4 ms·

> Even if you use nothing but white-hat and above-board SEO strategies, you're at risk of your page getting penalized or delisted This rather suggests that wha

by ris 13y ago

> Even if you use nothing but white-hat and above-board SEO strategies, you're at risk of your page getting penalized or delisted This rather suggests that what you're calling "white hat" is a slightly less white shade than you may think. After all, who exactly is defining what "above board" is here? You're talking as though Google has some kind of responsibility to you. They don't. You are not their customer. Their customer is the searcher, and they have every right to do whatever they like with their results to give what they think is the best result for the searcher. I'm getting pretty tired of this attitude (generally among "SEO" people) that Google is some sort of public property.

guelo 13y ago
1. The searcher is not the customer, the AdWords buyer is. For example, Expedia. 2. Once a company reaches monopoly status the government can regulate it for the public good.
- ris 13y ago
  1. This oversimplifies the relationship. The ultimate transaction is from the AdWords customer to Google but in most cases a lot of that money will have come from Google searchers wallets. 2. Well, that's not quite right. The government can limit the actions of a monopoly to prevent abuse, but demanding arbitrary shit isn't really something that's in the statute books. One thing's for certain, the "white hat" "SEO"ers paying bloggers to write thin articles about them to increase their organic search ranking are certainly not Google's customer and they have no obligation to please them.
bradleyjg 13y ago
>> Even if you use nothing but white-hat and above-board SEO strategies, you're at risk of your page getting penalized or delisted > This rather suggests that what you're calling "white hat" is a slightly less white shade than you may think. After all, who exactly is defining what "above board" is here? We've had a lot of proof by vigerous assertion in this thread. I particularly like the protestation of lily-white innocence by marketers writing "great content" in "guest posts". A thousand words on "10 things to bring on your next business trip", or "5 things to ask when choosing an online university" isn't exactly Woodword & Bernstein on Watergate, Joyce's Dubliners, or even Michelin's Guide to Paris restaurants.
gress 13y ago
Google had a monopoly and exerts market power over the internet. They legally do have a responsibility to the public. I'm getting pretty tired of the attitude that they have no responsibility to anyone other than those who buy advertising from them since it's blatantly false.
- ris 13y ago
  > Google had a monopoly and exerts market power over the internet. They legally do have a responsibility to the public. Not really. Certainly not a responsibility to abide by the whims of random people who want their content ranked higher. And if we decide to burden them with "responsibilities", what about their responsibility to keep my search results free of spa^W SEOers' crap?
  - gress 13y ago
    All monopolies with market power have a responsibility to the public. It's a matter of policy and law. You're right that they don't have a responsibility to abide by the whims of random spammers, but they also don't have carte Blanche to use their power to regulate the internet as they see fit. The 'it's their product so they can do what they like' line is simply not correct. When they take action like this they need to be scrutinized carefully and we as the public most certainly should debate the merits of their actions and their effect on the internet.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  I don't think you're using the word monopoly correctly here. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on search.
  - gress 13y ago
    Google certainly has a monopoly on search, which is why it is being investigated for its practices by the EU. If I am using the word incorrectly, then so is the EU, but since the term is defined by policy, that isn't possible. If you think the word monopoly means that there is precisely zero competition, then you are not using the word as it is used by economists, governments, and the law. Monopoly is defined by effective competition, barriers to entry and market power. Google qualifies.

by ris 13y ago

guelo 13y ago

1. The searcher is not the customer, the AdWords buyer is. For example, Expedia. 2. Once a company reaches monopoly status the government can regulate it for the public good.

ris 13y ago
1. This oversimplifies the relationship. The ultimate transaction is from the AdWords customer to Google but in most cases a lot of that money will have come from Google searchers wallets. 2. Well, that's not quite right. The government can limit the actions of a monopoly to prevent abuse, but demanding arbitrary shit isn't really something that's in the statute books. One thing's for certain, the "white hat" "SEO"ers paying bloggers to write thin articles about them to increase their organic search ranking are certainly not Google's customer and they have no obligation to please them.

bradleyjg 13y ago

>> Even if you use nothing but white-hat and above-board SEO strategies, you're at risk of your page getting penalized or delisted > This rather suggests that what you're calling "white hat" is a slightly less white shade than you may think. After all, who exactly is defining what "above board" is here? We've had a lot of proof by vigerous assertion in this thread. I particularly like the protestation of lily-white innocence by marketers writing "great content" in "guest posts". A thousand words on "10 things to bring on your next business trip", or "5 things to ask when choosing an online university" isn't exactly Woodword & Bernstein on Watergate, Joyce's Dubliners, or even Michelin's Guide to Paris restaurants.

gress 13y ago

Google had a monopoly and exerts market power over the internet. They legally do have a responsibility to the public. I'm getting pretty tired of the attitude that they have no responsibility to anyone other than those who buy advertising from them since it's blatantly false.

ris 13y ago
> Google had a monopoly and exerts market power over the internet. They legally do have a responsibility to the public. Not really. Certainly not a responsibility to abide by the whims of random people who want their content ranked higher. And if we decide to burden them with "responsibilities", what about their responsibility to keep my search results free of spa^W SEOers' crap?
- gress 13y ago
  All monopolies with market power have a responsibility to the public. It's a matter of policy and law. You're right that they don't have a responsibility to abide by the whims of random spammers, but they also don't have carte Blanche to use their power to regulate the internet as they see fit. The 'it's their product so they can do what they like' line is simply not correct. When they take action like this they need to be scrutinized carefully and we as the public most certainly should debate the merits of their actions and their effect on the internet.
sokoloff 13y ago
I don't think you're using the word monopoly correctly here. Google clearly does not have a monopoly on search.
- gress 13y ago
  Google certainly has a monopoly on search, which is why it is being investigated for its practices by the EU. If I am using the word incorrectly, then so is the EU, but since the term is defined by policy, that isn't possible. If you think the word monopoly means that there is precisely zero competition, then you are not using the word as it is used by economists, governments, and the law. Monopoly is defined by effective competition, barriers to entry and market power. Google qualifies.