10 ms·

Dear Rupert

109 points by daw___ 12y ago

andyn 12y ago
Love that last bullet.
- quink 12y ago
  Being in Australia, I consider any claim by Rupert that someone else is damaging the public discourse even remotely as much as him to be utterly ludicrous. Yesterday was just another example of that. I'd qualify which yesterday, but it really applies to all of them.
Mithaldu 12y ago
While they make many good points, they also show their cards by failing to substantiate their claims about search algorithm changes and Android Google Play lockin allegations.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Do they? This is an open letter that's a response to an open letter. This seems like about the right level of detail for that. It needs to be short, snappy, and readable by a general audience. I suspect that their interactions with the EC regulator [1] are rather more detailed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_Competition_(European_Commission) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_Competi...
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    I'm mainly talking about the fact that in the previous points they substantiate heavily by linking to Google pages about what they're doing. On other points they simply do the literary equivalent of "nuh-uh".
- kllrnohj 12y ago
  How did they fail to substantiate the claims? There wasn't even anything to actual counter there, News Corp's letter had nothing of substance. Google responded by quoting Yelp, who has said that the algorithm changes have not harmed Yelp (aka, an independent 3rd party is also disputing News Corp's claims). As for the Android Google Play lockin allegations, what more is there for Google to say? Android is open source and usable by anyone, this is simple fact. Google even calls out Amazon and Nokia doing exactly this. There literally does not exist a certification process for Android-related products. There exists a certification process if you want GOOGLE PLAY, but not if you just want Android.
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    Links that actually detail the changes made to the algorithm, and links to the Google Play certification requirements would be useful substantiation; just like they did for all the good points they had above that. Also, i don't understand why you felt the need to emphasize Google Play. That is exactly what i had said in my comment above.
    - kllrnohj 12y ago
      > Links that actually detail the changes made to the algorithm That's a joke, right? > links to the Google Play certification requirements would be useful substantiation Irrelevant. You should re-read News Corps' claims, which is what Google is responding to. Google Play certification was not a complaint. Android certification was the complaint - and you can't link to something that doesn't exist.
      - Mithaldu 12y ago
        You know, while i hate Murdoch and what he's doing, this doesn't mean that i'll be blind-eyed to the bad things Google is doing alongside the good things. You're being no better than Murdoch in your blind defenses. > That's a joke, right? Absolutely not. Why should it? There is no need to lay bare the entire thing, but a change log has no reason to be hidden. > You should re-read News Corps' claims I did, and while they do not say "Google Play" outright (since it involves actually MORE things than Google Play), they very clearly state that they are talking about things other than the core OS package: Google has developed a "certification" process for *Android-related products*
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I'm confused why someone would expect a company to never improve their product. Short of the ridiculous (not changing their search algorithm) what would you consider a favorable response?
Someone1234 12y ago
While I disagree with almost everything News Corp claimed, I do think this one has a ring of truth to it: > willing to exploit [its] dominant market position to stifle competition Google has, on multiple occasions, utilised its search engine to prop up or otherwise give an advantage to its own products over that of third parties. The most obvious example is Google+, however YouTube is also a prime example (the change to video search is fairly recent), as is Google Maps (which effectively wiped out the sometimes superior competition at the time), and Gmail (which was heavily advertised on Google.com). While Google doesn't, as far as I know, "fix" search rankings to give themselves an edge they do sprinkle adverts for their products before search results (e.g. YouTube, Google Maps) or around the perimeter of the page (e.g. Google+, Gmail). That all being said however: I'd take what Google does over what News Corp does any day of the week. Google might be a little corrupt, but News Corp is the poster child for abuse of position. Plus News Corp's lobbying has screwed up more than just their own specific market segment, it has had lasting effects on countries (and helped put innocent people in jail, literally). At the end of the day as the internet stands in 2014, you have a great deal of choice. If you're tired of Google's shenanigans then hop over to DDG, Bing, or even Yahoo!
- anon1385 12y ago
  >While Google doesn't, as far as I know, "fix" search rankings to give themselves an edge They certainly have done that in the past. Marissa Mayer admitted it in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT1UFZSbcxE#t=44m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT1UFZSbcxE#t=44m50s >When we rolled out Google Finance, we did put the Google link first. It seems only fair, right? We do all the work for the search page and all these other things, so we do put it first. That’s actually been a policy, then, because of Finance we implemented it in other places. So for Google Maps, again, it’s the first link.
  - thomasahle 12y ago
    If you start 10 seconds earlier, you'll see that she's not talking about ordering the "search results", but about the extra information added to some searches. Stock quotes, maps, calculator and stuff.
wmt 12y ago
That was brutal. Demolished pretty much all of the serious accusations in the original letter with facts that could not be true if the accusations would be solid. It was also wonderfully mean to ignore the News Corp CEO who signed the letter and reply to Rupert instead, implying quite a lot about the role of the current CEO.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - pionar 12y ago
    They never said YouTube doesn't dominate video search. The accusation was “Google routinely displays YouTube results at the top of its search pages, even if YouTube is not the original source of that content.” And, no, they don't. They do dominate video search. But, would YouTube not dominate any video search? Hell, YouTube dominates Yahoo! video search.
  - btian 12y ago
    It doesn't claim that YouTube doesn't dominate video search. Just that YouTube doesn't dominate when it's not the source. Seriously, compare Google video search to Bing Video search, Yahoo video search, Duckduckgo video search, and see how YouTube links appear in the top results.
easytiger 12y ago
This had me in stitches: > Undermining the basic business model of professional content creators will lead to a less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society Newspeak indeed.
al2o3cr 12y ago
LOL, News Corp bemoaning that someone's actions might "lead to a less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society". I presume their objection to that is that Google is horning in on their gig...
- philipwhiuk 12y ago
  I think you meant 'homing' but kerning helped your typo slip under the radar. :)
  - charonn0 12y ago
    To "horn in" is an idiom meaning to participate without being invited.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
tehwalrus 12y ago
That last link... for Murdoch to accuse anyone of lowering the tone of the debate is truly laughable, well done Google!
mistakoala 12y ago
> Google is a “platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks” So, like Sky Broadband in the UK, then?
rackforms 12y ago
Google's contributions to making the web safer, faster, and generally more awesome cannot go upraised. But as a small business owner under a rather crushing Google link penalty since 2011 I thought I offer my perspective. First, it's important to note my penalty was absolutely not of my creation — I never bought, sold or traded links, and followed Google Web Master guidelines to the letter. Unfortunately loads of spammy links I never created came home to roost in 2011 and I've been penalized ever since. I've done my best to clean up but so far no relief has come. So that out of the way my points: 1. People are certainly free to choose a different search engine and yes, plenty of alternatives exist. The problem is we don't appear to be using them anymore. Although I'm just one example, last month's traffic numbers are quite telling: 328 hits from Google, 2 from Yahoo, and 1 immediate bounce from Bing. Of the 328 Google hits, only 10 were for keyword searches. The rest we all for direct variants of my company name (rack forms, rack forms, and rack form). The kicker: On Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo I'm page two or higher for keyword searches, on Google page 15 or lower. Please let that sink in for a moment: despite being buried 15 pages deep in Google, I still got more keyword hits from them than I did from being a top result in three other search engines combined! It was not like this just a few years years ago and it's frankly quite concerning. Here's the rub: If you're a Google user, which over 98% of my potential users appear to be, because of my penalty you'll simply never know I exist, and if you're in the market for kick ass web form software that kinda stinks for you. I have a fantastic product! Despite this living hell of a penalty I still believe in Google, and absolutely believe they mean well. I just really, really hope they can figure out a way to prevent spam without getting guys like me caught up in the middle of the fray. For my business Google's market share is no longer academic, it's a tough reality that's becoming very difficult to ignore.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  Look, you should dance with Google, not fight it. If your domain(sic!) was pessimized, you just upgrade your site, rewrite content, add more data and images and create a new domain. Then you concentrate on promoting your new website.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > Unfortunately loads of spammy links I never created came home to roost Does this mean that users were posting spammy links on your site, that spammy links elsewhere pointed to your site or something else?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Dear Rupert

109 points by daw___ 12y ago

andyn 12y ago

Love that last bullet.

quink 12y ago
Being in Australia, I consider any claim by Rupert that someone else is damaging the public discourse even remotely as much as him to be utterly ludicrous. Yesterday was just another example of that. I'd qualify which yesterday, but it really applies to all of them.

Mithaldu 12y ago

While they make many good points, they also show their cards by failing to substantiate their claims about search algorithm changes and Android Google Play lockin allegations.

wpietri 12y ago
Do they? This is an open letter that's a response to an open letter. This seems like about the right level of detail for that. It needs to be short, snappy, and readable by a general audience. I suspect that their interactions with the EC regulator [1] are rather more detailed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_Competition_(European_Commission) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate-General_for_Competi...
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  I'm mainly talking about the fact that in the previous points they substantiate heavily by linking to Google pages about what they're doing. On other points they simply do the literary equivalent of "nuh-uh".
kllrnohj 12y ago
How did they fail to substantiate the claims? There wasn't even anything to actual counter there, News Corp's letter had nothing of substance. Google responded by quoting Yelp, who has said that the algorithm changes have not harmed Yelp (aka, an independent 3rd party is also disputing News Corp's claims). As for the Android Google Play lockin allegations, what more is there for Google to say? Android is open source and usable by anyone, this is simple fact. Google even calls out Amazon and Nokia doing exactly this. There literally does not exist a certification process for Android-related products. There exists a certification process if you want GOOGLE PLAY, but not if you just want Android.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Links that actually detail the changes made to the algorithm, and links to the Google Play certification requirements would be useful substantiation; just like they did for all the good points they had above that. Also, i don't understand why you felt the need to emphasize Google Play. That is exactly what i had said in my comment above.
  - kllrnohj 12y ago
    > Links that actually detail the changes made to the algorithm That's a joke, right? > links to the Google Play certification requirements would be useful substantiation Irrelevant. You should re-read News Corps' claims, which is what Google is responding to. Google Play certification was not a complaint. Android certification was the complaint - and you can't link to something that doesn't exist.
    - Mithaldu 12y ago
      You know, while i hate Murdoch and what he's doing, this doesn't mean that i'll be blind-eyed to the bad things Google is doing alongside the good things. You're being no better than Murdoch in your blind defenses. > That's a joke, right? Absolutely not. Why should it? There is no need to lay bare the entire thing, but a change log has no reason to be hidden. > You should re-read News Corps' claims I did, and while they do not say "Google Play" outright (since it involves actually MORE things than Google Play), they very clearly state that they are talking about things other than the core OS package: Google has developed a "certification" process for *Android-related products*
seanflyon 12y ago
I'm confused why someone would expect a company to never improve their product. Short of the ridiculous (not changing their search algorithm) what would you consider a favorable response?

Someone1234 12y ago

While I disagree with almost everything News Corp claimed, I do think this one has a ring of truth to it: > willing to exploit [its] dominant market position to stifle competition Google has, on multiple occasions, utilised its search engine to prop up or otherwise give an advantage to its own products over that of third parties. The most obvious example is Google+, however YouTube is also a prime example (the change to video search is fairly recent), as is Google Maps (which effectively wiped out the sometimes superior competition at the time), and Gmail (which was heavily advertised on Google.com). While Google doesn't, as far as I know, "fix" search rankings to give themselves an edge they do sprinkle adverts for their products before search results (e.g. YouTube, Google Maps) or around the perimeter of the page (e.g. Google+, Gmail). That all being said however: I'd take what Google does over what News Corp does any day of the week. Google might be a little corrupt, but News Corp is the poster child for abuse of position. Plus News Corp's lobbying has screwed up more than just their own specific market segment, it has had lasting effects on countries (and helped put innocent people in jail, literally). At the end of the day as the internet stands in 2014, you have a great deal of choice. If you're tired of Google's shenanigans then hop over to DDG, Bing, or even Yahoo!

anon1385 12y ago
>While Google doesn't, as far as I know, "fix" search rankings to give themselves an edge They certainly have done that in the past. Marissa Mayer admitted it in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT1UFZSbcxE#t=44m50s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT1UFZSbcxE#t=44m50s >When we rolled out Google Finance, we did put the Google link first. It seems only fair, right? We do all the work for the search page and all these other things, so we do put it first. That’s actually been a policy, then, because of Finance we implemented it in other places. So for Google Maps, again, it’s the first link.
- thomasahle 12y ago
  If you start 10 seconds earlier, you'll see that she's not talking about ordering the "search results", but about the extra information added to some searches. Stock quotes, maps, calculator and stuff.

wmt 12y ago

That was brutal. Demolished pretty much all of the serious accusations in the original letter with facts that could not be true if the accusations would be solid. It was also wonderfully mean to ignore the News Corp CEO who signed the letter and reply to Rupert instead, implying quite a lot about the role of the current CEO.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- pionar 12y ago
  They never said YouTube doesn't dominate video search. The accusation was “Google routinely displays YouTube results at the top of its search pages, even if YouTube is not the original source of that content.” And, no, they don't. They do dominate video search. But, would YouTube not dominate any video search? Hell, YouTube dominates Yahoo! video search.
- btian 12y ago
  It doesn't claim that YouTube doesn't dominate video search. Just that YouTube doesn't dominate when it's not the source. Seriously, compare Google video search to Bing Video search, Yahoo video search, Duckduckgo video search, and see how YouTube links appear in the top results.

easytiger 12y ago

This had me in stitches: > Undermining the basic business model of professional content creators will lead to a less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society Newspeak indeed.

al2o3cr 12y ago

LOL, News Corp bemoaning that someone's actions might "lead to a less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society". I presume their objection to that is that Google is horning in on their gig...

philipwhiuk 12y ago
I think you meant 'homing' but kerning helped your typo slip under the radar. :)
- charonn0 12y ago
  To "horn in" is an idiom meaning to participate without being invited.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

tehwalrus 12y ago

That last link... for Murdoch to accuse anyone of lowering the tone of the debate is truly laughable, well done Google!

mistakoala 12y ago

> Google is a “platform for piracy and the spread of malicious networks” So, like Sky Broadband in the UK, then?

rackforms 12y ago

Google's contributions to making the web safer, faster, and generally more awesome cannot go upraised. But as a small business owner under a rather crushing Google link penalty since 2011 I thought I offer my perspective. First, it's important to note my penalty was absolutely not of my creation — I never bought, sold or traded links, and followed Google Web Master guidelines to the letter. Unfortunately loads of spammy links I never created came home to roost in 2011 and I've been penalized ever since. I've done my best to clean up but so far no relief has come. So that out of the way my points: 1. People are certainly free to choose a different search engine and yes, plenty of alternatives exist. The problem is we don't appear to be using them anymore. Although I'm just one example, last month's traffic numbers are quite telling: 328 hits from Google, 2 from Yahoo, and 1 immediate bounce from Bing. Of the 328 Google hits, only 10 were for keyword searches. The rest we all for direct variants of my company name (rack forms, rack forms, and rack form). The kicker: On Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo I'm page two or higher for keyword searches, on Google page 15 or lower. Please let that sink in for a moment: despite being buried 15 pages deep in Google, I still got more keyword hits from them than I did from being a top result in three other search engines combined! It was not like this just a few years years ago and it's frankly quite concerning. Here's the rub: If you're a Google user, which over 98% of my potential users appear to be, because of my penalty you'll simply never know I exist, and if you're in the market for kick ass web form software that kinda stinks for you. I have a fantastic product! Despite this living hell of a penalty I still believe in Google, and absolutely believe they mean well. I just really, really hope they can figure out a way to prevent spam without getting guys like me caught up in the middle of the fray. For my business Google's market share is no longer academic, it's a tough reality that's becoming very difficult to ignore.

vdaniuk 12y ago
Look, you should dance with Google, not fight it. If your domain(sic!) was pessimized, you just upgrade your site, rewrite content, add more data and images and create a new domain. Then you concentrate on promoting your new website.
seanflyon 12y ago
> Unfortunately loads of spammy links I never created came home to roost Does this mean that users were posting spammy links on your site, that spammy links elsewhere pointed to your site or something else?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]