5 ms·

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

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.

moultano 13y ago
>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. This is absolutely false, and I wish people would stop repeating it. Google does not make ranking decisions based on revenue. We don't even collect that data for making ranking launch decisions.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  If you believe that, you live in the GoogleMatrix! There's some MBA looking over your shoulder, maybe without you knowing and that MBA is giving feedback to your VP. Look on the bright side, you may be gullible and are destroying many small businesses (those free loaders don't buy adwords!!) and lives but at least your stock options are worth double or triple with this revenue enhancing method. When you're desperate to increase CPC, issue mass penalties on small businesses sites, and your ad clicks increase after each major updates, what are we to make? Believe some Google corporate crap or trust your judgment?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    There are many valid reasons to criticize Google, from their massive contribution to the destruction of online privacy to the Kenya scam, but ruining lives because they make it harder to game their engine? Give me a break.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      but ruining lives because they make it harder to game their engine? Give me a break Gaming??? What if they are penalizing sites or cutting off free traffic to force sites to advertise via Adwords? Yelp supposedly pulled the same scam with bad reviews
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        So your thesis is that google is killing your small company by sending people interested in your business to wikipedia instead? Has it occurred to you that perhaps people are more interested in wikipedia than your business?
        bsullivan01 13y ago
        So your thesis is that google is killing your small company by sending people interested in your business to wikipedia instead? No it is not. Please read the thread again and again if needed, it's a waste to repeat it or to cut and paste. Many others have made the same point over and over. When in doubt, follow the money and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Point me to a particular comment, because as far as I can tell Occam's Razor suggests that if Google, Bing, and DDG are all returning the "computer" page on wikipedia for searches for "computer", then it probably isn't some sort of industry conspiracy to make Dell shell out more money to appear on the top, while also somehow involving small businesses... or whatever your personal angle is. There is no reason to "follow the money" here because there is nothing here to doubt. It isn't fucking strange that wikipedia is featured so prominently.
mooted1 13y ago
> Arbitrary claims without evidence. Accusations of drinking the kool-aid. Pandering. This is such a frustrating mindset to argue with. Multiple people have already explained that wikipedia entries are often a very relevant result to return. Just to hammer in the point, a cursory search using Google's keyword tool shows that the term "new computer" has almost 4x the CPC and competitiveness of "computer". The former returns dell as its first organic result. You say that this is just a bad example. Pray, then, what is a good example? If you're going to make outrageous claims, you should support them with evidence. Of course google is optimizing for long term revenue. But the argument that it's sabotaging its other products to create more demand for adwords is an absurd notion.

moultano 13y ago

>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. This is absolutely false, and I wish people would stop repeating it. Google does not make ranking decisions based on revenue. We don't even collect that data for making ranking launch decisions.

bsullivan01 13y ago
If you believe that, you live in the GoogleMatrix! There's some MBA looking over your shoulder, maybe without you knowing and that MBA is giving feedback to your VP. Look on the bright side, you may be gullible and are destroying many small businesses (those free loaders don't buy adwords!!) and lives but at least your stock options are worth double or triple with this revenue enhancing method. When you're desperate to increase CPC, issue mass penalties on small businesses sites, and your ad clicks increase after each major updates, what are we to make? Believe some Google corporate crap or trust your judgment?
- icebraining 13y ago
  There are many valid reasons to criticize Google, from their massive contribution to the destruction of online privacy to the Kenya scam, but ruining lives because they make it harder to game their engine? Give me a break.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    but ruining lives because they make it harder to game their engine? Give me a break Gaming??? What if they are penalizing sites or cutting off free traffic to force sites to advertise via Adwords? Yelp supposedly pulled the same scam with bad reviews
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      So your thesis is that google is killing your small company by sending people interested in your business to wikipedia instead? Has it occurred to you that perhaps people are more interested in wikipedia than your business?
      - bsullivan01 13y ago
        So your thesis is that google is killing your small company by sending people interested in your business to wikipedia instead? No it is not. Please read the thread again and again if needed, it's a waste to repeat it or to cut and paste. Many others have made the same point over and over. When in doubt, follow the money and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Point me to a particular comment, because as far as I can tell Occam's Razor suggests that if Google, Bing, and DDG are all returning the "computer" page on wikipedia for searches for "computer", then it probably isn't some sort of industry conspiracy to make Dell shell out more money to appear on the top, while also somehow involving small businesses... or whatever your personal angle is. There is no reason to "follow the money" here because there is nothing here to doubt. It isn't fucking strange that wikipedia is featured so prominently.

mooted1 13y ago

> Arbitrary claims without evidence. Accusations of drinking the kool-aid. Pandering. This is such a frustrating mindset to argue with. Multiple people have already explained that wikipedia entries are often a very relevant result to return. Just to hammer in the point, a cursory search using Google's keyword tool shows that the term "new computer" has almost 4x the CPC and competitiveness of "computer". The former returns dell as its first organic result. You say that this is just a bad example. Pray, then, what is a good example? If you're going to make outrageous claims, you should support them with evidence. Of course google is optimizing for long term revenue. But the argument that it's sabotaging its other products to create more demand for adwords is an absurd notion.