nextag, Google is a utility. It is only by tradition that some monopolists become utilities and others do not. How do you regulate Google for what it is: a public utility?
- DrJ 14y ago
  I think before we turn google into the utility, we should turn the infrastructure that google runs on into a public utility.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Maybe websites should just pay up: they should auction for higher results, if their business depends on search placement. Isn't that exactly what AdWords is? As a consumer, I definitely what to know what is being paid for to show up and what isn't.
- dchuk 14y ago
  No, google has one customer: advertisers. Searchers don't directly make Google any money, advertisers do. Google is not a public utility, it's the most successful online advertising machine ever.
  - joelrunyon 14y ago
    Google has 2 customers: Searchers AND customers. Google has to get searchers to sell to advertisers. That said, the generic 'websites' mentioned above are not Google customers. Google does not "owe" them anything – they owe the searchers the best results and the advertisers clicks at a certain cost. The only thing those other websites do with their free listings are attract eyeballs to Google's engine.
    - dchuk 14y ago
      No, a searcher is not a customer, a searcher is the PRODUCT. Google is the marketplace, their customers (advertisers) are buying the product (traffic) via ad spend. The entire reason Google improves the search engine is to keep you coming back so they can learn more about you to make their advertising even better. You, as a user of Google, are their product. They are selling YOU to advertisers. Google is a company, not a utility, not a public service. They are in the business of profit.
      - 14y ago
joelrunyon 14y ago
This seems similar to Hollywood complaining that dvd sales are down because people want to stream stuff over the internet. Technology changes. The rules change. Don't complain that you built a company based on outdated business strategies (renting dvds or monetizing search traffic). Change your strategy and take advantage of the new opportunities.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by capo 14y ago

schwabacher 14y ago

I am with you on all points until your last - Newspapers take great pains to keep news and editorial departments separate. I don't think it is common practice to disclose past editorials on the same topic as news articles, and if it were, the New York Times would have to disclose stances on both sides of many issues.

doctorpangloss 14y ago

If you don't like Google’s results use another service. Sure, but Google has two kinds of customers: searchers and websites. Maybe you believe websites shouldn't hide from Google because it makes no strategic sense. Twitter and Facebook don't let Google index their content. Why would they let Google front-run ads on their content? It's not a catchall rule, to hide with robots.txt. Maybe websites should just pay up: they should auction for higher results, if their business depends on search placement. But that's misunderstanding Google's role. Google isn't a salesperson. It's more like a road. Both bring business to your door (literally), but the latter gets used by everyone for everything. And it turns out it doesn't matter how you pave the road (roads have been public since the Egyptian times, yet road-building technology has changed dramatically) or whatever. To Nextag, Google is a utility. It is only by tradition that some monopolists become utilities and others do not. How do you regulate Google for what it is: a public utility?

DrJ 14y ago
I think before we turn google into the utility, we should turn the infrastructure that google runs on into a public utility.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Maybe websites should just pay up: they should auction for higher results, if their business depends on search placement. Isn't that exactly what AdWords is? As a consumer, I definitely what to know what is being paid for to show up and what isn't.
dchuk 14y ago
No, google has one customer: advertisers. Searchers don't directly make Google any money, advertisers do. Google is not a public utility, it's the most successful online advertising machine ever.
- joelrunyon 14y ago
  Google has 2 customers: Searchers AND customers. Google has to get searchers to sell to advertisers. That said, the generic 'websites' mentioned above are not Google customers. Google does not "owe" them anything – they owe the searchers the best results and the advertisers clicks at a certain cost. The only thing those other websites do with their free listings are attract eyeballs to Google's engine.
  - dchuk 14y ago
    No, a searcher is not a customer, a searcher is the PRODUCT. Google is the marketplace, their customers (advertisers) are buying the product (traffic) via ad spend. The entire reason Google improves the search engine is to keep you coming back so they can learn more about you to make their advertising even better. You, as a user of Google, are their product. They are selling YOU to advertisers. Google is a company, not a utility, not a public service. They are in the business of profit.
    - 14y ago

joelrunyon 14y ago

This seems similar to Hollywood complaining that dvd sales are down because people want to stream stuff over the internet. Technology changes. The rules change. Don't complain that you built a company based on outdated business strategies (renting dvds or monetizing search traffic). Change your strategy and take advantage of the new opportunities.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]