7 ms·

Let's call what it is not about: user privacy. Adwords, that I guess gobbles most clicks on a lot of searches, still transmits the data. This is the latest fro

Let's call what it is not about: user privacy. Adwords, that I guess gobbles most clicks on a lot of searches, still transmits the data. This is the latest from a desperate Google. Why is Google desperate? Virtually all their money is being made via ads, their original business plan. Asteroid mining and other BS "We're curing death" press releases aside, Google is dependent on adwords so they need to keep turning knobs to force sites to advertise. Their PE is 25+ so they need to show huge increase quarter to quarter to keep the scheme going. This month Google also made the Keyword Tool for advertisers only. And in another major coincidence after Page took over, Google has made major algo changes (Panda, Penguin) giving sites virtually no way to come back in ranking but that greatly improved Google's revenue. Shocking, huh? Of course they can advertise to make up for the lost traffic, like the sites that rank high (brands.) So do I have a smoking gun memo? Nope, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Ever wondered why Wikipedia ranks #1 for "computer"? IMO, it has to do with forcing Dell, MS, HP and others to advertise and to increase clicks on ads. I doubt most people want to know what a "computer" is when searching Google on a computer. That Gmail "promotions tab"? Google attacking another free source of sales and marketing. P.S. I expect a gazillion down votes from you know who. I don't care.

RobAtticus 13y ago
First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something. Second, if your theory were true, why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Wouldn't that be a more powerful keyword to force people to advertise for?
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something. You do not know how Wall Street works on tech companies with high PE. Even a 10% increase might shave Google $200 off their share price. Second, if your theory were true, why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Wouldn't that be a more powerful keyword to force people to advertise for? I have a feeling that the fastest Googler reading this is about to get a promotion thanks to your tip.
- RBerenguel 13y ago
  Or tablet, for that matter.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something. Think of it like being at sea on a sailboat. You've got a nice solar powered GPS unit, modern top of the line navigation. You've also got a box full of current charts, maps, a sextant and compass, and you've got an old OMEGA system too, just in case. While out at sea, you take a look at your maps only to realize with horror that you accidentally brought your box of AAA road maps of Nebraska! What a dope you are, but you're still doing fine. Then you take a look at your OMEGA system, but discover that it no longer works because they shut that down in 1997! You've still got your GPS, it is still doing just fine but don't you think the failure of your fallbacks would make you a little nervous?
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  > why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Browsing Google while logged out, using its ‘no country redirect’ option, the first non-ad result is Wikipedia. (Even using those settings, Google will serve local ads – in my case, in Dutch) http://i.imgur.com/UevuyEy.png http://i.imgur.com/UevuyEy.png
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    I'd guess that due to commonly used resolutions most users cannot see beyond the Wikipedia link so it's all set up perfectly to increase ad clicks: 3-4 relevant links (er, ads) or Wikipedia.
jcampbell1 13y ago
I disagree. As a user, I don't want my queries passed on to the sites I visit for privacy reason. As an advertiser, I use the organic keyword reports to buy ads frequently. It is very common that I would find organic searches where we got conversions, but were low on the page or on the second page. I would use that information to buy ads. For the last year or so, this technique hardly works because there is so much less keyword data available. Now it is completely gone as you can't match the webmaster tools data to conversions. This change is going to cost Google significant revenue and growth over time.
- dchuk 13y ago
  What privacy reasons? As soon as you land on that site, they can geoIP you, evercookie you, browser thumbprint you, and if they participate in network-based cookie lookup systems, they can probably even identify who you are. Why does the keyword you searched matter at that point?
  - dictum 13y ago
    "Why should we care about NoScript users?"
AJ007 13y ago
SSL to SSL should still pass the HTTP referrers. If this is the case, this is a non-story. If it is not, then its interesting.
- AJ007 13y ago
  Answering my own question, they intentionally stripped the query out of the referrer: https://nablux.net/tgp/weblog/2012/03/12/google-ssl-not-the-problem/ https://nablux.net/tgp/weblog/2012/03/12/google-ssl-not-the-...
dictum 13y ago
A week ago, I'd read "Google" and "desperate" in the same sentence and smirk. Then I saw a hey, you're using an ad blocker, could you just turn it off for our domains? kthx message on top of a search results page. (I don't know if it's a new thing or it's been done for a while but my filters were hiding it.)
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  The crazy part is that it is Youtube that is driving most people to install an ad blocker. Breaking people's flow when they are listening to music at a party or while working is too janky.
trevin 13y ago
On top of all these other changes, Google's "Knowledge Graph" and other Google-owned properties are taking up more and more of the search results than ever before. Google Shopping, YouTube, Google+ and Adwords all take up more screen real estate with every Google update and design tweak. Look at this query for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=telescopes https://www.google.com/search?q=telescopes I see 20 links to ads and Google owned properties and only 2 to actual 3rd party websites. That's insane. (edit: That's above the fold, on page load...more 3rd party listings if you keep scrolling but most users don't)
- rryan 13y ago
  It's not surprising that commercial queries produce ads. "what are telescopes", "astronomy", "skywatching", "how to use a telescope", "telescope construction", and "telescope history" on the other hand are all web results and no ads. Hand-picking a highly-commercial query and using it to generalize about all queries is kind of BS. Looking at my past weeks worth of search history there are very few commercial intent queries. And when I was doing commercial intent queries (buying some rock climbing equipment) Google Shopping ads were actually pretty helpful in doing my research because it allows you to rank the results of different retailers together which is something I previously had to do by going to each individual site and checking their prices. It misses sellers that haven't chosen to advertise on Google Shopping but all of my go-to online shops for gear (Backcountry, Moosejaw, REI, EMS, gearx, gear co-op, Campsaver, etc.) are doing it so it works quite well for me.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    Google Shopping ads were actually pretty helpful in doing my research because it allows you to rank the results of different retailers together which is something I previously had to do by going to each individual site and checking their prices. You browsed ADS, companies have paid to be included there and the price you paid in the end included the Google tax. A company that might have had the best price /shipping options maybe didn't want to advertise on Google or others included their most expensive /high margin items given the advertising cost. You got or will get screwed, because advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. Also, don't you agree that in general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines? note: some will get this post ;).
justinsteele 13y ago
"new computer" (on top of the other examples of laptop and tablet that were already posted) also lists a non-wikipedia site first (Dell.com). I think you're really pulling at straws with the computer example, there seems to be a relatively high chance that most people shopping for a new "computer" don't only type "computer", and that the traffic to wikipedia (ie. it being the "correct" first result) is high.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
who is you know who? patio11? huh? I agree with you - ads play a big part in this, although I would not discount giving the NSA a legally acceptable black eye. If the US is seeing a backlash over Prism, Google and Amazon will see it before the State department. Google has a balancing act between delivering genuine results based on PageRank (ie relevance - what people use google for) and getting people to click on adverts. As a small business I value the nearly levelled playing field out there and would hate a world driven by ad dollars again. But I struggle to see how Google can replace ads. And yet everything they do makes ads less necessary and organic (free) search more relevant. However we are not at the ad-opocalypse yet. ads replace relevance for your internet presence. as every business everywhere gets better at SEO we shall see the SEO advantage disappear and the only way to beat your competitor is to advertise again. it's probably got some analogue in evolution. however everyone is not good at SEO yet and the number of people coming online probably will keep googles tills ringing for while yet.
mooted1 13y ago
What paranoid tripe, complete with mass downvote conspiracy theory pandering. I never thought I'd hear someone on hacker news actually complain about search engine results not being commercial enough. Most of the changes you describe enhance the user experience. Do you honestly prefer to wade through a few dozen promotional emails to find messages from your boss, friends or family? Is your argument seriously that google should make their products more inconvenient so companies have to spend less money on adwords? Not to mention the idea that there's some kind of zero-sum trade off between email marketing and adwords is ludicrous. Similarly, wikipedia ranks high for keywords when they are associated with queries for information, not product offers. Your example of the keyword "computer" is a terrible example for making your point: for me at least, only two ads show up for this keyword, but there are dozens for "laptop". This is a strong indicator that "computer" by itself is not what people google when they're buying computers. By contrast, type in "new computer". Finally, the keyword tool has required a (free) google ads account for a long time, so I really don't know what you're going on about here.
- platinum1 13y ago
  Looks like Google's been reading http://donttrack.us/ http://donttrack.us/
- powertower 13y ago
  Everything he said was spot on, he just used a bad example at the end. At Google, you better believe that when search changes are made - those changes are ran through a test to see if they have a positive or negative effect on revenues and profits - aka Ad clicks. And that test result heavily outweighs any accompanying change to the search result's relevancy score. Maybe it did not start out like this, but now that Google is a publicly traded company, and now that they own the market, and now that their revenues are still completely dependent on Ad clicks, things work differently. It's not about improving search results, it's about improving revenue numbers. If you can't see how this business process biases Google's algorithm to produce less-relevant search results on page in favor of the Ads having a higher chance of getting viewed and clicked, you have drank the kool-aid. Bing is just as good as Google-search for most people, yet most people have made up their minds about the search engine to use. This market behavior allows Google to not be worried about making algorithmic changes that worsen the results in trade for more revenue ... as the users will keep sticking with them... Because this change has no effect on their userbase numbers (current, and growth #s). Aside from higher CTRs, those changes (that return less relevent search results) will also improve the number of searches done and the number of Ads shown by great margins - as the users will keep at it, performing another search in hopes of getting something relevent back . It's a win-win for Google.
jlgreco 13y ago
> Ever wondered why Wikipedia ranks #1 for "computer"? IMO, it has to do with forcing Dell, MS, HP and others to advertise and to increase clicks on ads. I doubt most people want to know what a "computer" is when searching Google on a computer. If I am searching a single noun, it is almost certain that what I really want it a link to Wikipedia. If I am looking to buy something I always add "buy" or "purchase" to the front of my search. I don't think I am particularly weird in that regard.
- comex 13y ago
  I don't, but if I type in "desktop" or "laptop" or "tablet" I get Amazon and Best Buy as the top organic results (admittedly, with very prominent sponsored links). "Computer" is probably less common as a search from shoppers.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    To be honest, I am most likely to type a particular brand/model that I want, in which case I almost always get non-wikipedia pages (which in those cases are exactly what I want.) "honda accord" for example gives me honda.com search results before the wikipedia page. Now if I just search "sedan", I of course get the wikipedia page first. Is this google just putting wikipedia at the top there to try to force Honda to buy ads for "sedan"? Somehow I highly doubt that. If I search "sedan", chances are I am looking to read about sedans, not jump right to buying an as-of-yet undetermined sedan.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      You are a sophisticated user. You probably use Ad blockers too or try very hard to tell an ad from content. That's not what "regular" users do. How many people search for Facebook.com and Twitter.com on Google?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > You probably use Ad blockers too Nope. > or try very hard to tell an ad from content. Not particularly. For the purposes of this discussion? Yes, but not during everyday use. If the ad is what I want, I click it. > You are a sophisticated user. Absolute bullocks. Wanting to read the Honda Accord page on honda.com and googling "honda accord" to do it is not sophisticated. Wanting to read about sedans and googling "sedan" is not sophisticated. This is just regular old google usage, exactly how regular users do it. How many people search for "twitter.com" on google? My guess is "a metric fuckton". That is probably why twitter.com is the first is the first result for "twitter.com". That is almost certainly what they want. If they google "microblogging" then guess what? They probably want the wikipedia page, not a link to twitter. Guess which one they get? That's right, the wikipedia page. It's not a fucking conspiracy that Google search results tend to be what people are actually looking for.
drivebyacct2 13y ago
Who the fuck is "you know who" and what does that even mean?
bostonpete 13y ago
You forgot to say "Wake up sheeple!!1!"
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mratzloff 13y ago
Honestly, if you disagree with this assessment, you're being naive. At minimum, making all searches encrypted is not a benevolent decision in the interests of privacy. Certainly locking down the Keyword Tool to advertisers only is a pretty obvious move, don't you think? Literally everything Google does, aside from brand reinforcement PR, is centered around eyeballs and ad clicks. The primary vector for this is pushing Google Search everywhere. I am continually surprised when people don't accept that the profit motive is weighted more heavily by companies than anything else. Even companies they believe "do no evil".
fear91 13y ago
Google is a saint, don't you know? They are one of the biggest corporations, spy on you on every possible occasion, fuck over thousands of small businesses, extract every bit of wealth out of e-commerce ecosystem, but they are saints! Never badmouth google again! I can't wait what Larry will think of in the next 2 years. He has to increase the profits but can't be fucking small website owners indefinitely. What will he do then? Replace the first page of organic results entirely with ads? Remove any website that doesn't use Ad-Words? Replace all online shops with its own more pricey alternative? Offer selling your neighbour internet data for $199 per year? Fuck Google, they are toxic to e-economy. Entities this big shouldn't exist.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Since you seem to agree with him, perhaps you can explain his complaint to me. Is he upset that Google displays ads? Or that commercial pages for particular products are not the top organic results for searches on generic topics? Is he upset that people pay for ads (shocker!)?
  - fear91 13y ago
    What people are upset is that Google siphons majority of commercial web-traffic and denies anyone else access. This kills small companies.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. Is it because they have ads and large companies pay for them? Is it because they are sending people to wikipedia instead of your site? Is it because they are sending people to large companies instead of your site? Is it because they expect small companies to pay for ads too?
      - fear91 13y ago
        Yes, Because large companies(with nice Ad-Words budgets) are treated extremely nice both by the Ad-Words folks and the organic search algorithm folks. They are being favorized at the cost of small businesses that spend too little or nothing at all. With each passing algorithm update Google is removing more and more small business websites and replaces them with bigger companies ( so called "brands" ) that often times offer worse services but spend more on marketing ( AdWords ).

RobAtticus 13y ago

First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something. Second, if your theory were true, why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Wouldn't that be a more powerful keyword to force people to advertise for?

bsullivan01 13y ago
First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something. You do not know how Wall Street works on tech companies with high PE. Even a 10% increase might shave Google $200 off their share price. Second, if your theory were true, why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Wouldn't that be a more powerful keyword to force people to advertise for? I have a feeling that the fastest Googler reading this is about to get a promotion thanks to your tip.
RBerenguel 13y ago
Or tablet, for that matter.
jlgreco 13y ago
> First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something. Think of it like being at sea on a sailboat. You've got a nice solar powered GPS unit, modern top of the line navigation. You've also got a box full of current charts, maps, a sextant and compass, and you've got an old OMEGA system too, just in case. While out at sea, you take a look at your maps only to realize with horror that you accidentally brought your box of AAA road maps of Nebraska! What a dope you are, but you're still doing fine. Then you take a look at your OMEGA system, but discover that it no longer works because they shut that down in 1997! You've still got your GPS, it is still doing just fine but don't you think the failure of your fallbacks would make you a little nervous?
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Browsing Google while logged out, using its ‘no country redirect’ option, the first non-ad result is Wikipedia. (Even using those settings, Google will serve local ads – in my case, in Dutch) http://i.imgur.com/UevuyEy.png http://i.imgur.com/UevuyEy.png
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  I'd guess that due to commonly used resolutions most users cannot see beyond the Wikipedia link so it's all set up perfectly to increase ad clicks: 3-4 relevant links (er, ads) or Wikipedia.

jcampbell1 13y ago

I disagree. As a user, I don't want my queries passed on to the sites I visit for privacy reason. As an advertiser, I use the organic keyword reports to buy ads frequently. It is very common that I would find organic searches where we got conversions, but were low on the page or on the second page. I would use that information to buy ads. For the last year or so, this technique hardly works because there is so much less keyword data available. Now it is completely gone as you can't match the webmaster tools data to conversions. This change is going to cost Google significant revenue and growth over time.

dchuk 13y ago
What privacy reasons? As soon as you land on that site, they can geoIP you, evercookie you, browser thumbprint you, and if they participate in network-based cookie lookup systems, they can probably even identify who you are. Why does the keyword you searched matter at that point?
- dictum 13y ago
  "Why should we care about NoScript users?"

AJ007 13y ago

SSL to SSL should still pass the HTTP referrers. If this is the case, this is a non-story. If it is not, then its interesting.

AJ007 13y ago
Answering my own question, they intentionally stripped the query out of the referrer: https://nablux.net/tgp/weblog/2012/03/12/google-ssl-not-the-problem/ https://nablux.net/tgp/weblog/2012/03/12/google-ssl-not-the-...

dictum 13y ago

A week ago, I'd read "Google" and "desperate" in the same sentence and smirk. Then I saw a hey, you're using an ad blocker, could you just turn it off for our domains? kthx message on top of a search results page. (I don't know if it's a new thing or it's been done for a while but my filters were hiding it.)

3pt14159 13y ago
The crazy part is that it is Youtube that is driving most people to install an ad blocker. Breaking people's flow when they are listening to music at a party or while working is too janky.

trevin 13y ago

On top of all these other changes, Google's "Knowledge Graph" and other Google-owned properties are taking up more and more of the search results than ever before. Google Shopping, YouTube, Google+ and Adwords all take up more screen real estate with every Google update and design tweak. Look at this query for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=telescopes https://www.google.com/search?q=telescopes I see 20 links to ads and Google owned properties and only 2 to actual 3rd party websites. That's insane. (edit: That's above the fold, on page load...more 3rd party listings if you keep scrolling but most users don't)

rryan 13y ago
It's not surprising that commercial queries produce ads. "what are telescopes", "astronomy", "skywatching", "how to use a telescope", "telescope construction", and "telescope history" on the other hand are all web results and no ads. Hand-picking a highly-commercial query and using it to generalize about all queries is kind of BS. Looking at my past weeks worth of search history there are very few commercial intent queries. And when I was doing commercial intent queries (buying some rock climbing equipment) Google Shopping ads were actually pretty helpful in doing my research because it allows you to rank the results of different retailers together which is something I previously had to do by going to each individual site and checking their prices. It misses sellers that haven't chosen to advertise on Google Shopping but all of my go-to online shops for gear (Backcountry, Moosejaw, REI, EMS, gearx, gear co-op, Campsaver, etc.) are doing it so it works quite well for me.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Google Shopping ads were actually pretty helpful in doing my research because it allows you to rank the results of different retailers together which is something I previously had to do by going to each individual site and checking their prices. You browsed ADS, companies have paid to be included there and the price you paid in the end included the Google tax. A company that might have had the best price /shipping options maybe didn't want to advertise on Google or others included their most expensive /high margin items given the advertising cost. You got or will get screwed, because advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers. Also, don't you agree that in general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines? note: some will get this post ;).

justinsteele 13y ago

"new computer" (on top of the other examples of laptop and tablet that were already posted) also lists a non-wikipedia site first (Dell.com). I think you're really pulling at straws with the computer example, there seems to be a relatively high chance that most people shopping for a new "computer" don't only type "computer", and that the traffic to wikipedia (ie. it being the "correct" first result) is high.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

who is you know who? patio11? huh? I agree with you - ads play a big part in this, although I would not discount giving the NSA a legally acceptable black eye. If the US is seeing a backlash over Prism, Google and Amazon will see it before the State department. Google has a balancing act between delivering genuine results based on PageRank (ie relevance - what people use google for) and getting people to click on adverts. As a small business I value the nearly levelled playing field out there and would hate a world driven by ad dollars again. But I struggle to see how Google can replace ads. And yet everything they do makes ads less necessary and organic (free) search more relevant. However we are not at the ad-opocalypse yet. ads replace relevance for your internet presence. as every business everywhere gets better at SEO we shall see the SEO advantage disappear and the only way to beat your competitor is to advertise again. it's probably got some analogue in evolution. however everyone is not good at SEO yet and the number of people coming online probably will keep googles tills ringing for while yet.

mooted1 13y ago

What paranoid tripe, complete with mass downvote conspiracy theory pandering. I never thought I'd hear someone on hacker news actually complain about search engine results not being commercial enough. Most of the changes you describe enhance the user experience. Do you honestly prefer to wade through a few dozen promotional emails to find messages from your boss, friends or family? Is your argument seriously that google should make their products more inconvenient so companies have to spend less money on adwords? Not to mention the idea that there's some kind of zero-sum trade off between email marketing and adwords is ludicrous. Similarly, wikipedia ranks high for keywords when they are associated with queries for information, not product offers. Your example of the keyword "computer" is a terrible example for making your point: for me at least, only two ads show up for this keyword, but there are dozens for "laptop". This is a strong indicator that "computer" by itself is not what people google when they're buying computers. By contrast, type in "new computer". Finally, the keyword tool has required a (free) google ads account for a long time, so I really don't know what you're going on about here.

platinum1 13y ago
Looks like Google's been reading http://donttrack.us/ http://donttrack.us/
powertower 13y ago
Everything he said was spot on, he just used a bad example at the end. At Google, you better believe that when search changes are made - those changes are ran through a test to see if they have a positive or negative effect on revenues and profits - aka Ad clicks. And that test result heavily outweighs any accompanying change to the search result's relevancy score. Maybe it did not start out like this, but now that Google is a publicly traded company, and now that they own the market, and now that their revenues are still completely dependent on Ad clicks, things work differently. It's not about improving search results, it's about improving revenue numbers. If you can't see how this business process biases Google's algorithm to produce less-relevant search results on page in favor of the Ads having a higher chance of getting viewed and clicked, you have drank the kool-aid. Bing is just as good as Google-search for most people, yet most people have made up their minds about the search engine to use. This market behavior allows Google to not be worried about making algorithmic changes that worsen the results in trade for more revenue ... as the users will keep sticking with them... Because this change has no effect on their userbase numbers (current, and growth #s). Aside from higher CTRs, those changes (that return less relevent search results) will also improve the number of searches done and the number of Ads shown by great margins - as the users will keep at it, performing another search in hopes of getting something relevent back . It's a win-win for Google.

jlgreco 13y ago

> Ever wondered why Wikipedia ranks #1 for "computer"? IMO, it has to do with forcing Dell, MS, HP and others to advertise and to increase clicks on ads. I doubt most people want to know what a "computer" is when searching Google on a computer. If I am searching a single noun, it is almost certain that what I really want it a link to Wikipedia. If I am looking to buy something I always add "buy" or "purchase" to the front of my search. I don't think I am particularly weird in that regard.

comex 13y ago
I don't, but if I type in "desktop" or "laptop" or "tablet" I get Amazon and Best Buy as the top organic results (admittedly, with very prominent sponsored links). "Computer" is probably less common as a search from shoppers.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  To be honest, I am most likely to type a particular brand/model that I want, in which case I almost always get non-wikipedia pages (which in those cases are exactly what I want.) "honda accord" for example gives me honda.com search results before the wikipedia page. Now if I just search "sedan", I of course get the wikipedia page first. Is this google just putting wikipedia at the top there to try to force Honda to buy ads for "sedan"? Somehow I highly doubt that. If I search "sedan", chances are I am looking to read about sedans, not jump right to buying an as-of-yet undetermined sedan.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    You are a sophisticated user. You probably use Ad blockers too or try very hard to tell an ad from content. That's not what "regular" users do. How many people search for Facebook.com and Twitter.com on Google?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > You probably use Ad blockers too Nope. > or try very hard to tell an ad from content. Not particularly. For the purposes of this discussion? Yes, but not during everyday use. If the ad is what I want, I click it. > You are a sophisticated user. Absolute bullocks. Wanting to read the Honda Accord page on honda.com and googling "honda accord" to do it is not sophisticated. Wanting to read about sedans and googling "sedan" is not sophisticated. This is just regular old google usage, exactly how regular users do it. How many people search for "twitter.com" on google? My guess is "a metric fuckton". That is probably why twitter.com is the first is the first result for "twitter.com". That is almost certainly what they want. If they google "microblogging" then guess what? They probably want the wikipedia page, not a link to twitter. Guess which one they get? That's right, the wikipedia page. It's not a fucking conspiracy that Google search results tend to be what people are actually looking for.

drivebyacct2 13y ago

Who the fuck is "you know who" and what does that even mean?

bostonpete 13y ago

You forgot to say "Wake up sheeple!!1!"

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mratzloff 13y ago

Honestly, if you disagree with this assessment, you're being naive. At minimum, making all searches encrypted is not a benevolent decision in the interests of privacy. Certainly locking down the Keyword Tool to advertisers only is a pretty obvious move, don't you think? Literally everything Google does, aside from brand reinforcement PR, is centered around eyeballs and ad clicks. The primary vector for this is pushing Google Search everywhere. I am continually surprised when people don't accept that the profit motive is weighted more heavily by companies than anything else. Even companies they believe "do no evil".

fear91 13y ago

Google is a saint, don't you know? They are one of the biggest corporations, spy on you on every possible occasion, fuck over thousands of small businesses, extract every bit of wealth out of e-commerce ecosystem, but they are saints! Never badmouth google again! I can't wait what Larry will think of in the next 2 years. He has to increase the profits but can't be fucking small website owners indefinitely. What will he do then? Replace the first page of organic results entirely with ads? Remove any website that doesn't use Ad-Words? Replace all online shops with its own more pricey alternative? Offer selling your neighbour internet data for $199 per year? Fuck Google, they are toxic to e-economy. Entities this big shouldn't exist.

jlgreco 13y ago
Since you seem to agree with him, perhaps you can explain his complaint to me. Is he upset that Google displays ads? Or that commercial pages for particular products are not the top organic results for searches on generic topics? Is he upset that people pay for ads (shocker!)?
- fear91 13y ago
  What people are upset is that Google siphons majority of commercial web-traffic and denies anyone else access. This kills small companies.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. Is it because they have ads and large companies pay for them? Is it because they are sending people to wikipedia instead of your site? Is it because they are sending people to large companies instead of your site? Is it because they expect small companies to pay for ads too?
    - fear91 13y ago
      Yes, Because large companies(with nice Ad-Words budgets) are treated extremely nice both by the Ad-Words folks and the organic search algorithm folks. They are being favorized at the cost of small businesses that spend too little or nothing at all. With each passing algorithm update Google is removing more and more small business websites and replaces them with bigger companies ( so called "brands" ) that often times offer worse services but spend more on marketing ( AdWords ).