3 ms·

"We write programs & formulas to deliver the best results possible" There's a slight oversight, it should be: "We write programs & formulas to deliver the most

"We write programs & formulas to deliver the best results possible" There's a slight oversight, it should be: "We write programs & formulas to deliver the most profitable results possible for this quarter"

moultano 14y ago
This is completely false. The effect on revenue is not used to make launch decisions for ranking changes.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  Says who? Search is rank and display. Products is 100% bought and that you had to "disclose". I say "disclose" because it's not apparent, unless searches click on a link, that's how ethical you are. What else is bought and paid for behind the scenes? Why should we trust you?
- JDDunn9 14y ago
  So when Google's Panda update killed tons of user-generated-content sites like Mahalo, eHow, HubPages, etc., and greatly improved YouTube's (which is 99% garbage) rankings, that was pure co-incidence? What about when Google rolled out universal search only after buying YouTube?
  - rossjudson 14y ago
    I don't miss any of the crap content factory sites. Do you?
    - JDDunn9 14y ago
      Nope, and I wouldn't miss YouTube's crap factory site from the SERPS either.
  - SquareWheel 14y ago
    "What about when Google rolled out universal search only after buying YouTube?" Because the technology wasn't built then? Google had a video platform before they owned Youtube, you know.
badgar 14y ago
> There's a slight oversight, it should be: "We write programs & formulas to deliver the most profitable results possible for this quarter" Says... you, right? Based on which examples of Google pursuing quarterly profits at the expense of users?
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  "Says... you, right? Based on which examples of Google pursuing quarterly profits at the expense of users?" Duh! Google local was a joke compared to better pages from Yelp. Google+ even worst. Pages are now filled with ads, because Google discovered that ads yield better results (how convenient!) Need I go on?
  - paranoiacblack 14y ago
    Yes, actually. And with real evidence other than your skewed opinions. Or you can keep being overly dramatic, your choice.
    - OGinparadise 14y ago
      "And with real evidence" what would qualify as "real" evidence to you? A hidden camera catching Googlers talking about this?
      - raylu 14y ago
        It seems you're making an argument of the form "it's too difficult to collect real evidence. In fact, here's an example of a way to collect real evidence that is ridiculously difficult. Since we cannot collect real evidence, we need not use it to make arguments." Just because it's difficult doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions based on speculation.
        OGinparadise 14y ago
        No it's not difficult at all. Re-read my comment and see how I gave three clear examples that explain Google's "best results for the users" bullsh*t.
will_brown 14y ago
I do not know why you were down-voted, perhaps for not fully forming an argument and making a tongue-in-cheek comment as an immediate response to the arrogant statement Google unnecessarily included in the description of how search works(yes, the same statement stood out to me, as out of place and arrogant, but not necessarily untrue). As to your point, yes, Google does utilize its power, leverage, dominance to favor itself and its own products - and don't feel to bad others are demanding you show your proof - how quick they are to forget (and apparently Google's own employees who replied to your comment forgot also) that the FTC spent the last year investigating Google's behavior on this front - some of those charges into Google's behavior include using its knowledge of search and advertising to determine the most profitable online businesses, entering the space with their own product to compete directly or just drive up the price of the advertising terms (sometime 1000%). So imagine you were buying key word "y" for "$x"/click - Google comes along and competes, now their product is at the top of the organic results and you will need to pay (1000 x "$X") for the same advertising - oh by the way when they pays (1000 x "$x") for the same ad space that money just goes back to its own pocket. So do not feel to bad - the FTC spent millions investigating Google to find said evidence and ultimately allowed Google to settle for $22.5 million, Google allowing others to use the Motorola patents is acquired, and changing their AdWords API. And keeping with their motto: "Don't be evil" it appears in the last 24 hours media has gone wild alleging Google spent $25,000 to honor the FTC Director during the investigation - I know when I am being investigated for federal anti-trust allegations I too like to honor the investigator, and like Google I do not give the investigator the money directly, I give it to a 3rd party who in turn gives it to the investigators office, this allows the investigator time to close the case before allegations are made and when allegations are eventually made it allows the investigator the opportunity to say at the time it was unknown who "donated" money for the honorarium.

moultano 14y ago

This is completely false. The effect on revenue is not used to make launch decisions for ranking changes.

OGinparadise 14y ago
Says who? Search is rank and display. Products is 100% bought and that you had to "disclose". I say "disclose" because it's not apparent, unless searches click on a link, that's how ethical you are. What else is bought and paid for behind the scenes? Why should we trust you?
JDDunn9 14y ago
So when Google's Panda update killed tons of user-generated-content sites like Mahalo, eHow, HubPages, etc., and greatly improved YouTube's (which is 99% garbage) rankings, that was pure co-incidence? What about when Google rolled out universal search only after buying YouTube?
- rossjudson 14y ago
  I don't miss any of the crap content factory sites. Do you?
  - JDDunn9 14y ago
    Nope, and I wouldn't miss YouTube's crap factory site from the SERPS either.
- SquareWheel 14y ago
  "What about when Google rolled out universal search only after buying YouTube?" Because the technology wasn't built then? Google had a video platform before they owned Youtube, you know.

badgar 14y ago

> There's a slight oversight, it should be: "We write programs & formulas to deliver the most profitable results possible for this quarter" Says... you, right? Based on which examples of Google pursuing quarterly profits at the expense of users?

OGinparadise 14y ago
"Says... you, right? Based on which examples of Google pursuing quarterly profits at the expense of users?" Duh! Google local was a joke compared to better pages from Yelp. Google+ even worst. Pages are now filled with ads, because Google discovered that ads yield better results (how convenient!) Need I go on?
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  Yes, actually. And with real evidence other than your skewed opinions. Or you can keep being overly dramatic, your choice.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    "And with real evidence" what would qualify as "real" evidence to you? A hidden camera catching Googlers talking about this?
    - raylu 14y ago
      It seems you're making an argument of the form "it's too difficult to collect real evidence. In fact, here's an example of a way to collect real evidence that is ridiculously difficult. Since we cannot collect real evidence, we need not use it to make arguments." Just because it's difficult doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions based on speculation.
      - OGinparadise 14y ago
        No it's not difficult at all. Re-read my comment and see how I gave three clear examples that explain Google's "best results for the users" bullsh*t.

will_brown 14y ago

I do not know why you were down-voted, perhaps for not fully forming an argument and making a tongue-in-cheek comment as an immediate response to the arrogant statement Google unnecessarily included in the description of how search works(yes, the same statement stood out to me, as out of place and arrogant, but not necessarily untrue). As to your point, yes, Google does utilize its power, leverage, dominance to favor itself and its own products - and don't feel to bad others are demanding you show your proof - how quick they are to forget (and apparently Google's own employees who replied to your comment forgot also) that the FTC spent the last year investigating Google's behavior on this front - some of those charges into Google's behavior include using its knowledge of search and advertising to determine the most profitable online businesses, entering the space with their own product to compete directly or just drive up the price of the advertising terms (sometime 1000%). So imagine you were buying key word "y" for "$x"/click - Google comes along and competes, now their product is at the top of the organic results and you will need to pay (1000 x "$X") for the same advertising - oh by the way when they pays (1000 x "$x") for the same ad space that money just goes back to its own pocket. So do not feel to bad - the FTC spent millions investigating Google to find said evidence and ultimately allowed Google to settle for $22.5 million, Google allowing others to use the Motorola patents is acquired, and changing their AdWords API. And keeping with their motto: "Don't be evil" it appears in the last 24 hours media has gone wild alleging Google spent $25,000 to honor the FTC Director during the investigation - I know when I am being investigated for federal anti-trust allegations I too like to honor the investigator, and like Google I do not give the investigator the money directly, I give it to a 3rd party who in turn gives it to the investigators office, this allows the investigator time to close the case before allegations are made and when allegations are eventually made it allows the investigator the opportunity to say at the time it was unknown who "donated" money for the honorarium.