4 ms·

He goes a little further: he's objecting to the fact that Google is not acting as a "leveling" force to break up incumbent industries and change society. He app

He goes a little further: he's objecting to the fact that Google is not acting as a "leveling" force to break up incumbent industries and change society. He appears to want them to act as a far-left government. I don't really feel a need to rebut this desire, beyond saying "no".

anon1385 12y ago
It's kind of fascinating how the supposed economic and social benefits of the open web that people spent 20 years or more evangelising are dismissed as 'far-left' once powerful incumbents have cornered the market. Suddenly advocating for the destructive forces of open competition is the same as being a radical socialist.
- Kalium 12y ago
  The problem here isn't that there isn't open competition. The problem is that he's lost at it.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    The problem is that it isn't competition on services or products, it's competition in gaming and/or just paying massive incumbent middlemen.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Who provide value to the consumer that individual business sites do not. Why shouldn't they be more highly ranked?
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        >Who provide value to the consumer that individual business sites do not. You're reciting this as if it's obviously true, yet offering no evidence. If a scraper beats a site, it's not a logical conclusion that the scraper was more useful to the consumer than the original site.
        Kalium 12y ago
        How many hotel sites offer price comparisons to other hotels nearby? That's value right there.
    - schucks 12y ago
      This is succinct. It appears that the Google we had 10 years ago was perhaps valid in light of our ability to capitalise on 'the most valid results' and the Google we have today hasn't innovated on their search platform to break away from 'what corporates want us to find' into 'what we want to find'. We should expect more from our worlds most used search provider. The travesty isn't even perhaps brought about by Google directly. It may in fact be a reluctance of people to question the status quo or at least be heard in doing so. If nothing else, this blog is exactly what people need to deliberate over without prejudice toward the writer, and perhaps some knowledge or value will come from that. Whatever it is, we're left with a fairly opaque 10 site list that people rarely delve beyond. And I hear the complaints already from some, sure it ever so slightly customisable, but I certainly haven't cared to do so for years.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Recall that Google's initial and ongoing innovation was moving away from what corporate entities want users to find. I think Google prioritizes what they believe users want to find and subject it to the review of user behavior. The perceived problem with this is that what they think users wants doesn't always agree with what someone else thinks users want. Like in this article, where many users clearly want to see aggregators but the author believes they don't want to see aggregators.
      - asuffield 12y ago
        I think you will find that the reason why big brands are big brands is because a lot of people do, in reality, want to find them. Just because I don't want to find the same things doesn't stop that from being the most popular choice. Google would appear to be delivering what the bulk of its users want to see.
sroerick 12y ago
He's raising the observation that the easier it is to game Google, the less useful Google becomes. He's not prescribing a solution. Much less the solution of Google becoming a "far-left government." But screw equality and open access, right?
- Kalium 12y ago
  Search engines are by their very nature un-equal. There's no way around this without removing the value in having a search engine.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Some search engines, e.g. Google 7 years ago, are less un-equal than others, e.g. Google today.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      The job of a search engine is to second-guess your desire from limited inputs and try to fulfill it. I can't think of any sane way to be "equal" about that without relying on a lot of subjective judgments. Or being bad at making decisions.
      - walterbell 12y ago
        Is the strategic priority of Google leadership a subjective judgement? Are these subjective judgements objectively implemented? There are always winners and losers for any given ranking algorithm, the question is whether perception of neutrality has improved or declined in the last 7 years. What is the perception of Google's neutrality in enforcement of rules against traffic arbitrage, e.g. search toolbars: http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html ?
        Kalium 12y ago
        Almost anyone who loses out will perceive things as being subjectively against them. Almost anyone who wins will perceive it as being a sign of their worthiness and objective value.

anon1385 12y ago

It's kind of fascinating how the supposed economic and social benefits of the open web that people spent 20 years or more evangelising are dismissed as 'far-left' once powerful incumbents have cornered the market. Suddenly advocating for the destructive forces of open competition is the same as being a radical socialist.

Kalium 12y ago
The problem here isn't that there isn't open competition. The problem is that he's lost at it.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  The problem is that it isn't competition on services or products, it's competition in gaming and/or just paying massive incumbent middlemen.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Who provide value to the consumer that individual business sites do not. Why shouldn't they be more highly ranked?
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      >Who provide value to the consumer that individual business sites do not. You're reciting this as if it's obviously true, yet offering no evidence. If a scraper beats a site, it's not a logical conclusion that the scraper was more useful to the consumer than the original site.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        How many hotel sites offer price comparisons to other hotels nearby? That's value right there.
  - schucks 12y ago
    This is succinct. It appears that the Google we had 10 years ago was perhaps valid in light of our ability to capitalise on 'the most valid results' and the Google we have today hasn't innovated on their search platform to break away from 'what corporates want us to find' into 'what we want to find'. We should expect more from our worlds most used search provider. The travesty isn't even perhaps brought about by Google directly. It may in fact be a reluctance of people to question the status quo or at least be heard in doing so. If nothing else, this blog is exactly what people need to deliberate over without prejudice toward the writer, and perhaps some knowledge or value will come from that. Whatever it is, we're left with a fairly opaque 10 site list that people rarely delve beyond. And I hear the complaints already from some, sure it ever so slightly customisable, but I certainly haven't cared to do so for years.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Recall that Google's initial and ongoing innovation was moving away from what corporate entities want users to find. I think Google prioritizes what they believe users want to find and subject it to the review of user behavior. The perceived problem with this is that what they think users wants doesn't always agree with what someone else thinks users want. Like in this article, where many users clearly want to see aggregators but the author believes they don't want to see aggregators.
    - asuffield 12y ago
      I think you will find that the reason why big brands are big brands is because a lot of people do, in reality, want to find them. Just because I don't want to find the same things doesn't stop that from being the most popular choice. Google would appear to be delivering what the bulk of its users want to see.

sroerick 12y ago

He's raising the observation that the easier it is to game Google, the less useful Google becomes. He's not prescribing a solution. Much less the solution of Google becoming a "far-left government." But screw equality and open access, right?

Kalium 12y ago
Search engines are by their very nature un-equal. There's no way around this without removing the value in having a search engine.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Some search engines, e.g. Google 7 years ago, are less un-equal than others, e.g. Google today.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    The job of a search engine is to second-guess your desire from limited inputs and try to fulfill it. I can't think of any sane way to be "equal" about that without relying on a lot of subjective judgments. Or being bad at making decisions.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Is the strategic priority of Google leadership a subjective judgement? Are these subjective judgements objectively implemented? There are always winners and losers for any given ranking algorithm, the question is whether perception of neutrality has improved or declined in the last 7 years. What is the perception of Google's neutrality in enforcement of rules against traffic arbitrage, e.g. search toolbars: http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/012213-1.html ?
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Almost anyone who loses out will perceive things as being subjectively against them. Almost anyone who wins will perceive it as being a sign of their worthiness and objective value.