Things I Will Never Understand About Google

[dp40oz]

Here are some things I just will never get about Google and make no sense to me. Maybe you guys could help clear these things up.

Making Page Rank updates available to the public
I understand that Page Rank is ever changing and the numbers we see are highly inaccurate but why show them at all? It doesn't do Google any good for us webmasters to have even a vague idea of how valuable a link would be from a certain site. It only leaves us hints as to how to build more powerful links.

The Sandbox
Anyone who's truly tested knows that the sandbox usually wears off in about 2 months if you do nothing. Im not talking Panda update sandboxing im talking link building sandboxing. Why have a penalty that once it wears off it then gives the website all the link value you just punished it for. Just an odd thing to do.

FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

Why is Google Chasing Trends
Google is not Facebook/Twitter and it doesn't need to be. Why is Google going against everything that built the company to where it is today. High quality algorithm sorted searches and now moving over to user metrics and like buttons. It reminds me of the idea of a democracy. We have an electoral college because the founding fathers new that the public was too stupid to be trusted. Once Google starts letting what people think "is cool" that particular week start ranking the highest they will surely be putting their company in the hands of those very trends that they are chasing. Ive never seen a company that had 80% of the market share decide they need to completely change what they're doing. Growing is one thing but fixing what ain't broke is another.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

Here are some things I just will never get about Google and make no sense to me. Maybe you guys could help clear these things up.

Making Page Rank updates available to the public
I understand that Page Rank is ever changing and the numbers we see are highly inaccurate but why show them at all? It doesn't do Google any good for us webmasters to have even a vague idea of how valuable a link would be from a certain site. It only leaves us hints as to how to build more powerful links.

Hi dp40oz,

When Google went live it was only known by a handful of technology Geeks. They created the Google toolbar as a marketing tool that also provided user behavioral statistics. The PageRank feature of the toolbar was popular and helped propel their success. It is now a legacy feature that remains too popular at the moment to remove. It seems clear that they would very much like to remove that feature, it's notable that the Google Chrome browser doesn't support the the Google toolbar, they don't need it since they get the same data directly from the browser.

Originally Posted by dp40oz

The Sandbox
Anyone who's truly tested knows that the sandbox usually wears off in about 2 months if you do nothing. Im not talking Panda update sandboxing im talking link building sandboxing. Why have a penalty that once it wears off it then gives the website all the link value you just punished it for. Just an odd thing to do.

There is no Sandbox, at least not the way most webmasters think about it. There is something know as the "Sandbox Effect". It is not a penalty, it is a feature of Search that applies earned Trust to weight the signals of relevance. It takes time to earn trust and that is one of the reasons why we see rankings slowly rise over time.

Many new webmasters often confuse the swing in rankings based on Trust factors as some sort of penalty that is targeting their website. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Trust factors are applied they same way across all websites, they haven't been singled out, they just don't understand what is happening and jump to that errant conclusion.

Originally Posted by dp40oz

FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

Why is Google Chasing Trends
Google is not Facebook/Twitter and it doesn't need to be. Why is Google going against everything that built the company to where it is today. High quality algorithm sorted searches and now moving over to user metrics and like buttons. It reminds me of the idea of a democracy. We have an electoral college because the founding fathers new that the public was too stupid to be trusted. Once Google starts letting what people think "is cool" that particular week start ranking the highest they will surely be putting their company in the hands of those very trends that they are chasing. Ive never seen a company that had 80% of the market share decide they need to completely change what they're doing. Growing is one thing but fixing what ain't broke is another.

This is an interesting question and we can only speculate as to Google's interest in this area. It seems clear to me that they are concerned about Facebook adding search as a feature of Facebook. That would make them an instant and formidable direct competitor with a significant advantage from their very large user base.

Facebook has already partnered with Bing, a direct competitor that is steadily gaining on Google, which is owned by Microsoft a much larger company with far greater resources than Google. If Facebook integrates search, or is acquired by Microsoft, Google will find themselves in a close horse race almost overnight. I think they are, and should be, very concerned by this.

[Madeira]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

Here are some things I just will never get about Google and make no sense to me...

FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

Why is Google Chasing Trends
Google is not Facebook/Twitter and it doesn't need to be. Why is Google going against everything that built the company to where it is today. High quality algorithm sorted searches and now moving over to user metrics and like buttons. It reminds me of the idea of a democracy. We have an electoral college because the founding fathers new that the public was too stupid to be trusted. Once Google starts letting what people think "is cool" that particular week start ranking the highest they will surely be putting their company in the hands of those very trends that they are chasing. Ive never seen a company that had 80% of the market share decide they need to completely change what they're doing. Growing is one thing but fixing what ain't broke is another.

Once upon a time, back in the 1960s and 1970s, IBM ruled the corporate world of computing. They dominated the marketplace. It used to be said that: "Nobody ever got the sack for buying an IBM computer."

IBM was only really interested in selling hardware. Mainframe computers we big - and they cost a lot of money, which meant lots of profit for IBM.

Then some silly little company called MicroSoft, or something like that, came along and said: "Hey, the real money to be made in computing is from software, not hardware."

Now, IBM dominated the marketplace for hardware and saw no need to go chasing the latest trends. Why should they completely change what they were doing? They could grow by building bigger and more expensive computers. Why should IBM fix what wasn't broke?

Today, many corporate computer operations run on networks of small, inexpensive PCs. The main cost to the corporation being in their software and operating systems. Progressively, increasing numbers of households worldwide own a computer - a personal one or a laptop, not some gigantic mainframe. The key component of those PCs or laptops is the operating system.

Look at the current valuations of IBM and MicroSoft. Then give me some explanation as just why Google should not adapt to a changing marketplace...

[Carl Brown]

The PageRank feature of the toolbar was popular and helped propel their success. It is now a legacy feature that remains too popular at the moment to remove. It seems clear that they would very much like to remove that feature

I have the pagerank bar on Chrome.

You can get it here

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by Madeira

Look at the current valuations of IBM and MicroSoft. Then give me some explanation as just why Google should not adapt to a changing marketplace...

Well yes Microsoft is an incredibly successful company but IBM is still predicted to be one of the few companies left standing in 100 years as well as being around for that long IBM joins elite group of 100-year-old companies - USATODAY.com because they've stuck to a plan that made them successful and they don't chase trends. Microsoft is killing them today but lets see in 20 years how mighty Microsoft is with this Apple revolution.

Regardless by this example you are assuming that the social network model is the future of search which it hasn't proven it is at all. The idea that if Facebook broke into the search engine market that it would already be a force to be reckoned with is a huge assumption. Many people are starting to predict that Facebook has already "jumped the shark" so to speak. Bing only has market share because it comes packaged with Windows and other Microsoft products. It didn't build itself up off of user respect and word of mouth.

I of course think Google has to grow and evolve but why change what is the core of what made and still makes it great. To me its more like McDonalds deciding the heart of its company will be low calorie turkey sandwiches because Subway has been doing well the past 5 years. Rather then Mcdonalds noticing that 5 years ago Taco Bell was the rage and McDonalds still did well, Then it was KFC and McDonalds still did well, now the rage is Subway, "so lets overhaul what we're doing because this trend is the big one."

I agree with them adding features like Like buttons but to start ranking pages with this as a factor seems like a step backwards to me. Just think if you search the term New York and the #1 result is Jay Z's song "New York, New York" because people love it, then that'll be something else. (far fetched but you get the point)

[Mr Marketer]

Originally Posted by dburk

Facebook has already partnered with Bing, a direct competitor that is steadily gaining on Google, which is owned by Microsoft a much larger company with far greater resources than Google. If Facebook integrates search, or is acquired by Microsoft, Google will find themselves in a close horse race almost overnight. I think they are, and should be, very concerned by this.

I think this is a very good point & people should pay close attention to how this all plays out. Especially with all the updates Google has been putting out lately, Bing is really becoming a threat to the big G. While they are still the most searched, Yahoo is barely treading water & Bing is the one gaining ground.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

Microsoft is killing them today but lets see in 20 years how mighty Microsoft is with this Apple revolution.

Hi dp40oz,

You do realize that Microsoft has been propping up Apple for years now as an effective method of avoiding anti-trust lawsuits, right?

[quote=dp40oz;4177891]
Regardless by this example you are assuming that the social network model is the future of search which it hasn't proven it is at all. The idea that if Facebook broke into the search engine market that it would already be a force to be reckoned with is a huge assumption. Many people are starting to predict that Facebook has already "jumped the shark" so to speak. Bing only has market share because it comes packaged with Windows and other Microsoft products. It didn't build itself up off of user respect and word of mouth.

I of course think Google has to grow and evolve but why change what is the core of what made and still makes it great. To me its more like McDonalds deciding the heart of its company will be low calorie turkey sandwiches because Subway has been doing well the past 5 years. Rather then Mcdonalds noticing that 5 years ago Taco Bell was the rage and McDonalds still did well, Then it was KFC and McDonalds still did well, now the rage is Subway, "so lets overhaul what we're doing because this trend is the big one."

Originally Posted by dp40oz

I agree with them adding features like Like buttons but to start ranking pages with this as a factor seems like a step backwards to me. Just think if you search the term New York and the #1 result is Jay Z's song "New York, New York" because people love it, then that'll be something else. (far fetched but you get the point)

The Like button rankings appear to be part of personalized search. It looks like it only effects rankings for individuals that have connections with friends that have Liked a pages for the same query. You and your friends can click th like button all you want and and only you and your friends see the effect from it.

[taylorjeremy]

i think page rank features are popular and helped impress their success it's google features that help to understand your site value according to google.

[dp40oz]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi dp40oz,

You do realize that Microsoft has been propping up Apple for years now as an effective method of avoiding anti-trust lawsuits, right?

Well they did one hell of a job considering Apples worth more then Microsoft now.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by dp40oz

Well they did one hell of a job considering Apples worth more then Microsoft now.

Yes, Apple's growth rate over the last few years has pushed their market cap higher than Microsoft's. Back in 1997 Apple was ready to fold and Microsoft came to their rescue with cash and a line of office software made for the Mac. It seems to be keeping the Anti-Trust lawsuits at bay for now.

[jerytohn]

Don't worry, nobody understands anything about Google ....

Not only you