11 ms·

If there is any truth to this article, then things are going to get really bad for Google. This with other recent complaints may prove that Google may be steppi

by nivla 12y ago

If there is any truth to this article, then things are going to get really bad for Google. This with other recent complaints may prove that Google may be stepping beyond the gray areas of a monopoly. A good lobbying may delay the process but it is inevitable. OT: I don't usually complain about votes but the amount of downvotes in this thread is appalling. Anything critical of Google has been downvoted. Ironically, if asked, most people here would be against censorship of any kind, however for many that is valid as long as the opinion stays within their perception. Under the same argument, I can "predict" that this post like other similar ones before is going to flagged off the frontpage. Its starting to get repetitive enough to be no longer ignored. Not sure how the situation can be improved because in reality its very hard to built a community with diverse opinions.

skj 12y ago
I guess fortunately for Google, it appears there's no merit to the accusation?
- donbmarks 12y ago
  To piggyback on the conversation, coming from a small business that has seen a reconsideration request wait in hibernation without a reply for over 40 days, the bigger issue that I would hope more journalists would start to shine the light onto is the lack of transparency and need for regulation of Google search by an independent entity. The reality is that Google generates 60 Billion in revenue and close to 20 Billion in profits, but more importantly they single handily control the fate of millions of companies and influence probably a trillion dollars of commerce on a global level every year. They create a set of rules that they apply on a very subjective basis. Just one example, ever get hit with a thin content penalty? Google has a video out that creating pages to market cities in every state appears against guidelines, I guess they forgot to tell that to Zillow (dominates google search for mortgage rates/city search) without real content and simply a rate widget advertisement feed, and there are hundreds of these examples out there. Yet in a statement made over the porn model lawsuit, here was googles reply: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2346899/Model-Battles-Google-Yahoo-in-Court-Over-Images-Linking-Her-to-Porn-Sites http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2346899/Model-Battles-G... "Search engines are neutral platforms that do not create nor control content on the web,” Google said in a statement to CNN. One of the interviewees in the CNN video argued that the creators of content should be held responsible, not the search engines. The rap genius penalty has already been highly publicized, but here is a good recap of how quickly the penalty was lifted. http://searchengineland.com/rap-genius-back-in-google-181125 http://searchengineland.com/rap-genius-back-in-google-181125 This is beyond frustrating for small businesses to see this quick turnaround, when most small business owners are sent to the google webmaster forum, where they have to try to get problems solved by volunteers and not actual employees. What small business owners need is a real voice and oversight to provide a tangible path back into the index, as opposed to the vague answers and rules that apply differently. Google should be required to provide real employees supporting their web forums Google should be required to provide clear examples of why a website was removed Google should be required to provide clear timelines if a penalty has been placed on a website Small business are pushed out of business when they are removed from Google, it’s time for some real change and forced transparency
danso 12y ago
OK, I don't like doing this, but I'll admit that I downvoted you. Not because I'm in Google's pocket, though I'll admit that I use some of their products, but because your phrasing is on the rhetorical level of asking "have you stopped beating your mother yet?" The OP does not provide a shred of independent proof that Google unfairly penalized Vivint, and yet you're already rushing to what you apparently think is an inevitable conclusion (e.g. Who knows if this thing is at all true, but Google has been pretty fishy lately). Come on, do a little research. Have you ever heard of Vivint before? I hadn't. So I (yes, I'll admit) Googled it and was surprised to find that Vivint bills itself as an "Affordable Home Security Systems" seller. OK, granted, I don't own a Nest device, so I googled "Nest" to see how they describe themselves...and Nest advertises itself as the "World's first Learning Thermostat. Programs itself. Saves Energy" So help me out here, and I'll ask the mods to remove my downvote: what about a thermostat is directly competitive with a home security system? What about something that "programs itself" is at all analogous to an ADT-like system that seems to require human check-in, or at least a $50 a month service fee to have remote access? AFAIK, Nest's monitoring service is free, presumably because the thermostat is supposed to, well, "program itself" and thus requires less hands-on-touch by Nest. And as someone already stated...at least a few of us HNers know of ADT...hell, I see their stickers everywhere...and has ADT complained about being wiped out of Google? I'd be willing to accept the possibility that ADT has paid its own "protection" fee to Google...but Jesus, there should be a level of evidence we accept to get to that accusation, and that level should exist beyond "website is tipped by competitor of Google believes that Google is out to kill competitors". edit: to be fair, the OP has quotes (but no actual data, just claims) from a small company named FoxtailMarketing.com. That's also a place I've never heard of, but I have done the diligence of visiting their website to see what the company does...Here's the very first non-motto copy that shows up on the homepage: > We guarantee that you will never be devalued or penalized by Google when you use our digital marketing strategy to build your brand online. At Foxtail Marketing, you can make your business more relevant online without fear of becoming obsolete. A company that is built around telling people that they (Foxtail) can guarantee SEO-optimization without fear of penalty of the Google-banhammer...Call me skeptical, but unless the person behind FoxtailMarketing is Matt Cutts's best friend, then that kind of claim strikes me as the kind of thing a less-than-trustworthy firm might say, and that such a firm would benefit by being the "voice of expertise" in an otherwise one-sided story (the OP itself states that the story idea came from a "PR-organized dinner in San Francisco last night" in which Vivint's founder happened to be hanging out at). But maybe someone here has used Foxtail and can vouch for their SEO-magic?
wutbrodo 12y ago
> the amount of downvotes in this thread is appalling. Anything critical of Google has been downvoted. This isn't nefarious, nor is it a coincidence. There's an article that any reasonable person can quickly recognize as complete garbage (look at other people's responses to your comment for more detailed explanations of why). The people that are convinced by this drivel are probably going to be the ones with an axe to grind for whatever reason, and almost by definition, most of the comments "critical of Google" in this thread specifically are going to be the same sort of idiotic fact-free drivel that you find in the article.

by nivla 12y ago

skj 12y ago

I guess fortunately for Google, it appears there's no merit to the accusation?

donbmarks 12y ago
To piggyback on the conversation, coming from a small business that has seen a reconsideration request wait in hibernation without a reply for over 40 days, the bigger issue that I would hope more journalists would start to shine the light onto is the lack of transparency and need for regulation of Google search by an independent entity. The reality is that Google generates 60 Billion in revenue and close to 20 Billion in profits, but more importantly they single handily control the fate of millions of companies and influence probably a trillion dollars of commerce on a global level every year. They create a set of rules that they apply on a very subjective basis. Just one example, ever get hit with a thin content penalty? Google has a video out that creating pages to market cities in every state appears against guidelines, I guess they forgot to tell that to Zillow (dominates google search for mortgage rates/city search) without real content and simply a rate widget advertisement feed, and there are hundreds of these examples out there. Yet in a statement made over the porn model lawsuit, here was googles reply: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2346899/Model-Battles-Google-Yahoo-in-Court-Over-Images-Linking-Her-to-Porn-Sites http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2346899/Model-Battles-G... "Search engines are neutral platforms that do not create nor control content on the web,” Google said in a statement to CNN. One of the interviewees in the CNN video argued that the creators of content should be held responsible, not the search engines. The rap genius penalty has already been highly publicized, but here is a good recap of how quickly the penalty was lifted. http://searchengineland.com/rap-genius-back-in-google-181125 http://searchengineland.com/rap-genius-back-in-google-181125 This is beyond frustrating for small businesses to see this quick turnaround, when most small business owners are sent to the google webmaster forum, where they have to try to get problems solved by volunteers and not actual employees. What small business owners need is a real voice and oversight to provide a tangible path back into the index, as opposed to the vague answers and rules that apply differently. Google should be required to provide real employees supporting their web forums Google should be required to provide clear examples of why a website was removed Google should be required to provide clear timelines if a penalty has been placed on a website Small business are pushed out of business when they are removed from Google, it’s time for some real change and forced transparency

danso 12y ago

OK, I don't like doing this, but I'll admit that I downvoted you. Not because I'm in Google's pocket, though I'll admit that I use some of their products, but because your phrasing is on the rhetorical level of asking "have you stopped beating your mother yet?" The OP does not provide a shred of independent proof that Google unfairly penalized Vivint, and yet you're already rushing to what you apparently think is an inevitable conclusion (e.g. Who knows if this thing is at all true, but Google has been pretty fishy lately). Come on, do a little research. Have you ever heard of Vivint before? I hadn't. So I (yes, I'll admit) Googled it and was surprised to find that Vivint bills itself as an "Affordable Home Security Systems" seller. OK, granted, I don't own a Nest device, so I googled "Nest" to see how they describe themselves...and Nest advertises itself as the "World's first Learning Thermostat. Programs itself. Saves Energy" So help me out here, and I'll ask the mods to remove my downvote: what about a thermostat is directly competitive with a home security system? What about something that "programs itself" is at all analogous to an ADT-like system that seems to require human check-in, or at least a $50 a month service fee to have remote access? AFAIK, Nest's monitoring service is free, presumably because the thermostat is supposed to, well, "program itself" and thus requires less hands-on-touch by Nest. And as someone already stated...at least a few of us HNers know of ADT...hell, I see their stickers everywhere...and has ADT complained about being wiped out of Google? I'd be willing to accept the possibility that ADT has paid its own "protection" fee to Google...but Jesus, there should be a level of evidence we accept to get to that accusation, and that level should exist beyond "website is tipped by competitor of Google believes that Google is out to kill competitors". edit: to be fair, the OP has quotes (but no actual data, just claims) from a small company named FoxtailMarketing.com. That's also a place I've never heard of, but I have done the diligence of visiting their website to see what the company does...Here's the very first non-motto copy that shows up on the homepage: > We guarantee that you will never be devalued or penalized by Google when you use our digital marketing strategy to build your brand online. At Foxtail Marketing, you can make your business more relevant online without fear of becoming obsolete. A company that is built around telling people that they (Foxtail) can guarantee SEO-optimization without fear of penalty of the Google-banhammer...Call me skeptical, but unless the person behind FoxtailMarketing is Matt Cutts's best friend, then that kind of claim strikes me as the kind of thing a less-than-trustworthy firm might say, and that such a firm would benefit by being the "voice of expertise" in an otherwise one-sided story (the OP itself states that the story idea came from a "PR-organized dinner in San Francisco last night" in which Vivint's founder happened to be hanging out at). But maybe someone here has used Foxtail and can vouch for their SEO-magic?

wutbrodo 12y ago

> the amount of downvotes in this thread is appalling. Anything critical of Google has been downvoted. This isn't nefarious, nor is it a coincidence. There's an article that any reasonable person can quickly recognize as complete garbage (look at other people's responses to your comment for more detailed explanations of why). The people that are convinced by this drivel are probably going to be the ones with an axe to grind for whatever reason, and almost by definition, most of the comments "critical of Google" in this thread specifically are going to be the same sort of idiotic fact-free drivel that you find in the article.