3 ms·

> 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 reas

> 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?
      - bsullivan01 13y ago
        >> Oh my god, ads in the ads section? What is the world coming to? You are real funny. The entire page is essentially ads, and 100% of what most users see /scroll to. How many users don't know that they are ads http://www.seobook.com/consumer-ad-awareness-search-results http://www.seobook.com/consumer-ad-awareness-search-results ? The brightest at Google are working on tricking users to click on ads without knowing. The truth is that you work for a money hungry, duplicitous company that engages in fraud, all sorts of fraud. The fact that you have bought the US enforcement agencies http://mashable.com/2012/04/24/google-record-lobbying/ http://mashable.com/2012/04/24/google-record-lobbying/ doesn't make it right.

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?
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      >> Oh my god, ads in the ads section? What is the world coming to? You are real funny. The entire page is essentially ads, and 100% of what most users see /scroll to. How many users don't know that they are ads http://www.seobook.com/consumer-ad-awareness-search-results http://www.seobook.com/consumer-ad-awareness-search-results ? The brightest at Google are working on tricking users to click on ads without knowing. The truth is that you work for a money hungry, duplicitous company that engages in fraud, all sorts of fraud. The fact that you have bought the US enforcement agencies http://mashable.com/2012/04/24/google-record-lobbying/ http://mashable.com/2012/04/24/google-record-lobbying/ doesn't make it right.