4 ms·

> Staff software engineer at Google. I work on making infrastructure fast. Do you really believe that your job would be involved, or even have access to, the b

> Staff software engineer at Google. I work on making infrastructure fast. Do you really believe that your job would be involved, or even have access to, the business process that weights the effect of algorithmic changes to Ad CTRs? And then approving or disproving those changes based on those factors? Think about it - You're telling us that if a algorithmic change improves the relevant search score by 3%, but at the same time has the effect of decreasing Ad CTR by 3%, it will go through!.. Because no one tracks this, and no one cares. That might be an engineer's take on this, but no one at a higher business level (that deals with money) would be so naive about it. I also don't see how this could even remotely be classified as a conspiracy theory considering it's about as standard of operating procedures as it gets... You don't fuck yourself nor your revenue numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting you or your job. I just don't think you are seeing the bigger picture and the place Google is right now (search market domination), and how this affects the direction they have to go to keep the desired revenue growth projections, stock prices, etc.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
> Do you really believe that you would be involved . . . I wouldn't tell you that even if I knew, and I don't. My point is only that someone who DOES have reason to know commented about it above. I believe him over someone who argues that Google is messing with the results for money, especially if the guy's evidence for the conspiracy consists solely of Google ordering the results for a query the same way everyone else does (see my other comment in this tree). My disclosure is just so that someone wouldn't go fishing in my profile and accuse me of withholding my association. It is not like I am an authority on the way Google ranks stuff -- there are probably thousands of people outside the company that know more about it than I do. > considering it's about as standard of operating procedures as it gets How would you know what the standard operating procedure is? As far as I can tell, it's just a presumption on your part, and you think that somehow this counts as evidence that it's not a conspiracy theory. Sorry, that doesn't work.
- powertower 13y ago
  I'm assuming the #1 S.O.P. (dealing with changes) for any business is you don't implement changes that negatively impact your revenue numbers. I'm also assuming that Ad CTR (or some portion of it) is dependent on the user not getting what he/she wants in the organic search results section.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    I don't think that is a safe assumption. There are plenty of documents, e.g. our IPO document, that indicate that we play the long game of providing the best results, and if the short game of getting the most revenue is harmed by that, well, tough. We play that way because the only way to keep users is to please them, and good results are critical to that end. To be clear, I don't think you are completely unreasonable for believing what you do. Other companies are crappy, so why not Google? But you don't have any evidence, and I think you are way overstating your case.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      Let me be a fly in the wall when Huber, Singhal or whoever is Searches' chief is speaking to others and especially Larry Page and I'll have proof. The proof so far is in the pudding, we read your quarterly earnings statements and see your search pages. I don't think that is a safe assumption. There are plenty of documents, e.g. our IPO document, that indicate that we play the long game of providing the best results, and if the short game of getting the most revenue is harmed by that, well, tough. We play that way because the only way to keep users is to please them, and good results are critical to that end. Ah yes, unimpeachable evidence, you said so 10 years ago and it was true then and it is true today. Debate ended. we play the long game of providing the best results Long term = all ads I suppose http://www.click-conversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/google-products-ads.png http://www.click-conversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/g... . The best results money can buy. Let's me disarm you defense: Of course, your don't do that on terms you don't have ads for.
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Oh my god, ads in the ads section? What is the world coming to? > and see your search pages You mean the ones that are the same as the other search engines' for the specific query you complained about? Or some other ones you forgot to mention in this comment tree?
jlgreco 13y ago
I am classifying it is a conspiracy theory because he is not rejecting his pet theory when even a basic amount of experimentation (done by @jamesaguilar elsewhere in the discussion) reveal results that do not align with the predictions his theory makes.
moultano 13y ago
>Do you really believe that you would be involved, or even have access to, the business process that weights the effect of algorithmic changes to Ad CTRs? And then approving or disproving those changes based on those factors? Yes, I regularly watch the decisions get made. You can see an example launch meeting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtRJXnXgE-A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtRJXnXgE-A I've been making changes to search for 7 years. There are many metrics that I have to collect to justify a change. None of them involve ads.
- powertower 13y ago
  > I've been making changes to search for 7 years. There are many metrics that I have to collect to justify a change. None of them involve ads. I believe you. What I don't believe is that the higher-ups don't track their own most important metrics. Google is a company that gets 95% (or somewhere around that range) of its revenue from things that revolve around Ad clicks. What some are suggesting here violates the laws of nature... That changes made to search-results relevancy (a user getting back exactly what he/she is looking for) either does not impact Ad Click-through and Ad Impression rates, or is just not important [enough to affect the desision if those changes get made or not]. *I'm assuming that users going into the sponsored results (Ad) area has something to do with them not getting what they are looking for in the organic results area.
  - moultano 13y ago
    They track that number very carefully, but they don't track it for each change to ranking and the people who track that aren't the people who are making launch decisions for ranking.
    - powertower 13y ago
      > I'm assuming that users going into the sponsored results (Ad) area has something to do with them not getting what they are looking for in the organic results area. I was thinking about this some more - There is a further assumption in the above... That the users who click ads can distinguish between organic and sponsored results (or even if they care to). Then, I remembered some time ago another study was done were it showed that the majority of ad clickers were the same 10% of the user base (give or take a few %). Or at least the same type of person (uninformed, bored, delusional, etc). This of course would mean that changes to relevant search results will have no impact on the majority of Ad clicks. They'll click anyways. http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/12/03/who_clicks_on_a.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/12/03/who_cli... http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2009/10/comScore_and_Starcom_USA_Release_Updated_Natural_Born_Clickers_Study_Showing_50_Percent_Drop_in_Number_of_U.S._Internet_Users_Who_Click_on_Display_Ads http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2009/10/comS...

jamesaguilar 13y ago

> Do you really believe that you would be involved . . . I wouldn't tell you that even if I knew, and I don't. My point is only that someone who DOES have reason to know commented about it above. I believe him over someone who argues that Google is messing with the results for money, especially if the guy's evidence for the conspiracy consists solely of Google ordering the results for a query the same way everyone else does (see my other comment in this tree). My disclosure is just so that someone wouldn't go fishing in my profile and accuse me of withholding my association. It is not like I am an authority on the way Google ranks stuff -- there are probably thousands of people outside the company that know more about it than I do. > considering it's about as standard of operating procedures as it gets How would you know what the standard operating procedure is? As far as I can tell, it's just a presumption on your part, and you think that somehow this counts as evidence that it's not a conspiracy theory. Sorry, that doesn't work.

powertower 13y ago
I'm assuming the #1 S.O.P. (dealing with changes) for any business is you don't implement changes that negatively impact your revenue numbers. I'm also assuming that Ad CTR (or some portion of it) is dependent on the user not getting what he/she wants in the organic search results section.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  I don't think that is a safe assumption. There are plenty of documents, e.g. our IPO document, that indicate that we play the long game of providing the best results, and if the short game of getting the most revenue is harmed by that, well, tough. We play that way because the only way to keep users is to please them, and good results are critical to that end. To be clear, I don't think you are completely unreasonable for believing what you do. Other companies are crappy, so why not Google? But you don't have any evidence, and I think you are way overstating your case.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    Let me be a fly in the wall when Huber, Singhal or whoever is Searches' chief is speaking to others and especially Larry Page and I'll have proof. The proof so far is in the pudding, we read your quarterly earnings statements and see your search pages. I don't think that is a safe assumption. There are plenty of documents, e.g. our IPO document, that indicate that we play the long game of providing the best results, and if the short game of getting the most revenue is harmed by that, well, tough. We play that way because the only way to keep users is to please them, and good results are critical to that end. Ah yes, unimpeachable evidence, you said so 10 years ago and it was true then and it is true today. Debate ended. we play the long game of providing the best results Long term = all ads I suppose http://www.click-conversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/google-products-ads.png http://www.click-conversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/g... . The best results money can buy. Let's me disarm you defense: Of course, your don't do that on terms you don't have ads for.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      Oh my god, ads in the ads section? What is the world coming to? > and see your search pages You mean the ones that are the same as the other search engines' for the specific query you complained about? Or some other ones you forgot to mention in this comment tree?

jlgreco 13y ago

I am classifying it is a conspiracy theory because he is not rejecting his pet theory when even a basic amount of experimentation (done by @jamesaguilar elsewhere in the discussion) reveal results that do not align with the predictions his theory makes.

moultano 13y ago

>Do you really believe that you would be involved, or even have access to, the business process that weights the effect of algorithmic changes to Ad CTRs? And then approving or disproving those changes based on those factors? Yes, I regularly watch the decisions get made. You can see an example launch meeting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtRJXnXgE-A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtRJXnXgE-A I've been making changes to search for 7 years. There are many metrics that I have to collect to justify a change. None of them involve ads.

powertower 13y ago
> I've been making changes to search for 7 years. There are many metrics that I have to collect to justify a change. None of them involve ads. I believe you. What I don't believe is that the higher-ups don't track their own most important metrics. Google is a company that gets 95% (or somewhere around that range) of its revenue from things that revolve around Ad clicks. What some are suggesting here violates the laws of nature... That changes made to search-results relevancy (a user getting back exactly what he/she is looking for) either does not impact Ad Click-through and Ad Impression rates, or is just not important [enough to affect the desision if those changes get made or not]. *I'm assuming that users going into the sponsored results (Ad) area has something to do with them not getting what they are looking for in the organic results area.
- moultano 13y ago
  They track that number very carefully, but they don't track it for each change to ranking and the people who track that aren't the people who are making launch decisions for ranking.
  - powertower 13y ago
    > I'm assuming that users going into the sponsored results (Ad) area has something to do with them not getting what they are looking for in the organic results area. I was thinking about this some more - There is a further assumption in the above... That the users who click ads can distinguish between organic and sponsored results (or even if they care to). Then, I remembered some time ago another study was done were it showed that the majority of ad clickers were the same 10% of the user base (give or take a few %). Or at least the same type of person (uninformed, bored, delusional, etc). This of course would mean that changes to relevant search results will have no impact on the majority of Ad clicks. They'll click anyways. http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/12/03/who_clicks_on_a.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/12/03/who_cli... http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2009/10/comScore_and_Starcom_USA_Release_Updated_Natural_Born_Clickers_Study_Showing_50_Percent_Drop_in_Number_of_U.S._Internet_Users_Who_Click_on_Display_Ads http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2009/10/comS...