FTC after Big G

14 years ago

That is nuts!!!

How can they classify it a monopoly, when it is only guilty of out-competing the competition?

Just because Yahoo and Bing and the other 50 search engines have sucked for years, does not mean that the Big G is monopolistic..

p.s. Maybe in the future, I will be able to contact the Feds and get them to bring a suit against my competitors, when they beat me on the playing field.

Just like they are teaching in schools today: there are no losers... we are all whiners...

p.p.s. Helping a ********* to the ***** ***** could not save the big G from the mechanics of big **********.

[ 1 ] Thanks
5 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124045].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

A real game of horse hockey!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124327].message }}

Laurie Rogers

14 years ago

This isn't the first time the FTC has tried to b__ch slap google, nor will it be the last. Anyone remember the big "child pron" scandal with all the engines? Where they tried to get google to pony up with their inner workings? Out of all the engines, google said no, the FTC said well you have to OR ELSE and google still said no, they paid a hefty fine and walked away. Unlike the rest of them that handed over their data within a flash. The FTC has to do stuff like this once in a while, it makes them look like they're actually doing something useful with your tax dollars. They'll just keep coming up with allegations, so they can get their greedy little paws on google's inner workings.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124436].message }}

jasonthewebmaster

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Laurie Rogers

This isn't the first time the FTC has tried to b__ch slap google, nor will it be the last. Anyone remember the big "child pron" scandal with all the engines? Where they tried to get google to pony up with their inner workings? Out of all the engines, google said no, the FTC said well you have to OR ELSE and google still said no, they paid a hefty fine and walked away. Unlike the rest of them that handed over their data within a flash. The FTC has to do stuff like this once in a while, it makes them look like they're actually doing something useful with your tax dollars. They'll just keep coming up with allegations, so they can get their greedy little paws on google's inner workings.

True. I will be glad to see G stand up to the FTC.. Somebody needs to before the US Govt demolishes any last vestige of freedom this world has! (being the internet)

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143289].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Bill,
Still missing the point entirely. It's not about "Opressed Marketers".

It's about "Bing" no longer existing as the option for anyone, if Google is permitted to dominate 'search' to the extinction of all other search engines.

-Dani, The R.C.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143328].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Bill,
Still missing the point entirely. It's not about "Opressed Marketers".

It's about "Bing" no longer existing as the option for anyone, if Google is permitted to dominate 'search' to the extinction of all other search engines.

-Dani, The R.C.

Dani, The Rambling Counterpoint:

You are still missing the point.

Originally Posted by DanielleS

It's about "Bing" no longer existing as the option for anyone, if Google is permitted to dominate 'search' to the extinction of all other search engines.

Google has been losing market share to Bing over the last year!!

18 months ago, Google had an 80% market share. Now Google is closer to 70% of the market.

The only people/entities taking away your right to use a competitor is YOU...

So take my advice and move to Bing and plant your flag in their search engine, and then start the process of convincing others that Bing has better search results, and the momentum could accelerate to Bing.

That way, in 5 years, we could come back here and argue about whether Bing is engaged in anti-competitive behavior, just because they control most of the search market.

p.s. Marketing yourself as "The Responsible Capitalist" could be construed by some people to constitute "deceptive advertising", since it could reasonably be shown in a court of law that you are not always a "responsible" poster in the WF.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143449].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

It's about "Bing" no longer existing as the option for anyone, if Google is permitted to dominate 'search' to the extinction of all other search engines.

The convenient thing about all of these arguments you're making is that you can simply swap "Google" out for the biggest search engine, no matter what it is.

Your complaint is basically that Google's consumer (the search user) is not its customer (the advertiser).

This is true for all search engines. They all have to find some other way to finance their operation. And if you knock Google out of the number one spot, all you are going to do is promote all the rest. The #2 slot will become #1 the second Google falls.

You will not fix anything.

The #1 search provider will still hold the public's trust and open a door for them to stop trusting everyone else.

Only the names will change.

And here's the important part. Are you paying attention?

It doesn't matter how ethically, honestly, or transparently the search provider is doing business.

You're just complaining that someone is #1, and they could abuse that.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143521].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Bill,

18 months ago, Google had an 80% market share. Now Google is closer to 70% of the market.

As long as the balance continues...

CD,

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what word they should be using that means what they're trying to say - that organic search results are never directly altered or manipulated.

None.

You do. If you don't like Google's ethics, you don't have to use them.

For as long as there are alternatives that is.

Then test it... now... and show me where you see anything deceitful going on.

I'm not qualified to test it, since I don't know how the algo determines how rankings are calculated.

It doesn't matter how ethically, honestly, or transparently the search provider is doing business.

I dare to say that it does matter, as a matter of law, with any business.

You're just complaining that someone is #1, and they could abuse that.

You are mistaking 'complaining' with supporting the notion of 'keeping a watchful eye.'

Allow me to translate:

"Trusting a company is bad."

Yeah. Whatever.

Let me fix that for you: Blind trust in any company is just blind.

Dan,

Neither Hitler nor Castro were capitalists.

Hitler was a propagandist,

Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself.

I don't have the time to get into Castro right now... but censoring information, (media) - still feudal.

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143660].message }}

VanessaB 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Chris Worner

This coming from the guy who posted this:

Originally Posted by Chris Worner

Moral of the story; Don't rely on Google solely for traffic.

Chris
- Thanks
Signature

The Recon Report
Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143695].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Bill,
Still missing the point entirely. It's not about "Opressed Marketers".

It's about "Bing" no longer existing as the option for anyone, if Google is permitted to dominate 'search' to the extinction of all other search engines.

-Dani, The R.C.

So is this finally the truth about where you're coming from. Was all the other nonsense smoke and mirrors?

OK. I won't belittle your fear that poor old billy boy gates' search engine might die. But I'd like you to stop and think for a sec and tell me answer one question:

Presuming that google is indeed rigging search results as you claim they are, how in the hell does that hurt other search engines?

Surely this can't be your answer: Google Search Results

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143952].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

So is this finally the truth about where you're coming from. Was all the other nonsense smoke and mirrors?

OK. I won't belittle your fear that poor old billy boy gates' search engine might die. But I'd like you to stop and think for a sec and tell me answer one question:

Presuming that google is indeed rigging search results as you claim they are, how in the hell does that hurt other search engines?

Surely this can't be your answer: Google Search Results

I don't claim they ARE... I claim they CAN... and I further claim that it bears scrutiny.

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4144241].message }}

Ben Gordon

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Bill, Bill, Bill...

It's going to be a dog and pony show.

Google is a big contributor to the current administration. And they will need to money to keep coming in for the re-election effort.

At the same time, they need to look like they are taking people's concerns seriously.

So, they'll investigate Google. And, in the end, they'll determine that Google has done nothing wrong or maybe they'll slap Google with something inconsequential and fine Google some token amount that's a drop in the bucket for them.

I would be very surprised if anything meaningful happens here. Most likely, it's just a show for the worried public's benefit.

I totally agree, the FTC can fight with Google, but they won't get much out of it. Google is a huge company, one of the main competitors with Microsoft. The most that they will do is give a $50,000 fine to Google, or something similar to this.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124930].message }}

GlobalTrader

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Ben Gordon

I totally agree, the FTC can fight with Google, but they won't get much out of it. Google is a huge company, one of the main competitors with Microsoft. The most that they will do is give a $50,000 fine to Google, or something similar to this.

If they slap G with any kind of fine (which I doubt) then another dept of the govt will turn around and award them a lucrative contract to provide information on who and what is being searched.

Thanks

Signature

GlobalTrader

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124957].message }}

Kay King 14 years ago

I could understand if the newer "innovative searches" are the focus of the investigation. I don't view google as a monopoly - but manipulating the market is another issue.

Following what you have been looking at online and tailoring ads to that - or offering google ad alternatives are presented as user friendly options. Is there a point at which "personal" search becomes self serving manipulation of results? I know my own reaction to some of the recent 'improvements' at google have been an instant search for how to turn off the new google function that was automatically added.

It will be interesting to see the results of this investigation and to see what google offers as rebuttal.

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124994].message }}

J Bold

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

That is nuts!!!

How can they classify it a monopoly, when it is only guilty of out-competing the competition?

Just because Yahoo and Bing and the other 50 search engines have sucked for years, does not mean that the Big G is monopolistic..

p.s. Maybe in the future, I will be able to contact the Feds and get them to bring a suit against my competitors, when they beat me on the playing field.

Just like they are teaching in schools today: there are no losers... we are all whiners...

p.p.s. Helping a ********* to the ***** ***** could not save the big G from the mechanics of big **********.

Yes but it's got nothing do with their search engine business that merely competes their competition. That way, way, way oversimplifies it.

A previous investigation has got to do with how their search engine business, monetized with advertising, made them hugely powerful and rich, and they use that power to buy other companies that compete with them in internet advertising.

This new investigation is probably more wide ranging, and since they control a large chunk of the search engine market, how they may use that dominance to unfairly prop up their own services over other service providers.

You can still disagree with it, but it is what it is.

Thanks

Signature

[Free] Learn How to Crush Web Traffic with Kenster

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126457].message }}

azmanar 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Devon Brown

Wow. What? That's a lot of asterisks!

Hi Devon.

You should know, sometimes Bill uses secret morse code.
- Thanks
Signature

=== >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126550].message }}

blueorca17

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

That is nuts!!!

How can they classify it a monopoly, when it is only guilty of out-competing the competition?

Just because Yahoo and Bing and the other 50 search engines have sucked for years, does not mean that the Big G is monopolistic..

p.s. Maybe in the future, I will be able to contact the Feds and get them to bring a suit against my competitors, when they beat me on the playing field.

Just like they are teaching in schools today: there are no losers... we are all whiners...

p.p.s. Helping a ********* to the ***** ***** could not save the big G from the mechanics of big **********.

I totally agree. It's not Google's fault that they make their services incredibly user friendly and deliver really relevant results. It's like the FTC is bashing them for being too cool and popular. Rediculous. They ARE whining. If competitiors want to get more of the market share then they need to make a better product/service. You're right. They need to stop whining.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126873].message }}

ladywriter

14 years ago

What ramifications would this have for us, if the FTC succeeds?

I don't know anything about what goes on at Google, but most alternatives to Google are inferior as far as I can see.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Effective Content From a Nurse: Check Out my Warrior for Hire thread

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124520].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kstark

What ramifications would this have for us, if the FTC succeeds?

I don't know anything about what goes on at Google, but most alternatives to Google are inferior as far as I can see.

Most likely, Google will pay a fine, then return to business as usual.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124556].message }}

kindsvater

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kstark

What ramifications would this have for us, if the FTC succeeds?

I don't know anything about what goes on at Google, but most alternatives to Google are inferior as far as I can see.

This could be huge with major ramifications for marketers.

This is not about "alternatives" to Google.

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Simple Example:

You sell dog leashes online.

Google decides it is going to sell dog leashes and when someone searches for dog leashes on Google, whaddya know, the top spot(s) are now for Google's own dog leash shop.

You then have to apply for food stamps after your business craters.

This has been happening and threatened in more and more niches. Health. Travel. Local listings. Reviews. Video. News.

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties. You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing.

IMHO, this government action is way overdue. But I'm surprised given Google's public support for the Obama administration.

What should happen is similar to what happened with Microsoft and its attempts to leverage the Windows operating system:

Google should have its search business.

Any business that benefits from search results should be spun-off because (1) Google has an impossible conflict of interest in being fair in its search results and to its stockholders, and (2) Google arguably has a monopoly share of search.

.

[ 29 ] Thanks
9 replies

Signature

Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124770].message }}

Laurie Rogers 14 years ago

I'll give you the real question... who contributes more money to the govt? Google or Microsoft? Microsoft has always got a beef with someone, even though they monopolize a lot of technology as well ... maybe a case of internal whining. Well we give more money than they do, so please do something and we'll give you more money ... come on now folks, this is what really happens, not like they actually have anyone's "best interests" at heart making these "tough decisions".
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124820].message }}
- Laurie Rogers 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Steve Wells
  
  The United States Citizens, the taxpayers..........
  
  That's not the question I asked, I asked who gave more money to the govt, Google or Microsoft? Nothing about the US citizens was in my post.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125258].message }}

Dan C. Rinnert

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Simple Example:

You sell dog leashes online.

Google decides it is going to sell dog leashes and when someone searches for dog leashes on Google, whaddya know, the top spot(s) are now for Google's own dog leash shop.

You then have to apply for food stamps after your business craters.

This has been happening and threatened in more and more niches. Health. Travel. Local listings. Reviews. Video. News.

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties. You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing.

Yet, for some reason, people continue to give Google the inside track by installing stuff like Google Analytics on their websites.

[ 8 ] Thanks

Signature

Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124882].message }}

Black Hat Cat

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

This could be huge with major ramifications for marketers.

This is not about "alternatives" to Google.

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Simple Example:

You sell dog leashes online.

Google decides it is going to sell dog leashes and when someone searches for dog leashes on Google, whaddya know, the top spot(s) are now for Google's own dog leash shop.

You then have to apply for food stamps after your business craters.

This has been happening and threatened in more and more niches. Health. Travel. Local listings. Reviews. Video. News.

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties. You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing.

IMHO, this government action is way overdue. But I'm surprised given Google's public support for the Obama administration.

What should happen is similar to what happened with Microsoft and its attempts to leverage the Windows operating system:

Google should have its search business.

Any business that benefits from search results should be spun-off because (1) Google has an impossible conflict of interest in being fair in its search results and to its stockholders, and (2) Google arguably has a monopoly share of search.

.

I didn't realize we were entitled to high search rankings. Who knew? Basically, your entire argument against Google is what's wrong with the system, not what's right with it. Long overdue my a**...it should never happen.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124897].message }}

kindsvater

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

I didn't realize we were entitled to high search rankings. Who knew? Basically, your entire argument against Google is what's wrong with the system, not what's right with it. Long overdue my a**...it should never happen.

No one said anything about being "entitled" to a "high" search ranking. And investigations happen because something is wrong, not with what is working.

The government is looking into "fair" rankings.

Are we entitled to "fair" search rankings?

I'll be first in line to talk about free enterprise.

Uh, well, until it is my ox getting gored by an evil monopoly that is abusing its position in one business (search) to harm my business (anything but search).

(Admittedly, when I get a monopoly in something I'll have to delete this post. Us lawyers are real good at arguing any perspective of an issue.)

These days Google is an outright competitor - and at the same time starting to push other online businesses off or down its search listings in topics as diverse as credit cards, shoes, books, weddings, and project software.

Search, presumably, is to provide the information a person is searching for. When "search" morphs into favoring Google's own properties the question becomes is that fair?

There's no clear answer on that.

But if the favoritism is combined with monopoly power then it is not just a question of fairness, but being illegal.

Monopolies are illegal for many reasons. Not just the goring of my bank account. They also stifle innovation, harm competition, increase prices, etc.

Basically, power corrupts.

Is Google a search engine to find stuff on the Internet, or is Google a search engine to find stuff controlled by Google?

So ...

BHC has an online business selling cat collars. Google controls a monopoly of traffic for people searching for cat collars. BHC has, by any account, the best cat collar website around and is making good money. Is BHC solely reliant on Google? No. But because Google has the search traffic a necessary result is a significant portion of BHC's income comes from Google.

BHC is then eliminated from the first page of Google. Not because it no longer has the best cat collar site, but because the first page is now consumed with Google properties about cat collars: Google guides to cat collars, YouTube videos, Google ebook store books, Google affiliate network sellers, BHC's piss-poor competitor that Google just bought, etc.

The end result is BHC makes less money. Perhaps not enough to keep innovating or to stay in business. Adios BHC.

If that's fine with you it's fine with you.

Who knows what the outcome of the investigation will be. No claims have been made Google is a monopoly. Or if it is that it is abusing its position.

But many have seen what is happening with Google and understand what the future will bring. It's not pretty.

.

[ 11 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125294].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

No one said anything about being "entitled" to a "high" search ranking. And investigations happen because something is wrong, not with what is working.

The government is looking into "fair" rankings.

Are we entitled to "fair" search rankings?

I'll be first in line to talk about free enterprise.

Uh, well, until it is my ox getting gored by an evil monopoly that is abusing its position in one business (search) to harm my business (anything but search).

Define "fair rankings".

Is it "unfair" if you don't rank on page one of Google, and I do?

Would it be more "fair" if you ranked on page one instead of me?

Would it be more "fair" if neither of us or both of us landed on page one?

There are only ten results on page one, and if there are more than ten competitors in that niche, then someone will always be claiming that things are "unfair", because they are not able to suck the tit of the Google gravy train!!

Who is going to define "fair" for us in a way that all of us will agree is "fair"? You? Or some government bureaucrat? LOL

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125344].message }}

DireStraits

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Define "fair rankings".

Is it "unfair" if you don't rank on page one of Google, and I do?

Would it be more "fair" if you ranked on page one instead of me?

Would it be more "fair" if neither of us or both of us landed on page one?

There are only ten results on page one, and if there are more than ten competitors in that niche, then someone will always be claiming that things are "unfair", because they are not able to suck the tit of the Google gravy train!!

Who is going to define "fair" for us in a way that all of us will agree is "fair"? You? Or some government bureaucrat? LOL

I don't think it's about "normal results", though, Bill. It's about those "special results" (for lack of a better description).

If you search for "buy cat collars", the sites with the most backlinks and authority for that term search should, by rights, appear highest in the SERPs. And they will. But they'll be split by Google insertion of "special results" in a prominent place, detracting from the exposure that those regular organic results would normally receive.

Those special results aren't computed by the same algorithm, and indeed the products/services/companies contained within them are (usually) limited to those specifically submitted to and approved by Google. Google may or may not charge a fee for those listings or even take a commission from their take-up, but they're typically subject to a stringent approvals process whose requirements are beyond the scope of being met by "the average Joe".

So it's not even about Google championing its own services inasmuch as it is about championing the services of those "big and bad" enough to make it under their wing, who Google also potentially profits from (or may do in the future).

No-one is saying Google's in the right or in the wrong, yet, anyway. This is what's set to be determined in due course. But without such investigations and deliberations, such determinations cannot be made. And if determinations aren't made, monopolies will run rampant simply because its not in their nature to "self-regulate".

You could almost liken the argument against this as saying "right, take all the police patrols off the streets and investigate crimes/offences only after they've been reported, or committed publicly - being proactive is ridiculous, expensive and only costs us our freedoms".

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125691].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DireStraits

If you search for "buy cat collars", the sites with the most backlinks and authority for that term search should, by rights, appear highest in the SERPs. And they will. But they'll be split by Google insertion of "special results" in a prominent place, detracting from the exposure that those regular organic results would normally receive.

Those special results aren't computed by the same algorithm, and indeed the products/services/companies contained within them are (usually) limited to those specifically submitted to and approved by Google. Google may or may not charge a fee for those listings or even take a commission from their take-up, but they're typically subject to a stringent approvals process whose requirements are beyond the scope of being met by "the average Joe".

There was no firestorm of protest when Google started mixing other special results in the results, such as: images, videos, news, tweets, local results, etc.

We did not care then, because they were not actually making money off those listings.

But then again, when they first introduced Adwords, people were pitching a bitch-fit about that.

We only cry, when they set up the game so that they can make more money.

As long as Google isn't preventing us from buying advertising on someone else's site, then there is no issue.

They get to choose who advertises on their site, who they let have free advertising, and what rates they will charge their advertisers. These are the same rights enjoyed by all other websites online.

But, because Google is bigger than everyone else, it is a problem when "they" exercise their rights?

Really people?

**** rolls downhill, and if we enforce these draconian standards against Google, then we will pay the piper.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125888].message }}

DireStraits 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

There was no firestorm of protest when Google started mixing other special results in the results, such as: images, videos, news, tweets, local results, etc.

Says who? :p

Personally, I admit I do use Google to find images, but for everything else I head to a dedicated site (YouTube for videos; BBC / The Independent, etc., for news; and I have little interest in "what's being discussed on Twitter" at all) or look said thing up manually using their regular search.

I don't like the fact they've got all this extra crap cluttering up their results that I seldom (if ever) want to see and never really use.

Originally Posted by tpw

We did not care then, because they were not actually making money off those listings.

It's not that the school bully gets to sleep with all the hot girls because he's muscular and attractive; it's that he cut off your assets and left you unattractive to them, then chained you up in the boiler-room, out of sight, so that they couldn't even take pity on you.

It's not just about Google making a profit: it's less about that than it is whether they're using (or abusing) their position to deprive others of "theirs".

That's the rather unsavoury consequence of monopolistic behaviour, isn't it? The "evil" isn't in that one company making a lot of money (perhaps more than everyone else), it's that they make it hard for others to make any money, or get a foot-hold, at all.

As someone else (Brian???) said, it's about preventing competition and stifling innovation. (And perhaps doing things without proper disclosure, for which there's a legal requirement to have one and with which "everyone else" complies.)

One's size, power, reach and influence are all things that factor into how "well" one's able to do that, of course, and how much of a threat one becomes.

It doesn't much matter whether Google's the "go-to" seach engine by sheer force or as a result of people's individual choice: the fact is that they are, and certain responsibilities and considerations are conferred along with that position. Until they have "real, substantial competition", they're treading a fine line doing some of the things they do.

Whether any of what they do is in fact "at the insuperable expense of others" is likely what's to be determined by this, no?

I for one would rather a formal, fair and in-depth look into this, rather than to rely on the superficial observations and gut-reactive moralistic opinion of community forum members, when it comes to determinining whether a gigantic, powerful, multi-billion-dollar corporation - whose name many people consider synonymous with "the internet" or "searching the web" - is in violation of any laws/regulations, and whether, as a consequence, changes are called for in their operational practices / structure.

Originally Posted by tpw

But, because Google is bigger than everyone else, it is a problem when "they" exercise their rights?

Well ... more or less, yes.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126768].message }}

kindsvater

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Who is going to define "fair" for us in a way that all of us will agree is "fair"? You? Or some government bureaucrat? LOL

Good points as always Bill.

I vote for me

Actually, no one is going to ever agree about what is "fair" in the search rankings of other websites.

If you're on top it's fair. If not it's not.

But perhaps you would agree that taking whatever algorithm Google has for rankings, if the ranked websites are pushed down in the rankings because Google is now placing its content and properties ahead of them, that will reduce the traffic to those websites.

And perhaps you would agree that if traffic is reduced then revenue is reduced.

General principles here. There are always exceptions.

Now, perhaps you would agree that the FTC has numerous disclosure requirements so that consumers can properly and fairly evaluate what they are looking at. For instance, that you disclose an affiliate or other paid relationship when recommending a product because that could bias your review or content, and the consumer has the right to know of that possible bias.

Hopefully, I've got 3 yesses from you at this point. If not, I'll have to go back and rework my cross-examination.

Then perhaps you would agree that except for the Adwords listings Google is not disclosing it's self interest in listing it's properties and content ahead of those websites it's computer algorithm ranked. Or that it owns or controls various websites or content that are listed.

You might have uncertainty about that. I just did a search for

sacramento to san francisco flight

The #1 listing is a Google listing and the only airline it shows flying from Sacramento to San Francisco is United - with a link to the United website with all sorts of extra code that "might" be tracking / affiliate code.

Now, while some may call Sacramento a cow town, I assure you United is not the only carrier flying to San Francisco.

Interestingly, make of it what you will, there are only 2 Adwords Ads for this search. The top one is for United.

So if you had uncertainty about the last question, perhaps you would agree this is a little suspicious - and wonder why Google is only showing United as flying from Sacramento to San Francisco when in fact Sacramento's most popular carrier is Southwest.

As you're thinking about this, you may be interested to know that United does not fly from Sacramento to San Francisco, unless maybe for a leg on a longer flight. (To be fair, an airline called Skywest does, and United has an arrangement to operate Skywest flights.)

Perhaps you would agree Matt Cutts is on record, numerous times, talking about how Google's rankings cannot be bought, are "fair", and solely dictated by computers without human intervention.

You might also agree, although this would require subpoenas to Google to know for sure, that "fair" computer rankings without human intervention would not place content and properties owned by Google at the top of the search rankings.

And they probably would not list United as the only airline flying from Sacramento to San Francisco

Don't know if have 6 yesses from you at this point. Maybe none - you're being tough on me today.

But if so, then maybe you see why the FTC is "investigating" by issuing subpoenas.

.

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125894].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Good points as always Bill.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

I vote for me

As long as it is not me. I would not want the job.

I get enough nagging from my wife.

And there are millions of unsatisfied webmasters, whining about how they cannot be in Google and Google just isn't fair. :p

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Actually, no one is going to ever agree about what is "fair" in the search rankings of other websites.

If you're on top it's fair. If not it's not.

But perhaps you would agree that taking whatever algorithm Google has for rankings, if the ranked websites are pushed down in the rankings because Google is now placing its content and properties ahead of them, that will reduce the traffic to those websites.

And perhaps you would agree that if traffic is reduced then revenue is reduced.

General principles here. There are always exceptions.

It is true that no one will ever agree on a "fair" arrangement.

Self-interest will always get in the way of "fair"... That is just the human condition.

Yes, if Google is putting their stuff on top of mine OR your stuff on top of mine, it will push my ranking down, and therefore my traffic down.

I am fairly certain that this has been tested in court, where the plaintiff was suing Google for loss of revenue. As it should have been, those plaintiffs lost.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Now, perhaps you would agree that the FTC has numerous disclosure requirements so that consumers can properly and fairly evaluate what they are looking at. For instance, that you disclose an affiliate or other paid relationship when recommending a product because that could bias your review or content, and the consumer has the right to know of that possible bias.

Agree.

And Adwords does say "Ad" in both blocks. If consumers are unwilling to read, then the consumer is to blame for their selective reading habits.

As to Google showing their own properties in Google's search results, who is to say that they are cheating? They are just better at SEO than we are, because they know the inner-workings of their algorithms and we can only guess.

I have at times seen Google properties at the top of the organic results, and I have seen their competition above them in the results... But this is only hearsay, because I did not screen shot the experience. Therefore, my testimony is not admissible in court.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Hopefully, I've got 3 yesses from you at this point. If not, I'll have to go back and rework my cross-examination.

Let's see... Yes, Yes and Yes.

You're good.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Then perhaps you would agree that except for the Adwords listings Google is not disclosing it's self interest in listing it's properties and content ahead of those websites it's computer algorithm ranked. Or that it owns or controls various websites or content that are listed.

You might have uncertainty about that. I just did a search for

sacramento to san francisco flight

The #1 listing is a Google listing and the only airline it shows flying from Sacramento to San Francisco is United - with a link to the United website with all sorts of extra code that "might" be tracking / affiliate code.

Now, while some may call Sacramento a cow town, I assure you United is not the only carrier flying to San Francisco.

Interestingly, make of it what you will, there are only 2 Adwords Ads for this search. The top one is for United.

So if you had uncertainty about the last question, perhaps you would agree this is a little suspicious - and wonder why Google is only showing United as flying from Sacramento to San Francisco when in fact Sacramento's most popular carrier is Southwest.

As you're thinking about this, you may be interested to know that United does not fly from Sacramento to San Francisco, unless maybe for a leg on a longer flight. (To be fair, an airline called Skywest does, and United has an arrangement to operate Skywest flights.)

If they are listing something in Adwords, that is disclosed, unless you are one of those people with selective vision.

If they wrote an exclusive deal with United Airlines that pays a premium to Google for exclusive placement for United, then that would be within Google's rights to do.

With Adwords, it is easy to believe that possible.

With the organic results, it is easy to believe that Google helped United SEO its website.

Yes, it is very suspicious that only United ranks in the organic listings, even if United was advised how to SEO for that term.

The only business that I believe that Google should not be involved is SEO, because they would be selling their organic placements to the highest bidder.

Even if Google sold SEO services to United for the organic listings, that would not be a violation in my mind of unfair business practices, because other websites are not required to disclose who does their SEO work.

But I definitely do not think that Google should be in the SEO business, because it undermines their credibility.

I will give you half a point here.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Perhaps you would agree Matt Cutts is on record, numerous times, talking about how Google's rankings cannot be bought, are "fair", and solely dictated by computers without human intervention.

I read him a lot, and I have never seen him state that positively.

Instead, I have heard him say that "Google would prefer to find an algorithmic solution to any problems in its search results that they want to address."

"Prefer" is not an absolute.

I have also heard him say that they have manually changed things in their algorithms.

You are speaking to people's perceptions of Google, not Google's official position.

Minus one.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

You might also agree, although this would require subpoenas to Google to know for sure, that "fair" computer rankings without human intervention would not place content and properties owned by Google at the top of the search rankings.

And they probably would not list United as the only airline flying from Sacramento to San Francisco

1. Google does not claim "no human intervention" in their rankings.

2. It is their algorithm, and the courts have upheld their ability to change the algos as they see fit to do.

3. Computer algorithms often do place Google properties at the top of the list, which is because no one knows SEO better than the folks at Google. (Some people are drooling at this admission, but I am not done with this part. See #8 and #9.)

4. Computer algorithms do not always put Google properties at the top of the list.

5. It would be understandable if United was the only listing in the paid results, IF United purchased the premium exclusive listing there.

6. It would be odd for United to have the only page one slot for that flight path.

7. The organic listings are free advertising for other parties. Google has never asked the public to pay for those organic listings, at least not yet. If they get into the SEO biz, that will change.

8. If I do a top ten list of niche websites on my website, it is biased naturally, because I am placing my subjective bias into the ranking. Google does the same, and always has done so. Every tweak to their algorithm is intended to exclude someone from the search results and to help others move forward in the results. It is the nature of the beast. Google management decides how the mathematical formulas should be organized, so it is only as "fair" as Google management believes that it should be.

9. On most of my websites, the articles are the content. On some sites, the sales copy is the content. On Google, the top ten list giving free advertising to others is the content.

In #8, I already established that Google is biased always in its organic listings. If it is biased towards a paid advertiser in its organic listings, I would not be surprised at that. Google's search results are biased from beginning to end, so where is the sudden surprise that Google's management is biased towards United in the organic results?

10. Who is truly surprised that Google has biases? Only those who want to believe that a business could ever be 100% altruistic. LOL

Since your second sentence in this section was a carry-over from your original point, I will not give you any plus points on that one.

In the end, I have to give you another minus one here.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Don't know if have 6 yesses from you at this point. Maybe none - you're being tough on me today.

But if so, then maybe you see why the FTC is "investigating" by issuing subpoenas.

.

FINAL SCORE: 3.5 of 6

I guess you will "have to go back and rework your cross-examination".

Nice try though. You have done your darned best to sway me...

I understand "investigating", but investigations should not presume guilt of the party investigated, whether it is an individual or company.

You know about this stuff more than I do, but does anyone ever win their innocence, after the FTC has decided to take a shot at them?

Not to my knowledge.

As Dan said, this will likely be a dog and pony show. And Google will lose, pay its fines, then return to business as usual.

From what I hear, THAT is the American Way of doing business...

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127919].message }}

OutOfThisWord 14 years ago

By arbitrarily assigning a 'quality score' to a landing page, Big G is... in effect... determining the cost of marketing for some businesses, rather than have that determination rest in the free marketplace.

What if next Super Bowl, the network broadcasting the game suddenly says to Go Daddy that they think their ad is of lower quality than the Doritos ad and then proceeds to charge them more for the same 30 sec. of airtime?

Or what if the Post Office started telling direct mailers what they considered to be an acceptable direct mail letter? Or even they did not think 'long form' direct mail letters were of high quality and therefore would not deliver the mail?

Anytime any business with a dominant position in the marketplace starts to dictate pricing, someone whose job it is to look into stuff like that, will look into it.

And it Big G's case, it's about time.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125386].message }}

Bill Farnham

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Is Google a search engine to find stuff on the Internet, or is Google a search engine to find stuff controlled by Google?

So ...

BHC has an online business selling cat collars. Google controls a monopoly of traffic for people searching for cat collars. BHC has, by any account, the best cat collar website around and is making good money. Is BHC solely reliant on Google? No. But because Google has the search traffic a necessary result is a significant portion of BHC's income comes from Google.

BHC is then eliminated from the first page of Google. Not because it no longer has the best cat collar site, but because the first page is now consumed with Google properties about cat collars: Google guides to cat collars, YouTube videos, Google ebook store books, Google affiliate network sellers, BHC's piss-poor competitor that Google just bought, etc.

The end result is BHC makes less money. Perhaps not enough to keep innovating or to stay in business. Adios BHC.

It looks to me like the end result is BHC has everything they had before they partnered with Google.

They have all the income from their direct response advertising campaigns, their TV ads, their newspaper ads, their email campaigns, their telemarketing efforts, their trade show appearences, their radio ads, their magazine ads, their brick and morter business if they choose to have one, etc.

What am I missing here?

Google was sending them business and now Google OWES them a living?

Seriously?

What are we striving for here in society? Alimony 2.0?

It seems to me that once the consumers who use Google as a service come to understand that they are going to Google and Google is serving up Google products it's up the the consumers to make or break Google.

If this Anti-Trust investigation was about them strong-arming cell phone companies or ISPs or computer makers, or any other part of the technology spectrum demanding exclusivity and demonstrating they have the power to crush them it would be a different matter.

But that article wasn't talking about that.

~Bill

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127963].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Bill Farnham

Google was sending them business and now Google OWES them a living?

Seriously?

What are we striving for here in society? Alimony 2.0?

Alimony 2.0...

Nice one.

Originally Posted by Bill Farnham

If this Anti-Trust investigation was about them strong-arming cell phone companies or ISPs or computer makers, or any other part of the technology spectrum demanding exclusivity and demonstrating they have the power to crush them it would be a different matter.

Agree 100%.

If I remember right, that was the basis for the anti-trust litigation against Microsoft, which I felt was just.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127982].message }}

DrewClement

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

This could be huge with major ramifications for marketers.

This is not about "alternatives" to Google.

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Simple Example:

You sell dog leashes online.

Google decides it is going to sell dog leashes and when someone searches for dog leashes on Google, whaddya know, the top spot(s) are now for Google's own dog leash shop.

You then have to apply for food stamps after your business craters.

This has been happening and threatened in more and more niches. Health. Travel. Local listings. Reviews. Video. News.

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties. You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing.

IMHO, this government action is way overdue. But I'm surprised given Google's public support for the Obama administration.

What should happen is similar to what happened with Microsoft and its attempts to leverage the Windows operating system:

Google should have its search business.

Any business that benefits from search results should be spun-off because (1) Google has an impossible conflict of interest in being fair in its search results and to its stockholders, and (2) Google arguably has a monopoly share of search.

.

This is the side of the argument that constantly blows my mind. Anti-trust etc? Are you kidding me?

It's Google...their search engine, their algorithm, their hosting, their domain, their property.

No one HAS to use this search engine and in no way is it the only one out there.

It's similar to suing a restaurant for conflict of interest simply because they put ONLY their own recipes and items on their menu. You want to eat something else? Go to a different restaurant.

Why would Google in any way be responsible for listing competing companies ahead of themselves?

What a crock of sh*t

[ 6 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

50% Commission, Proven Products, and MASSIVE Profits

Drew@SellHealth.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124973].message }}

Dan C. Rinnert

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DrewClement

Why would Google in any way be responsible for listing competing companies ahead of themselves?

Because Google is a search engine. Consumers expect that a search engine is going to give them the best, most relevant sites on the Internet for what they are searching for.

It would be like going to Consumer Reports to look for the best TV to buy and having the #1 TV being a Consumer Reports brand television.

[ 6 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125190].message }}

Roaddog

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Because Google is a search engine. Consumers expect that a search engine is going to give them the best, most relevant sites on the Internet for what they are searching for.

It would be like going to Consumer Reports to look for the best TV to buy and having the #1 TV being a Consumer Reports brand television.

Exactly, a little sanity.:rolleyes:

It is a conflict of interest...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125205].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Roaddog

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Because Google is a search engine. Consumers expect that a search engine is going to give them the best, most relevant sites on the Internet for what they are searching for.

It would be like going to Consumer Reports to look for the best TV to buy and having the #1 TV being a Consumer Reports brand television.

Exactly, a little sanity.:rolleyes:

It is a conflict of interest...

I must be dense...

Since when are search engines held to a higher standard than other websites or publications?

Consumer Reports does not accept advertising, because they want to protect the integrity of their reporting, not because some government schmuck mandated it.

Other popular magazines write product reviews also, AND accept advertising from the companies they write about, and not a single eyebrow is raised.

Some magazines and media companies sell products in the area that we consider their editorial turf as well. No big deal.

But if Google does it, we have to launch an antitrust suit?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125251].message }}

Roaddog

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

I must be dense...

Since when are search engines held to a higher standard than other websites or publications?

Consumer Reports does not accept advertising, because they want to protect the integrity of their reporting, not because some government schmuck mandated it.

Other popular magazines write product reviews also, AND accept advertising from the companies they write about, and not a single eyebrow is raised.

But if Google does it, we have to launch an antitrust suit?

Yea and I trust Consumer Reports more because of that fact.

While I most certainly can't speak for Dan.. I think he nailed it...people expect a search engine to give the best, most relevant results, not skewed in their favor.

Fact is, it is a law, and I'm happy to see it.

As far as why Goog...

There's an old Japanese proverb,
The nail that sticks out, is the one that is hammered...
and that is also a fact,

unfair? Maybe.

Nobody has enough funds or manpower to go after everything..
That's when you hit the biggest threat first.

They have certainly done a good job of sticking out, and rubbing everyone's nose in it. Now they want to cheat too?
So they should just go unregulated?

The only thing that surprises me is the fact that anyone is defending them.

IMO, people are going to extremely sorry when there are only a couple of huge unregulated corporations running it all.

Which is the way things are heading.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125368].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Roaddog

While I most certainly can't speak for Dan.. I think he nailed it...people expect a search engine to give the best, most relevant results, not skewed in their favor.

Fact is, it is a law, and I'm happy to see it.

Generally, I agree with you and Dan... Not this time...

Which law are you talking about exactly? The one that says that "search engine results must be fair and unbiased?"

I guess I missed that law...

But then it comes back to my other question, "Who defines fair?"

Of course, I do realize that you are talking about anti-trust laws...

Antitrust laws, or competition laws, are laws which prohibit anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. The laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both, or generally to violate standards of ethical behavior. Government agencies known as competition regulators regulate antitrust laws, and may also be responsible for regulating related laws dealing with consumer protection. Antitrust laws become a legislative inducement towards fairness and are used as a key for principled business relationships.

-- Source
-- Alternate Definitions from the Google Dictionary

I am still convinced that the Google business practices do not yet rise to the level of "unfair business practices".

But if we want to persecute them for those things they have yet to do, you better send the cops to my house, because one of these days, I am going to kill my children.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125482].message }}

Roaddog

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Generally, I agree with you and Dan... Not this time...

Which law are you talking about exactly? The one that says that "search engine results must be fair and unbiased?"

I guess I missed that law...

But then it comes back to my other question, "Who defines fair?"

Of course, I do realize that you are talking about anti-trust laws...

I am still convinced that the Google business practices do not yet rise to the level of "unfair business practices".

But if we want to persecute them for those things they have yet to do, you better send the cops to my house, because one of these days, I am going to kill my children.

In a nutshell (as I understand it) Google is trying to aim search results at their own properties for their benefit, unfairly monopolizing search results.
When they are 'supposed' to be the best search results for the consumer (what they built themselves up to this point on) and not them.

The search engine side is conflicting with the advertising revenue side,
in fairness to the consumer.

Why have anti-trust laws at all then?

But if we want to persecute them for those things they have yet to do, you better send the cops to my house, because one of these days, I am going to kill my children.

Tell me about it, Bill.

Yesterday (short version) slingshots, broken windows, my kids, neighborhood kids, finger pointing...."I do not recall, Senator"

Apparently, the other parents and I did it....you know, since we're stuck paying the lady for two kitchen windows.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125672].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Roaddog

Apparently, the other parents and I did it....you know, since we're stuck paying the lady for two kitchen windows.

You need a little bit more faith in your children. Its a well known fact that tiny meteorites often make impact with windows just when children are playing outside. Many kids have testified of their existence . Its a government cover up of epic proportions and our children have to suffer the shame of not being believed.

Sometimes the meteorites hit the ground and then the window and have a stark comparison to a baseball but don't let that fool you.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125719].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Roaddog

In a nutshell (as I understand it) Google is trying to aim search results at their own properties for their benefit, unfairly monopolizing search results.

When they are 'supposed' to be the best search results for the consumer (what they built themselves up to this point on) and not them.

The search engine side is conflicting with the advertising revenue side,
in fairness to the consumer.

Why have anti-trust laws at all then?

We have anti-trust laws for people who force their competition into unfriendly business arrangements.

But if I want to advertise on CNN, I have to play by their rules, or not spend my money with them.

If I want to advertise on Cnet, I have to pay the piper and do things their way.

When I want to get advertising on FaceBook, I need to adhere to FaceBook policies and prices.

Not once would I bemoan CNN, Cnet, or FaceBook for pushing their own products and services to me or other consumers, because after all, it is their storefront, for them to do with as they see fit.

But we are going to sanction Google for those things that the other giants do everyday? And more to the point, we are going to play the hypocrite saying it is okay for CNN, Cnet, FaceBook and OUR websites to do the things that they do, but not for Google?

There is nothing unfair, if Google wants to do with its website what it wants to do to make money.

They are not preventing their competition from advertising online. They are simply making their competition take backseat to their own advertising --- that is, if they are really doing that as many people have claimed.

Mike and I have never noticed it, but I am from Oklahoma and I don't know what Mike's excuse is.

Originally Posted by Roaddog

Tell me about it, Bill.

Yesterday (short version) slingshots, broken windows, my kids, neighborhood kids, finger pointing...."I do not recall Senator"

Apparently, the other parents and I did it....you know, since we're stuck paying the lady for two kitchen windows.

At the beginning of last summer, my kids were playing at the John Deete dealership behind our house, and they found keys left in one of the tractors.

Need I say more?

They spent the first half of the summer confined to their room.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125824].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

We have anti-trust laws for people who force their competition into unfriendly business arrangements.

But if I want to advertise on CNN, I have to play by their rules, or not spend my money with them.

If I want to advertise on Cnet, I have to pay the piper and do things their way.

When I want to get advertising on FaceBook, I need to adhere to FaceBook policies and prices.

Not once would I bemoan CNN, Cnet, or FaceBook for pushing their own products and services to me or other consumers, because after all, it is their storefront, for them to do with as they see fit.

But we are going to sanction Google for those things that the other giants do everyday? And more to the point, we are going to play the hypocrite saying it is okay for CNN, Cnet, FaceBook and OUR websites to do the things that they do, but not for Google?

There is nothing unfair, if Google wants to do with its website what it wants to do to make money.

They are not preventing their competition from advertising online. They are simply making their competition take backseat to their own advertising --- that is, if they are really doing that as many people have claimed.

Mike and I have never noticed it, but I am from Oklahoma and I don't know what Mike's excuse is.

That's not really the same thing.

As far as PAID advertising goes, Google does have their set of rules that everyone has to follow. Just like we have to follow ad rules on CNN, Facebook, etc.

The problem is with organic search results.

Please stop confusing the two.

Google is supposed to be a search engine. When they start ranking their own sites higher in the organic search ranking just because they can, that is a conflict of interest.

Hey, if they want to put their own ads first in the paid section... all is fair.

What is NOT fair is to do it in the organic search results.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125940].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

That's not really the same thing.

As far as PAID advertising goes, Google does have their set of rules that everyone has to follow. Just like we have to follow ad rules on CNN, Facebook, etc.

The problem is with organic search results.

Please stop confusing the two.

Google is supposed to be a search engine. When they start ranking their own sites higher in the organic search ranking just because they can, that is a conflict of interest.

Hey, if they want to put their own ads first in the paid section... all is fair.

What is NOT fair is to do it in the organic search results.

I think you misunderstand my POV. I am not confused, and I have not been talking only about Paid Results, but both paid and organic results.

And Brian Kindsvater is clearly talking about Paid Results, which I will address next.

The fact that Google is a "search engine" has no bearing on my argument.

A number of folks in this thread, including yourself, are attributing a different standard to Google than you are applying to other web properties. To the best of my knowledge, your position is not supported by legal statute.

The only reason the Feds are looking at them is because they are big, and their competitors are whining.

By your testimony and the testimonies of others, Google must be treated with a different standard, because you have set higher standards for them than you have set for others.

Google is simply a website that attracts a lot of visitors, and they sell advertising on their site to people who want to talk to their visitors.

That traffic going to Google is Google's users. They are free to present to those people what they want to present to them. If consumers start finding issue with what Google shows them, they will go to Google's competition, just as unwelcome advertisers go elsewhere to advertise.

FaceBook is nearly as big as Google, but we are not trying to dictate to them how they should present content to their users, but we see no problem dictating to Google how they should deliver content to their users.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126405].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

A number of folks in this thread, including yourself, are attributing a different standard to Google than you are applying to other web properties. To the best of my knowledge, your position is not supported by legal statute. [

Sorry Tpw your argument holds no water. Antitrust laws are in fact supported by the statutes and we have the precedent of MS that makes things pretty clear. MS was not allowed to say that they can leverage the popularity of their own software to embed their browser into it and win the browser war. By your rationale its their software and if you don't like what they do with it then go elsewhere (MAC or Linux). This is not how antitrust laws see it. once you have a good stranglehold on the market you CANNOT use it to ensure you beat your competition into any market you choose. This is unfair market practices that Antitrust laws are built on. Say you don't like it but precedent shows very clearly it is in fact based on legal statutes

The only reason the Feds are looking at them is because they are big, and their competitors are whining.

No they are looking at them because their usage rates shows a percentage that indicates a stronghold which raises antitrust issues. Of course antitrust laws will ALWAYS be aimed at the big guys because if they are not big then they would not dominate the market and vice a versa. It doesn't matter that you don't like it . That's just the way the law works. Thats like complaining that abuse of power laws are discriminatory because they only target the powerful - Well yeah thats the whole idea.

That traffic going to Google is Google's users.They are free to present to those people what they want to present to them. They are free to present to those people what they want to present to them.

and MS can present to windows users what they want to present to their OS users? Do you remember nothing of that case that was firmly held up on the law? Someone else said it. We aren't understanding antitrust laws. None of this "its ours so we can do what we want" arguments can be leveraged against anti trust laws. Doesn't work.

FaceBook is nearly as big as Google, but we are not trying to dictate to them how they should present content to their users, but we see no problem dictating to Google how they should deliver content to their users.

If Facebook starts to use its domination in order to force its way into new markets while using internal policies to force competition downward then they would be next. the big difference is that Facebook will find it harder by the nature of their service to control competition. Google can merely move a competition down one spot artificially and take away a significant chunk of their income. Right now the worse facebook can do is shut down your page.

If you were right about this then MS would have had a greater and iron clad case more than Google could ever claim. MS windows was entirely theirs - intellectual property exclusively copyrighted to them and not dependent on any third party app or content.

Google's search engine has absolutely no value standing on its own. It needs to be connected to the public internet to have any customers and it has to pull content from millions of sites it does not hold copyright on.

It MS had to bow to antitrust laws with their 100% owned OS there is no weight to claiming that Google does not have to bow to antitrust laws should they be found to be one the wrong side of this probe.

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126784].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Google is only one website and one advertising platform -- one out of millions of websites and advertising platforms!!

I sense that many people -- not just you -- are suffering from "Google Tunnel Vision"... The single-minded focus that ALL Traffic comes from ONLY one place -- Google.

As an aside since you brought it up Google is still one of the best traffic generators by far if you know how to use it. BY FAR. I know there are marketers and even some gurus that are claiming its time to dump Google and SEO because one day Google can just make your traffic stop.

Its actually quite false. Trafffic to a good site where you have done your job will always get repeat traffic. Too many marketers are concentrating on the numbers of new searchers that various terms get and claiming thats what SEO generates. The truth is those are mostly numbers of new searches for people who have not yet found what they are looking for. After you have done a few searches for a topic do you keep doing them? NO you know where to go and you bookmark and type in the url.

Thats still traffic that SEO generated - repeat traffic and it does not have to stop if tomorow you are not on the front page. If people would stop building just MFA sites where no one would ever return then they would see that a term that only gets 6,000 searches a month over time can start bringing in 20,000 visits a month and 14,000 no matter where you are on in Google.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126871].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

As an aside since you brought it up Google is still one of the best traffic generators by far if you know how to use it. BY FAR. I know there are marketers and even some gurus that are claiming its time to dump Google and SEO because one day Google can just make your traffic stop.

I am not saying that Google is not a traffic powerhouse for those fortunate enough to get their links seen in it.

Google is still huge for traffic generation, and I would never suggest for anyone to dump it as a traffic source.

Instead, I advise diversification of traffic sources.

Don't rely only on Google, but don't kick them out of bed either. :p

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127098].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Mike and I have never noticed it, but I am from Oklahoma and I don't know what Mike's excuse is.

Florida but its flat as a pancake so maybe I don't have a good view. Mind you I don't entirely agree that they can do what they want. If they put themselves in first place in the organic listings then I am not up for that and its false advertising of their stated intent to make sure the best sites for a keyword are the best and most relevant. If they put it in their paid or advertised section and mark it as such then fine I have to live with it but in the organic listing its somewhat editorial and its unfairly using their leverage. So we probably disagree there (I just haven't seen it to the degree that some are claiming and I think I ought to have seen it considering how neck deep I am in serps almost daily.)

I already think that their stance on not buying links etc because it allegedly spoils the integrity of the search results is a bit bogus considering that you can flat out buy the top spots of any serp (whether you call it paid or organic) but doing it in the organic listings to me would be a manipulation that would rise to a near illegal abuse of their power as the dominant search engine in the world. In the organics everyone should play by the same factors not manually override what the public sees because its your site.

Why not because its your site? Because you sold to the public that sites rank based on relevance and votes from the community. You can't say you put the best sites in the winning spot according to certain public criteria and votes and then say oops unless we have a business we want to give the prize to based on our own interests.
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125997].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Roaddog

As far as why Goog...

There's an old Japanese proverb,
The nail that sticks out, is the one that is hammered...
and that is also a fact,

unfair? Maybe.

Actually its not even unfair. The assumption is just being made on thin air that Yahoo will be allowed to continue with placing what they want in their results if the FTC rules against Google. Theres nothing to suggest that would be the case.

You go after the big fish because when you get them the littler fish fall into line faster and cheaper. You don't need to open up probes of all companies at the same time to correct a bad practice. If Apple had any plans at embedding Safari so deep into their OS that it could't be removed I bet the idea came off the table mighty quick when the FTC told MS no way. Plus its just easier to make an antitrust case stick when the company has a majority of users over companies that have a little share.

Its all just practical no sinister grudge against success. at least not in this.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125503].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Because Google is a search engine. Consumers expect that a search engine is going to give them the best, most relevant sites on the Internet for what they are searching for.

It would be like going to Consumer Reports to look for the best TV to buy and having the #1 TV being a Consumer Reports brand television.

That sounds a lot like a trip to Yahoo...

So, if Yahoo is a search engine, why is it okay for them to have dozens of Yahoo properties listed on the front page of their website and in its search results, but not okay for Google to do?

I know... they are the little guy of search...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125207].message }}

Dan C. Rinnert

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

That sounds a lot like a trip to Yahoo...

So, if Yahoo is a search engine, why is it okay for them to have dozens of Yahoo properties listed on the front page of their website and in its search results, but not okay for Google to do?

I know... they are the little guy of search...

Yahoo's not a search engine anymore. No one knows what Yahoo is anymore. Yahoo doesn't know what Yahoo is anymore. They're run by a bunch of yahoos.

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125262].message }}

Laurie Rogers 14 years ago

Sorry but I disagree with this BIG time, ever dabble in media buying? Yahoo is in the top 20 places for media buys and it doesn't come at a cheap price either, you don't get that IF people don't know who yahoo is anymore.

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Yahoo's not a search engine anymore. No one knows what Yahoo is anymore. Yahoo doesn't know what Yahoo is anymore. They're run by a bunch of yahoos.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125429].message }}
2011profit 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Yahoo's not a search engine anymore. No one knows what Yahoo is anymore. Yahoo doesn't know what Yahoo is anymore. They're run by a bunch of yahoos.

That is absolutely way too bad if that's the case. But I have to disagree with you. Yahoo is still there for a lot of people out there.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128532].message }}

DrewClement

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Because Google is a search engine. Consumers expect that a search engine is going to give them the best, most relevant sites on the Internet for what they are searching for.

It would be like going to Consumer Reports to look for the best TV to buy and having the #1 TV being a Consumer Reports brand television.

I'm just tired of the FTC thinking they can somehow protect stupid people from their own stupidity.

herp derp

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

50% Commission, Proven Products, and MASSIVE Profits

Drew@SellHealth.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125216].message }}

kindsvater 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DrewClement

What a crock of sh*t

Here's an interesting search on Google and some analysis:

» Is Google Getting Into Flight Comparison Shopping? Angies Copywriting Services

Google gives itself the 1st organic search listing. As noted in the story, Google may have been acting as an affiliate for some searches - which could violate FTC disclosure rules everyone else has to comply with.

This is the type of possible sh*t that results in FTC investigations.

Hard proof in that article? No. And I'm not spending my time hunting down something better to share.

But hopefully the ramifications are obvious for what this would mean to the travel industry, the leverage Google would have, the effect on businesses Google decides not to favor, etc.

Here is Google testing specific booking functionality for hotels that is getting real close to an affiliate model, or which effectively eliminates competition because there is no need to search on Google for anything beyond Google:

Google brings hotel price ads and booking front and center | Tnooz

As noted on highly respected and long-term SEO websites such as Aaron Wall's SEOBook.com, organic listings are disappearing from Google's search results.

Here is a picture showing organic virtually gone for a search:

FairSearch.org | Tnooz: “Organic search results for travel almost dead on Google”

I believe SEOBook has similar pictures.

(BTW Drew, let me give your company this plug: SellHealth is one of the best networks around for taking care of its affiliates. Maybe the best. Highly recommended.)

.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature
Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125702].message }}

John Durham

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DrewClement

This is the side of the argument that constantly blows my mind. Anti-trust etc? Are you kidding me?

It's Google...their search engine, their algorithm, their hosting, their domain, their property.

No one HAS to use this search engine and in no way is it the only one out there.

It's similar to suing a restaurant for conflict of interest simply because they put ONLY their own recipes and items on their menu. You want to eat something else? Go to a different restaurant.

Why would Google in any way be responsible for listing competing companies ahead of themselves?

What a crock of sh*t

Yes but if you were paying top dollar for a pie advertisement on their menu to sell your pie, and then the resturaunt, once they found out how well your pie sold at your expense, starts putting pie advertisements all over their menu so yours couldnt be noticed anymore?

Using your customers as tracking devices so you can rub them out later and take their markets?

Thats not loyal to your customers, nor holding their best interest at heart, nor ethical IMHO.

Legal? Maybe...But not cool.

On another note...

Originally Posted by tpw

They are not celebrating because they know that Google has done wrong. They are celebrating because they think Google has too much power in the market place.

Either way, its a natural fact, that when you get too big...people get sick of seeing you everywhere...

Treu: People shouldnt be pissed at google when they are just naturally number one... but they are, and people shouldnt be pissed at a person who is RIGHT just because they are proud of it.

BUT

I have been taught the lesson more than once in my life that when you start getting cocky, right or wrong, everybody wants to see you fall off your horse. Google might be getting that lesson too... you can say "Im right" all day, but it doesnt stop the natural facts.

Maybe someday I'll learn it!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131826].message }}

John Durham

14 years ago

Originally Posted by John Durham

On another note...

Either way, its a natural fact, that when you get too big...people get sick of seeing you everywhere...

True: People shouldnt be pissed at google when they are just naturally number one... but they are, and people shouldnt be pissed at a person who is RIGHT just because they are proud of it.

BUT

I have been taught the lesson more than once in my life that when you start getting cocky, right or wrong, everybody wants to see you fall off your horse. Google might be getting that lesson too... you can say "Im right" all day, but it doesnt stop the natural facts.

Maybe someday I'll learn it!

Principles are natural facts that apply across the board, and above is the principle that drives this irritation in people.

Not that I think its right...its just the natural result.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131901].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by John Durham

On another note...

Either way, its a natural fact, that when you get too big...people get sick of seeing you everywhere...

True: People shouldnt be pissed at google when they are just naturally number one... but they are, and people shouldnt be pissed at a person who is RIGHT just because they are proud of it.

BUT

I have been taught the lesson more than once in my life that when you start getting cocky, right or wrong, everybody wants to see you fall off your horse. Google might be getting that lesson too... you can say "Im right" all day, but it doesnt stop the natural facts.

Maybe someday I'll learn it!

Principles are natural facts that apply across the board, and above is the principle that drives this irritation in people.

Not that I think its right...its just the natural result.

I agree John.

Thank you for saying so.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131939].message }}

John Durham 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

I agree John.

Thank you for saying so.

Sure, I posted twice because I was editing when you read the first time. I gotta stop doing that!
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132734].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

This could be huge with major ramifications for marketers.

This is not about "alternatives" to Google.

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Simple Example:

You sell dog leashes online.

Google decides it is going to sell dog leashes and when someone searches for dog leashes on Google, whaddya know, the top spot(s) are now for Google's own dog leash shop.

You then have to apply for food stamps after your business craters.

This has been happening and threatened in more and more niches. Health. Travel. Local listings. Reviews. Video. News.

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties. You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing.

IMHO, this government action is way overdue. But I'm surprised given Google's public support for the Obama administration.

What should happen is similar to what happened with Microsoft and its attempts to leverage the Windows operating system:

Google should have its search business.

Any business that benefits from search results should be spun-off because (1) Google has an impossible conflict of interest in being fair in its search results and to its stockholders, and (2) Google arguably has a monopoly share of search.

.

To be fair, I was with you until you said, "For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties."

You must be searching for different things than I search for.

Then you said, "You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing."

That would be because you suck at SEO.

I have thousands of listings on page one Google search results, and I don't buy Adwords at all.

Yes, they have been moving towards creating a situation where they are going to try to compete with their Adwords customers...

I don't like that aspect of Google, but if they are moving their business model in that direction, it is their right to do so. They get to choose their business model, not us.

Their job is to make a profit.

If they decide it makes sense for them to get into other business models, and lead their users to their profit centers, that is their prerogative to do. (We have the right to do the same with our own properties.)

If their users decide that is unfair or distasteful, their users will go elsewhere.

If their users don't want to buy from Google, they won't.

And if it ever becomes a situation where Google's products are all that is on page one, I suspect their users will leave in droves.

The only rumor I have ever heard about Mountain View that I thought was definitely across the line is the rumor that Google is thinking about getting into the Search Engine Optimization business. That just smells like a great big turd.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125064].message }}

ladywriter 14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties.
.

Yeah see, this is what I was unaware of. I have not seen this, and I thought I was pretty informed on the Google properties....hm. Have to pay more attention.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Effective Content From a Nurse: Check Out my Warrior for Hire thread
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125442].message }}
- Mike Anthony 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by kstark
  
  Yeah see, this is what I was unaware of. I have not seen this, and I thought I was pretty informed on the Google properties....hm. Have to pay more attention.
  
  Do SEO and only SEO and I can't say I have ever seen nothing but google properties on the front page of any serp I've looked at. exaggeration perhaps?
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125528].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Yep ... this is all about Google's dominance in the search/advertising bus.

The U.S. Justice Department currently is conducting an antitrust review of Google's recent purchase of Internet-advertising company Admeld Inc. for around $400 million, said people familiar with the probe.

The new inquiry, by contrast, will examine fundamental issues relating to Google's core search-advertising business, said people familiar with the matter. The business is the source of most of Google's revenue. The issues include whether Google--which accounts for around two-thirds of Internet searches in the U.S. and more abroad--unfairly channels users to its own growing network of services at the expense of rival providers.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125509].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yep ... this is all about Google's dominance in the search/advertising bus.

The issues include whether Google--which accounts for around two-thirds of Internet searches in the U.S. and more abroad--unfairly channels users to its own growing network of services at the expense of rival providers.

Do I "unfairly channel my customers into products and services that I offer", because I link to my products and services, instead of the products and services of my competitors?

I am certain my competitors DO lose money when I do that.

You folks are marketers. Be very, very careful what you wish for...

These kinds of things frequently come back to bite people in the ass, with unintended consequences.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125557].message }}

wolfmmiii

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Do I "unfairly channel my customers into products and services that I offer", because I link to my products and services, instead of the products and services of my competitors?

Really? Do you really not see the difference between your example and Google stacking the first page of results with its own properties?

Now, I'm not saying that I agree that Google necessarily does this but I think that is the gist of the investigation.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Want a REAL Online Business That's Fun to Run?
CLICK HERE FOR INFO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125587].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by wolfmmiii

Originally Posted by tpw

Do I "unfairly channel my customers into products and services that I offer", because I link to my products and services, instead of the products and services of my competitors?

Really? Do you really not see the difference between your example and Google stacking the first page of results with its own properties?

Now, I'm not saying that I agree that Google necessarily does this but I think that is the gist of the investigation.

If I told you that my sites served over 500,000 unique visitors and 7 million page views in 2010, would you still think of me as one of the little guys that needs to be protected from the big G?

It is all a matter of scale.

If it is wrong for the big guy to do it, it will eventually be wrong for the little guy to do it too.

**** rolls downhill.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125607].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by wolfmmiii

Really? Do you really not see the difference between your example and Google stacking the first page of results with its own properties?

Still would love to see an example of this. Anyone with a link

the only one I have been able to find so far is this one

google - Google Search

but for obvious reasons thats not inappropriate

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125632].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Still would love to see an example of this. Anyone with a link

the only one I have been able to find so far is this one

google - Google Search

but for obvious reasons thats not inappropriate

I enjoyed a good laugh when I clicked your link.

I don't think anyone will be able to rise to your challenge Mike.

I have never seen such an example myself either.

Next thing you know, Wash DC will be writing laws that force you and I to pay double-taxation, because we know how to dominate Google page one. :rolleyes: Don't you know, that is so "unfair" of us to have that kind of knowledge.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125651].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

I enjoyed a good laugh when I clicked your link.

I don't think anyone will be able to rise to your challenge Mike.

Hey but I still was wrong. I didn't notice number ten is wikipedia so I have no examples at all of this alleged practice.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125671].message }}
- TCrosby 14 years ago
  
  I think there is an aspect to this which no one has yet to broach.
  
  Some people are saying that google is using their platform to push their own stuff. Sure, It is after all their platform. People can use it or not use it. You can then come up with the argument like "people who pay with adwords are getting snubbed if google shows more of their own stuff." Reasonable point...
  
  HOWEVER
  
  It's too bad the government doesn't look at the big picture of where the internet is bringing mankind (I can't expect them to, but I still hate them for it). Google has REVOLUTIONIZED THE INTERNET. Google offers the top product in existence, in several different niches, and it keeps pumping out more. At what cost to the public? FREE.
  
  I can't remember where, but there is a government in Europe that is pushing the internet as a "natural right" that every citizen should have. Sure, this will most likely just end up in some fees, but what is the ultimate punishment in monopoly investigations? Trying to break companies up. Trying to pick apart the monopoly. I know that realistically that isn't what is going to come of this, but the fact that the government is pursuing something in that line angers me. This is the company that provides the entire world with top of the line search, email, images, calendar, collaborative docs, and more... for free.
  
  Sure Google is going to try and turn a profit. They are a damn business after all. But they provide the entire world with invaluable services for nothing.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127539].message }}
  
  Mike Anthony 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TCrosby
  
  Sure Google is going to try and turn a profit. They are a damn business after all. But they provide the entire world with invaluable services for nothing.
  
  I really don't think most people are reading the link for this thread. No one is going after Google for being the top Search engine. They are asking questions (not even going after anyone) about how they are using their dominance to hamper competition in OTHER areas and services.
  
  Incidentally why doesn't anyone gush about NBC , CNN, ABC providing all their entertainment and information services for free? Most of those have been doing it longer than there's been an internet. They don't do it for completely free either. Its just that the advertisers pay for it and Google has the very same business model and is getting paid for it quite handsomely.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127569].message }}

DrewClement

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Still would love to see an example of this. Anyone with a link

the only one I have been able to find so far is this one

google - Google Search

but for obvious reasons thats not inappropriate

The funniest part of that search is that this is listed on the left side:

Something different?

yahoo
altavista
lycos
excite
hotbot

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

50% Commission, Proven Products, and MASSIVE Profits

Drew@SellHealth.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125942].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DrewClement

The funniest part of that search is that this is listed on the left side:

Something different?

yahoo
altavista
lycos
excite
hotbot

and the funnier thing about that list is it just conveniently leaves out the closest competitor that is taking more share than expected away from google - Bing
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126035].message }}

mytoy78

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Still would love to see an example of this. Anyone with a link

the only one I have been able to find so far is this one

google - Google Search

but for obvious reasons thats not inappropriate

Spot on...very amusing. Goggle is a company, that is led by profits. People have a choice of whether to use their service or not...No one is sat there with a gun to their head, forcing them to click through on Google.

simple!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Do You Want To 'Share' Ideas On 'Viral' Posts For Developing Facebook Fan Pages? Join Us Here...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138412].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by mytoy78

Spot on...very amusing. Goggle is a company, that is led by profits. People have a choice of whether to use their service or not...No one is sat there with a gun to their head, forcing them to click through on Google.

simple!

We're from the government, we're here to help you.

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138425].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Do I "unfairly channel my customers into products and services that I offer", because I link to my products and services, instead of the products and services of my competitors?

I am certain my competitors DO lose money when I do that.

You folks are marketers. Be very, very careful what you wish for...

These kinds of things frequently come back to bite people in the ass, with unintended consequences.

Do you have the reach and coverage that G has? I wish I were big enough to have this problem.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125733].message }}

Sam England 14 years ago

I think that we should not draw anymore attention to the forums with this type of thread going...

Thinking the Money Grubbing God's may pay more attention to such comments...etc...

Just sayin...
- Thanks
Signature

> Ecommerce Riches < | > Drop Shipping University < | > Ecommerce Goldmine <
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125796].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

I've listened to both sides of the argument, and while both sides make valid
points, I have to agree with Brian on this one.

Here is why.

Hypothetical example.

Site A - Sells multiple products much in the way Amazon does. It is recognized
as the authority in this area. It has millions of pages and backlinks. It virtually
has no equal. It is # 1 in the SERPs.

Google decides that they're going to create the same kind of site.

They then arbitrarily take away many of the backlinks claiming that they are
no longer relevant. They also knock down the PR of the site. And, with all
the subsidiary listings Google plugs into page one, for the soul purpose of
knocking this site off of page 1, suddenly the site's income drops by 50%
almost overnight. The only people still buying are the loyal customers who
have always purchased, like me.

If you can't see the abuse here, well, I'll refrain from making the comment
that I want to make because one banning from this place is enough for me,
thank you.

Sorry, Google needs to be taken down more than just a few pegs.

Be a search engine or be a merchant.

Beyond the problem of their actions, Google is perceived by the general
public to be a non biased entity simply showing the most relevant results
for a given search. If they end up stacking the deck by putting their own
properties first, then they are no longer an unbiased search engine. They
are a manipulative bunch of evil bastions that need to be dealt with and
swiftly.

Those of you on the other side of this argument won't agree with me, and
that's fine.

But when the day comes that Google is finally put out of business, I will be
doing a song and dance that they're going to hear up on Mars.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126368].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I've listened to both sides of the argument, and while both sides make valid
points, I have to agree with Brian on this one.

Here is why.

Hypothetical example.

Site A - Sells multiple products much in the way Amazon does. It is recognized
as the authority in this area. It has millions of pages and backlinks. It virtually
has no equal. It is # 1 in the SERPs.

Google decides that they're going to create the same kind of site.

They then arbitrarily take away many of the backlinks claiming that they are
no longer relevant. They also knock down the PR of the site. And, with all
the subsidiary listings Google plugs into page one, for the soul purpose of
knocking this site off of page 1, suddenly the site's income drops by 50%
almost overnight. The only people still buying are the loyal customers who
have always purchased, like me.

If you can't see the abuse here, well, I'll refrain from making the comment
that I want to make because one banning from this place is enough for me,
thank you.

Sorry, Google needs to be taken down more than just a few pegs.

Be a search engine or be a merchant.

Beyond the problem of their actions, Google is perceived by the general
public to be a non biased entity simply showing the most relevant results
for a given search. If they end up stacking the deck by putting their own
properties first, then they are no longer an unbiased search engine. They
are a manipulative bunch of evil bastions that need to be dealt with and
swiftly.

Those of you on the other side of this argument won't agree with me, and
that's fine.

But when the day comes that Google is finally put out of business, I will be
doing a song and dance that they're going to hear up on Mars.

LOL

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

YouTube - "Failure to communicate"...

I never thought of you Wags as someone who was wearing the Google Blinders.

I always thought you got your traffic from a lot of sources like I do.

Google is only one website and one advertising platform -- one out of millions of websites and advertising platforms!!

I sense that many people -- not just you -- are suffering from "Google Tunnel Vision"... The single-minded focus that ALL Traffic comes from ONLY one place -- Google.

If Google threw out link popularity tomorrow as a measuring stick, lots of marketers would whine and cry, but it is still within Google's right to do.

People have tried suing Google before, for destroying their business with an algorithm change. Those cases never held up in a court of law, because why? Because Google gets to show on their own site what they want to show, regardless of what anyone else wishes they would do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126614].message }}

Rus Sells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

LOL

Because Google gets to show on their own site what they want to show, regardless of what anyone else wishes they would do.

Really? So lets see...Google is the largest purveyor of search engine results. The results they deliver are trusted by the general public WORLD WIDE as REAL and UNBIASED. Then Google turns around and breaks that trust by altering the results the general public has become accustomed to seeing and trusting by inserting their own properties in the results.

You don't see whats fundamentally wrong with that? Its not about us and our damn traffic and rankings, its about the USERS!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Review Sentry

Dotcomcodex

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126680].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Rus Sells

Really? So lets see...Google is the largest purveyor of search engine results. The results they deliver are trusted by the general public WORLD WIDE as REAL and UNBIASED. Then Google turns around and breaks that trust by altering the results the general public has become accustomed to seeing and trusting by inserting their own properties in the results.

You don't see whats fundamentally wrong with that? Its not about us and our damn traffic and rankings, its about the USERS!

You are talking about Google's branding... If they go against their own branding, that is going to piss off their users...

Their users are free to go somewhere else...

Your pissed because they are going against their branding... So be it... But it is not illegal for them to do it...

They are doing it because they think they can get by with it with their users... It is a calculated risk that may come back to bite them in the ass... But going against your own branding is NOT illegal...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126708].message }}

Rus Sells

14 years ago

Dood! Google brand means exactly what I mentioned in my previous post. In the users eyes Google equates to fair, relevant, unbiased search results.

Just like hamburger in most peoples minds means Mc Donalds.

You've totally missed the point.

Originally Posted by tpw

You are talking about Google's branding... If they go against their own branding, that is going to piss off their users...

Their users are free to go somewhere else...

Your pissed because they are going against their branding... So be it... But it is not illegal for them to do it...

They are doing it because they think they can get by with it with their users... It is a calculated risk that may come back to bite them in the ass... But going against your own branding is NOT illegal...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Review Sentry

Dotcomcodex

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127222].message }}

VanessaB 14 years ago

Wow! I'm shocked to see so many people who think that Google is doing nothing wrong.

Leaving out advertising, monopolies, anti-trust laws, paid rankings, organic rankings and comparisons to 'publications'...

I think that at the heart of the matter is where Bill said that Google it's acceptable for Google to risk ruining their 'brand' by not delivering the most relevant 'search results' to their users.

It's a Hell of a lot more than 'risking their brand.' It's DECEPTION.

They are 'deceiving' their users by promising something that they don't deliver (most relevant results) so that they can instead deliver something they can profit from.

Now I can't quote any laws on 'deceptive business practices,' but I'm sure there are some.

"Hey Bill, I've got this new software program, it's a 'wish genie' and every time you open it up, you are going to get exactly what you wish for."

So you take the software, and every time you open it up, you don't get what you wish for, you get whatever 'affiliate' product I want to show you so that if you buy it, I make money.

And it also does this other neat little magic trick that completely blocks your access to finding another genie in a bottle program.

Now, Bill, YOU have enough common sense to stop using the 'genie in the bottle software', but 'entire societies' are much slower to adapt to that process, especially when most of them aren't really even 'aware' that their being sold to to begin with.

And until that happens, Google is monopolizing on a stranglehold that it achieved on that very deception. And that does interfere with free trade.

-Dani

P.S. I don't have a dog in this show. I have only one blog that gets any SE traffic, and I only 'offer' SEO to local business clients who wont' be convinced that it's an unstable means of generating traffic and profits. I rely on reliable, targeted, paid advertising for my traffic.
- Thanks
Signature

The Recon Report
Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127297].message }}

batchos

14 years ago

Thanks for clarifying this issue for those who don't get it. As you said, the likely result is a brake up of the Google company. Those who warn about inferior products to Google's, have not been paying attention to Google's arbitrary actions of banishing people with lifetime bans from its products. In effect destroying people's business. Many states have now joined the investigation.

Originally Posted by kindsvater

This could be huge with major ramifications for marketers.

This is not about "alternatives" to Google.

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Simple Example:

You sell dog leashes online.

Google decides it is going to sell dog leashes and when someone searches for dog leashes on Google, whaddya know, the top spot(s) are now for Google's own dog leash shop.

You then have to apply for food stamps after your business craters.

This has been happening and threatened in more and more niches. Health. Travel. Local listings. Reviews. Video. News.

For some searches, literally the entire first page is virtually all Google properties. You only get on the 1st page if you pay for an Adwords listing.

IMHO, this government action is way overdue. But I'm surprised given Google's public support for the Obama administration.

What should happen is similar to what happened with Microsoft and its attempts to leverage the Windows operating system:

Google should have its search business.

Any business that benefits from search results should be spun-off because (1) Google has an impossible conflict of interest in being fair in its search results and to its stockholders, and (2) Google arguably has a monopoly share of search.

.

Thanks

Signature

*Be Veg, Make Peace!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132718].message }}

Fraggler

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

It is about Google unfairly wielding it's search dominance to push people to its growing book of products, services, promotions and affiliates instead of using "search" to direct them to your services.

Next they will be claiming that Microsoft is a monopoly.

Thanks

Signature

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

Connect with me on LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133985].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kstark

What ramifications would this have for us, if the FTC succeeds?

I don't know anything about what goes on at Google, but most alternatives to Google are inferior as far as I can see.

From what I am reading absolutely no ramifications since the probe is not about the search engine operation itself or even its dominance in being the most used service but how it is used to leverage the use of OTHER services the company offers.

People are just getting all excited because the words Google, antitrust and feds raises certain emotions. FTC is no more going after the popularity of Google as a search engine than it was Microsoft for the popularity of Windows. Its merely looking at whether the popularity is being leveraged unfairly in other avenues (like when MS tried to leverage the popularity of Windows by forcing internet explorer into the OS).

Nothing that is going to have even the slightest affect on you if you use SEO for traffic. Maybe something could affect adwords but I doubt it.

The article point blanks spells this out but people are ignoring it.

"In the U.S., Google has stirred complaints by travel services like Expedia Inc. and TripAdvisor LLC, local listings services like Yelp—as well as Google's perennial rival, Microsoft. Many of them say that Google promotes links to Google's own websites above their own, starving them of vital Web traffic. Still others say that Google is abusing its dominance in search advertising to extend its control into other markets, from mobile telephony to online television, publishing and airline travel"

So if you are a competitor to Google in some service or website that google operates in then maybe a change but for all the rest of us - nada.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124981].message }}

LB

14 years ago

Is Google abusing their market dominance?
Is Google acting in an anti-competitive manner?

Absolutely.

Will anything of consequence happen to Google?

Doubtful.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

Click Here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124541].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by LB

Is Google abusing their market dominance?
Is Google acting in an anti-competitive manner?

Absolutely.

How so?

Organic growth. Relatively low barrier to entry. These factors are contrary to the definition of a monopoly.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126795].message }}

DireStraits

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

How so?

Organic growth. Relatively low barrier to entry. These factors are contrary to the definition of a monopoly.

Low barrier of entry?

You're having a laugh, right?

Holy smokes.

"Organic growth"? All right, but that's only the story of how they got to this point, beginning at a time when things were rather different to today.

It doesn't change the reality of who/where they are now, and the question of whether or not they're now capable (and guilty) of monopolistic behaviour, having many billions in their coffers, being a brand whose name is firmly hammered into the heads of even the most technologically averse individuals in the far corners of the globe, and with more than a decade's head start in a sector in which the biggest threat of competition is another multi-billion-dollar corporation (Microsoft) who so far, despite many failed attempts, don't seem to be making much progress in catching up at all.

Need one say more?

Let's try to remain grounded and feature elements of practicality and levelheadedness in this debate, shall we?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126923].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DireStraits

Low barrier of entry?

You're having a laugh, right?

Laughing? Only at ignorance. In every way that matters, yes, the barrier to entry is low. That's key in any antitrust case.

"Organic growth"? All right, but that's only the story of how they got to this point, beginning at a time when things were rather different to today.

Really? Is it that much different today than it was in 2004? I only ask because that's when Facebook launched. Perhaps you've heard of it.

It doesn't change the reality of who/where they are now, and the question of whether or not they're now capable (and guilty) of monopolistic behaviour,

You're welcome to present any proof.

having many billions in their coffers,

So what you're suggesting is success should be punished?

being a brand whose name is firmly hammered into the heads of even the most technologically averse individuals in the far corners of the globe,

And that's Google's fault? Perhaps the FTC should go after CocaCola too?

and with more than a decade's head start in a sector

Now that's just ridiculous. Google entered the market in 1998. Was it the wild west? Well, looking back, yes, but there was some serious competition: Excite(1993), Yahoo(1994), Webcrawler(1994), Lycos(1994), Altavista(1994)...

Need one say more?

Yes. How about some evidence?

Let's try to remain grounded and feature elements of practicality and levelheadedness in this debate, shall we?

Yes, let's.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127167].message }}

The General Public

14 years ago

No chance anything significant happens to Google from this probe. Microsoft was a monopoly. People using Google is a choice and not a monopolistic venture on their part.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124666].message }}

JamesGw

14 years ago

I wonder what they're going after precisely. This is pretty good news either way. Google has been killing non-search related businesses by abusing its search engine power. Things need to change.

Thanks

Signature

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Techniques | Precision SEO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124808].message }}

jcruz

14 years ago

Regardless of what people think google is not a monoply, it may be the most dominating one, but not a monoply none the less. It's retarded, it's like going after Mcdonalds because their the biggest food chain in the world. Their probably just trying to squeeze some money out of them.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124811].message }}

theory expert

Banned 14 years ago

Google is a monopoly of some sort. I remember Matt Trainer was talking about google advertising for advertisers cutting out "you" the middle man. I am not going to get into a debate here, but, I stopped liking google ever since he mentioned that. JMO.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124864].message }}

travlinguy

14 years ago

This happened with Microsoft back in the late 1990s and nothing much ever came of it. I think the big players online "cooperate" with the Feds when they need or want "privileged" information. Yep, call me a conspiracy nut.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124879].message }}

Roaddog

14 years ago

I hope it's a legitimate investigation.

Google has been 'pushing it' for a while now.

Kindsvatar nailed it.

It's not that they are a 'complete' monopoly, but what they are doing with the dominance. The article so much as say's that.

Maybe instead of, or along with, anti-trust, they could add conflict of interest.

Thanks

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124937].message }}

DrewClement

14 years ago

The Oracle lawsuit is a MUCH bigger concern for big G right now

Thanks

Signature

50% Commission, Proven Products, and MASSIVE Profits

Drew@SellHealth.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4124950].message }}

LB

14 years ago

A lot of people in this thread have no idea what "antitrust" is...

[ 6 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

Click Here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125137].message }}

tpw 14 years ago

Originally Posted by LB

A lot of people in this thread have no idea what "antitrust" is...

So, do tell....
- Thanks
Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125155].message }}

The Copy Nazi

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by LB

A lot of people in this thread have no idea what "antitrust" is...

The Principles of Anti-Trust - (from Wikipedia)

Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:

prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

Substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Competition law is closely connected with law on deregulation of access to markets, state aids and subsidies, the privatization of state owned assets and the establishment of independent sector regulators, among other market-oriented supply-side policies. In recent decades, competition law has been viewed as a way to provide better public services.[4] Robert Bork has argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.[5]
Ideas about competitive law were published during the 18th century with such works as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including "restrictive practices", "the law of monopolies", "combination acts" and the "restraint of trade".

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125592].message }}

batchos 14 years ago

'tis true, my fellow man.

Originally Posted by LB

A lot of people in this thread have no idea what "antitrust" is...
- Thanks
Signature

*Be Veg, Make Peace!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132810].message }}

LB

14 years ago

In the new Google beta, the search results are bumped even further down resulting in more space for ads and less organic results.

How Google Killed Category Killer Domain Names
Google's Disclosure / Disclaimer / Doubt Tax
Google SEO Advice: do as they say, or do as they do?

Thanks

Signature

Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

Click Here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4125822].message }}

Nick Brighton

14 years ago

I agree with gefflong ...

Google cross the line when they DISGUISE their listings (aka advertising) as organic listings above others, without disclosing what they are.

Yes, it's their business, their product... but there is a point where disclosure must be given... just like when an editorial advertisement or infomercial has to.

However, I'm sure that if they want to push out advertisers, or even just shut down Adwords and sell their own **** directly, then it's well within their rights.

Currently, what they're doing is...

"Hey, we've got this map. Look at where you can go. These are all real places, roads and it's perfectly to scale. What's that? You can't find your local McDonalds? Oh, that's because we've put an advert over that part of the map that talks about our own burger bar. McDonalds still exists, but good luck finding it..."

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126407].message }}

MikeHumphreys

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Nick Brighton

I agree with gefflong ...

Google cross the line when they DISGUISE their listings (aka advertising) as organic listings above others, without disclosing what they are.

Yes, it's their business, their product... but there is a point where disclosure must be given... just like when an editorial advertisement or infomercial has to.

However, I'm sure that if they want to push out advertisers, or even just shut down Adwords and sell their own **** directly, then it's well within their rights.

Currently, what they're doing is...

"Hey, we've got this map. Look at where you can go. These are all real places, roads and it's perfectly to scale. What's that? You can't find your local McDonalds? Oh, that's because we've put an advert over that part of the map that talks about our own burger bar. McDonalds still exists, but good luck finding it..."

I agree with Nick.

Add in stuff like Google's Sidewiki toolbar introduced last year... the random cancelling of Adwords accounts with no reason given... the conflict of interest between selling advertising and offering a free testing tool that tells Google what keywords are most profitable for a website... Google hasn't been playing nice for awhile now.

Sidewiki was especially bad... do a search on this forum to read some of the older threads detailing the nightmare for marketers that was associated with that ugly toolbar.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm missing some other crap that Google's pulled in the last few years.

Personally, I'll be grabbing a box of popcorn and watching the fireworks. I'd love to see Google get taken to task by the FTC.

Mike

Thanks

Signature

Kickstart Your Copywriting Business: How To Get Loads of New Clients FAST!

Kick-A$$ Eight-Figure Producing Copywriting Gun For Hire | Marketing & Copywriting Blog

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126992].message }}

LB

14 years ago

Here's one for you-

Google buys BeatThatQuote. Uh oh, it turns out they did all sorts of link buying and other stuff Google doesn't like: Google Being Spammers? Will Google Penalize Google for Google Spamming Google

Now that Google owns them, they say, "who cares?"

(would your site get the same free pass?)

After an uproar, Google penalized their own purchase...for 2 weeks. And then they ranked again.

So, if you believe they weren't giving special treatment to the organic rankings of a property they owned, well...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

Click Here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126478].message }}

Rus Sells

14 years ago

All I can say is LOL!

Why folks are defending G I don't understand. G is so branded into the minds of internet searchers that their users believe that the top results are the most authoritative and trusted results. Google controls so much of what people SEE and so much of the DATA people get to use to make decisions its obvious that they are breaking trust.

Google is attempting the bait and switch which they planned in the dark conference rooms after working hours YEARS ago.

Here's how it goes.

We'll pitch pitch pitch that we deliver fair, unbiased, relevant results so our users will be likely to choose to do business with the sites we present at the top. The logistics of this takes years and they have accomplished this.

Next phase:
Buy out the competition in the markets we want to now sell in and
begin inserting results at the top for our own properties so we canz make even more money.

Some might think that this perspective is crazy but mind you. Companies as large as G don't think about what they are going to do next year, that's already been planned years before. They think in decades not years.

Insurance companies are a prime example of this but that is another topic.

Originally Posted by LB

Here's one for you-

Google buys BeatThatQuote. Uh oh, it turns out they did all sorts of link buying and other stuff Google doesn't like: Google Being Spammers? Will Google Penalize Google for Google Spamming Google

Now that Google owns them, they say, "who cares?"

(would your site get the same free pass?)

After an uproar, Google penalized their own purchase...for 2 weeks. And then they ranked again.

So, if you believe they weren't giving special treatment to the organic rankings of a property they owned, well...

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Review Sentry

Dotcomcodex

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4126608].message }}

JackPowers

14 years ago

I'd rather the FTC did an inquery into what Google does with their enormous database of collected information which can be connected to emails and Google accounts.

Does Google share these data with government agencies?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127022].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Bill, for the record, I get almost none of my traffic from Google. Never did,
never will. Personally, couldn't give two sh*ts what they do.

My argument is purely from an objective point of view and looking at the
whole thing through the perception of the public at large.

Perception: Google shows the most relevant results when we look for stuff
online.

Reality: Google is stacking the deck and showing their own sh*t first when it
suits them and f**k everybody else, including the people who have made it
so that Google could get to where they are in the first place. Or have you
forgotten that without all these people building sites, creating content and
selling sh*t, Google wouldn't be anything but a stupid name?

In short, Google has said, "Thank you for getting us to where we are now
screw you."

Illegal or not, what goes around comes around.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127128].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Bill, for the record, I get almost none of my traffic from Google. Never did,
never will. Personally, couldn't give two sh*ts what they do.

There is the Wags I expected to hear from.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

My argument is purely from an objective point of view and looking at the
whole thing through the perception of the public at large.

Perception: Google shows the most relevant results when we look for stuff
online.

Sorry Steven, not objective.

The public's perception is skewed by Google branding, and in order for Google to survive the search engine wars, they must maintain that perception with the majority of consumers.

People are creatures of habit, and they continue to do those things that they have always done out of habit.

When Bing came out, Google scrambled to release a new search engine algorithm and prayed to God Almighty Himself that people would not figure out that Bing was better, before they were able to roll out their new search engine.

I guarantee that Mountain View was breathing a heavy sigh of relief when Caffeine was finally released. At that point, they had not lost any market share to Bing.

But they have lost 10 percentage points in market share since Caffeine was rolled out. Bing is eating away at them on the edges of the public mindset.

It is hard for Bing to overcome people's Google habit, but it can be done, and progress is being made towards that end.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Reality: Google is stacking the deck and showing their own sh*t first when it
suits them and f**k everybody else, including the people who have made it
so that Google could get to where they are in the first place. Or have you
forgotten that without all these people building sites, creating content and
selling sh*t, Google wouldn't be anything but a stupid name?

In short, Google has said, "Thank you for getting us to where we are now
screw you."

Yes, they are stacking the deck in their favor.

Just as you stack the deck in your favor on your websites, and I stack the deck in my favor on my websites.

Of course, only you and I and Google do such dastardly things to the public at large. :rolleyes:

Google branded itself as, "Do no evil." And the sheep believed them when they said it. LOL

And now the sheep are pissed, because they are starting to see Google acting in the interest they have been acting in since the very beginning -- maximizing their bottom line.

Yes, Google played the marketing community like a fiddle.

They convinced the marketing community that Google had the best search results, then the marketers convinced the public-at-large of the same idea.

Now that we have won for them their audience, they are getting down to the business of helping their bottom line, with no worry about our bottom lines.

The marketers are pissed, because it seems like Google is sticking the knives in our backs, but Google is only fulfilling their long-term business strategy of lining their pockets on the sweat of our brow.

It is nothing personal; it is just business.

Has Google betrayed us?

If people did not see it coming, then it is because they were too busy acting like sheep.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Illegal or not, what goes around comes around.

Karma is a beautiful thing, isn't it Wags?

If Google plays their hand to heavy, they will lose some of their audience.

And if their audience falls too far, they will lose their advertisers.

And if the bottom falls out of their advertising model, they had best be prepared to enter the retail market as a merchant to survive.

Which is the complaint of many here. LOL

They are complaining that Google is starting to act like a merchant instead of an advertising platform.

It is true that for most people, Google is the only advertising game in town, because they have never looked outside of Google for additional opportunities.

Some people reading this are going to assume that this is proof that Google is destroying other businesses, at will and on a whim.

I am going to hold my ground and suggest that people who don't diversify are destroying their own business by relying on one traffic source and not exploring opportunities outside of Google.

Yes, Google is big and SEO is expensive, especially when one is in a very competitive marketplace.

Yet, any business that cannot survive, because they put all of their eggs in the Google basket is a business that was led by a deaf, dumb and blind sheep.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127359].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

But I am going to hold my ground and suggest that HE destroyed his business by relying on one traffic source and not exploring opportunities outside of Google.

Yes, Google is big and SEO is expensive, especially when one is in a very competitive marketplace.

And I am going to hold that story is bogus. Not that you are lying but that the customer who is making $50,000 a month for an extended period of time and then loses it all in 6 months obviously has a lot more issues of business management than just SEO draining his pockets. So your alleged cause and effect doesn't ring true. Possibly he didn't tell you the whole truth and nothing but

Seo is NOWHERE near that expensive unless you buy some crap that some company has the secret that no one else has. If not then you hire a good seo within your budget. really good guys can be had for a few thousand a month. If thats not in your budget then there are ton loads of other options in SEO. Your customer either had a crappy site that you didn't apprise him of before and he created no repeat traffic as a poor business model or he blew out the cash on foolishness. Either one is just plain bad business management not as a result of SEO. There has been no change in SEO in the last ten years that a good SEO could not correct for him without breaking the bank.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127486].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

And I am going to hold that story is bogus. Possibly he didn't tell you the whole truth and nothing but.

I deleted the story, because you make a good point.

I don't know anything more than he told me, and he struck me as a dumbass anyway.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Steve just in case. I mean If because I don't know if you are getting your blood pressure up but if just remember - Bill really doesn't determine the law, the law states that you cannot do anything you want when you hold a compelling piece of a market and regardless of what anyone here says the subpoena went out and the probe is going forward. The FTC already knows if it finds the evidence then the law would be with them.

P.S. I don't have a problem with an investigation per se, so long as Google is given a fair shake in a court of law.

But I keep hearing stories about how the FTC dances to their own drummer boy, and that they do not always take into account right or wrong -- guilty or innocent.

They sent the press release, so now they have to find guilt, to justify the expense of a press release. LOL

I don't believe for a second that this case was brought on anything less than politics. But we don't discuss politics in this forum. That is why so many of my earlier comments were redacted.

p.s. Steve should not be getting his blood pressure up on my account. He knows I still like him.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127531].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

I deleted the story, because you make a good point.

I don't know anything more than he told me, and he struck me as a dumbass anyway.

LOL, alright I have had some of those too. I get where you are coming from
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127543].message }}

azmanar

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Yes, they are stacking the deck in their favor.

Just as you stack the deck in your favor on your websites, and I stack the deck in my favor on my websites.

Of course, only you and I and Google do such dastardly things to the public at large. :rolleyes:

Google branded itself as, "Do no evil." And the sheep believed them when they said it. LOL

And now the sheep are pissed, because they are starting to see Google acting in the interest they have been acting in since the very beginning -- maximizing their bottom line.

Yes, Google played the marketing community like a fiddle.

They convinced the marketing community that Google had the best search results, then the marketers convinced the public-at-large of the same idea.

Now that we have won for them their audience, they are getting down to the business of helping their bottom line, with no worry about our bottom lines.

The marketers are pissed, because it seems like Google is sticking the knives in our backs, but Google is only fulfilling their long-term business strategy of lining their pockets on the sweat of our brow.

It is nothing personal; it is just business.

Has Google betrayed us?

If people did not see it coming, then it is because they were too busy acting like sheep.

Karma is a beautiful thing, isn't it Wags?

If Google plays their hand to heavy, they will lose some of their audience.

And if their audience falls too far, they will lose their advertisers.

And if the bottom falls out of their advertising model, they had best be prepared to enter the retail market as a merchant to survive.

Which is the complaint of many here. LOL

They are complaining that Google is starting to act like a merchant instead of an advertising platform.

It is true that for most people, Google is the only advertising game in town, because they have never looked outside of Google for additional opportunities.

Some people reading this are going to assume that this is proof that Google is destroying other businesses, at will and on a whim.

I am going to hold my ground and suggest that people who don't diversify are destroying their own business by relying on one traffic source and not exploring opportunities outside of Google.

Yes, Google is big and SEO is expensive, especially when one is in a very competitive marketplace.

Hi,

Make pretty good sense.

Diversify traffic sources.

Yet, any business that cannot survive, because they put all of their eggs in the Google basket is a business that was led by a deaf, dumb and blind sheep.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

=== >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4129242].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

Marketers will, of course, see this from an advertising/ranking point of view and will judge google accordingly. The "google doesn't play fair" sounds odd when it comes from a marketing forum where "how to fool google" is commonly discussed.

In my veiw, the problem google has is not that it sets the rules for its own business. It is not about what is "fair" to marketers.

What might cause google problems is the view of its search results that has been promoted to the internet using PUBLIC. Most consumers using google search believe the options listed are the best available. Talk to any casual internet buyer and you will find this belief is well entrenched.

If google promotes that belief (and it does) and then manipulates results in favor of its own programs (through 'personal search' etc) - that could be hard to explain to regulators.

kay

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4130188].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Let me get a few things straight:

I don't hate Google
I love a lot of the 'apps' Google provides me with for free (Google Docs,)
I don't rely on Google for traffic (I never rely on 'free advertising')
I don't have a problem with Google making a profit (I have a problem with using DECEPTION of the public at large to do it.)

The argument that 'companies have to keep secrets' is INVALID in this case as because Google claims that 'organic' listings are not profit driven! There is no secret that needs to be kept. Either you make money from this, or you don't. But you can't say you don't if you do, and there's no need for that to be a secret- unless it's illegal.

If they want to stand up and say.. "ohh k, we admit it, we pulled a fast one... what we really meant is that it's not profit driven for anyone but US..."

Of course organics are profit driven (just not profit CENTERED- it's a loss leader)...but according to Google, only insofar as to attract 'eyeballs' so they can profit on the PAID advertising...If they are going to claim it's not profit center, then to profit from it directly is a complete contradiction, and an outright LIE...

CD...

Once again, Google has always held fast to the 'integrity' of 'organic' to the public. That 'organic' is not a store and cannot be bought.

Yep, you're right... it's their property so if they want to do that, that's fine.

But then they can't keep claiming 'integrity.'

That's the deceptive business practices....

As far as having a monopoly- I tend to agree that if they aren't 'strong arming' all other website owners into only displaying their sites to Google search engines, then there isn't a monopoly... but of course, this doesn't matter to Google because they have deceived the public into thinking that the Google search engine is the one with the 'integrity' of their 'most relevant' so they don't have to strong arm websites into keeping their content off the other search engines... they've deceived the public into not using the other search engines... but that's not a monopoly IMO.

As far as 'antitrust' laws- Google has 'inside' information that makes it possible for them to manipulate search results to favor Google products.

If Google was 'just a website store' this wouldn't be a problem. But Google has claimed it is a search engine, with integrity, returning only the most relevant results and for 'users'...

Google has used 'paid search' and maintained stoically that 'paid and organic are kept separate' for the integrity of organic, for the users...

If they can use their inside info to further their own financial gain... then organic no longer maintains the integrity nor is it intended for users anymore...

It's no longer a 'search engine maintaining integrity of organic for users... it's now just a Google store' and Google should have to state that publicly.

Everyone else has identify the purpose of it's corporation- honestly.

When you file your "Articles Of Incorporation", you have to state your business purpose. You can't say your businesses purpose is a hair salon if it's a restaurant.

But as long as Google is permitted to make the deceptive claims of 'integrity' and 'for users' then they are using "inside information about their search placement algo to profit from a center that they have deceived people into thinking that it isn't."

-Dani

P.S. WHAT KAY SAID!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4130223].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

That's the deceptive business practices....

What's deceptive about it?

Look, here's how it goes. Pay attention here.

Google tells EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET "hey, do this for top rankings."

Then they go do that, and get top rankings.

If they have not actually manipulated the rankings, they are not deceiving anyone.

If you are suspicious because Google is on top of the rankings, then you need to tell me why something else should be on top of the rankings.

Otherwise, all you're saying is "I don't like Google's search results." Well, fine, go use Bing. I do.

Speaking of which, let's try an experiment.

Black Tide recently released their new video "That Fire" exclusively on IGN. So I'd like to go watch it, but we'll pretend I can't remember what the name of it is and which service it's on. I'll go search for it.

On Bing, I type "black tide video" and get links to articles about the IGN release on results 9 and 10. The video results come between results 2 and 3, and are led by three YouTube videos and one VEVO video. That is the "unbiased by Google" result.

On Google, I type "black tide video" and get five video links at the top of the search results - before any other results. Three of them are on YouTube, on is on GrindTV, and the fifth is the new video for "That Fire" on IGN.

These results appear surprisingly similar to Bing's "unbiased by Google" results. So where is the deception?

And go check out Black Tide's new video on IGN, because they're awesome and everyone should listen to them.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132546].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

What's deceptive about it?

Look, here's how it goes. Pay attention here.

Google tells EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET "hey, do this for top rankings."

Then they go do that, and get top rankings.

If they have not actually manipulated the rankings, they are not deceiving anyone.

If you are suspicious because Google is on top of the rankings, then you need to tell me why something else should be on top of the rankings.

Otherwise, all you're saying is "I don't like Google's search results." Well, fine, go use Bing. I do.

Speaking of which, let's try an experiment.

Black Tide recently released their new video "That Fire" exclusively on IGN. So I'd like to go watch it, but we'll pretend I can't remember what the name of it is and which service it's on. I'll go search for it.

On Bing, I type "black tide video" and get links to articles about the IGN release on results 9 and 10. The video results come between results 2 and 3, and are led by three YouTube videos and one VEVO video. That is the "unbiased by Google" result.

On Google, I type "black tide video" and get five video links at the top of the search results - before any other results. Three of them are on YouTube, on is on GrindTV, and the fifth is the new video for "That Fire" on IGN.

These results appear surprisingly similar to Bing's "unbiased by Google" results. So where is the deception?

And go check out Black Tide's new video on IGN, because they're awesome and everyone should listen to them.

No CD... the 'deception' that they promote is that 'organic' is about integrity... it can't have integrity if there is any way, for anyone to manipulate it for profit. (Incidentally, how many times have people done everything Google says to do to rank, and still don't? And how many times has it been said that Google considers any manipulation of SEO to gain favor in their search engine rankings a violation of their TOS?)

The public 'at large' is duped into believing that Google's organic search results are about 'integrity' and that's based on relevancy to the subject, and not to Google's profits.

That is why the public 'at large' trusts Google. And the public 'at large' can't be expected to know any better if Google is permitted to keep shouting from the rooftops about an 'integrity' that they do not actually have.

That would be 'false advertising.'

The last time I checked, false advertising was in fact, illegal.

Now some may want to argue that it shouldn't BE illegal because anyone dumb enough to believe anything said in 'advertising' deserves to have the wool pulled over their eyes (which seems to be the position of everyone in this thread on Google's side) and I won't comment on my own opinion on that matter...

Because the fact is, enough people have decided that it SHOULD be illegal, and therefore IS... and that's really all that matters. (Our opinons on it only carry as much weight as we take to the voting booth with us)

It IS illegal to engage in false advertising, and by claiming 'integrity' of search results which clearly cannot exist when they are profiting from a system that they alone hold the keys to manipulate...they are engaging in false advertising, which is illegal.

Now if you want to lobby to make that 'not illegal', then you're welcome to do so. But until that time comes, the majority of our society has voted that it should be illegal, and so it is, and so it will be treated as such by the authorities through investigations and prosecutions.

-Dani

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133462].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

No CD... the 'deception' that they promote is that 'organic' is about integrity... it can't have integrity if there is any way, for anyone to manipulate it for profit.

The system is not designed to be perfect.

It is designed to be self-correcting.

I think I've found the focus of next week's product and broadcasts.

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133623].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

It IS illegal to engage in false advertising, and by claiming 'integrity' of search results which clearly cannot exist when they are profiting from a system that they alone hold the keys to manipulate...they are engaging in false advertising, which is illegal.
-Dani

I wasn't sure how to snip your post so I just picked the above paragraph...

Dani, you're not making any sense so I have no choice but to turn the tables:

1) How would you propose a search engine be designed?
2) Do you have an alternative?
3)If you answer that there should be no advertising, who do you think should provide such a free service?

Most importantly, you have yet to provide any evidence that results are being actively manipulated.

You say that search cannot have integrity if there is any way to manipulate results. Think about that for a sec and tell me what that means.

The moment that an algorithm is written and executed it's ready to be manipulated. In fact, that's the idea!

Search algorithms use data. Data is created by people. Those people have specific self-interests. Some of those people actively use what they consider to be SEO.

Now, is that the manipulation you speak of? If not, what? If so, then you might as well give up now because unless you want all results to come from .gov and .edu sites, you're never going to see results that have no manipulation. It's flat out impossible. Not because everyone is out to make a buck, but because you cannot possibly have a search engine without a method of finding results. (I know that's absurdly obvious, but it had to be said.)

So what that means is that you need an algorithm, and the search engine circle of life begins.

So, one more time. I've provided evidence that google's results are not rigged. I'm waiting for evidence to the contrary.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133752].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

I wasn't sure how to snip your post so I just picked the above paragraph...

Dani, you're not making any sense so I have no choice but to turn the tables:

1) How would you propose a search engine be designed?
2) Do you have an alternative?
3)If you answer that there should be no advertising, who do you think should provide such a free service?

Most importantly, you have yet to provide any evidence that results are being actively manipulated.

You say that search cannot have integrity if there is any way to manipulate results. Think about that for a sec and tell me what that means.

The moment that an algorithm is written and executed it's ready to be manipulated. In fact, that's the idea!

Search algorithms use data. Data is created by people. Those people have specific self-interests. Some of those people actively use what they consider to be SEO.

Now, is that the manipulation you speak of? If not, what? If so, then you might as well give up now because unless you want all results to come from .gov and .edu sites, you're never going to see results that have no manipulation. It's flat out impossible. Not because everyone is out to make a buck, but because you cannot possibly have a search engine without a method of finding results. (I know that's absurdly obvious, but it had to be said.)

So what that means is that you need an algorithm, and the search engine circle of life begins.

So, one more time. I've provided evidence that google's results are not rigged. I'm waiting for evidence to the contrary.

I think she means that it's hard for Google to have and/or show that they have integrity when they and they alone know the secret formula they use to come up with rankings.

They have insider knowledge that no one else on the planet has.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133972].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

I think she means that it's hard for Google to have and/or show that they have integrity when they and they alone know the secret formula they use to come up with rankings.

They have insider knowledge that no one else on the planet has.

Partially...

That 'insider knowledge' is what I believe the antitrust issue is about. But I actually have not significantly studied the definitions because I know this... that it is going to come down to an 'interpretation' of the law, in a court of law.

But as to the false advertising...

CD and JD,
I'll grant, I have no PROOF they manipulate, but their own products (for profit) being listed at all, completely destroys any portrayal of the 'integrity of most relevant to users.' That's how it is 'falsely advertised'.. But the proof is for the Feds to GET, which now goes back to ...

Bill,
Ok, you believe that anyone and everyone ever investigated BY the FTC is always found guilty...

1.) Most 'prosecutors' won't go after anyone until they have gathered enough evidence, somehow, in some way, to make a case for SOMETHING...
2.) You don't want everyone to assume Google guilty without due process, but then you say that the FTC is guilty without giving them the benefit of the same due process...
3.) So, what? The FTC should never investigate anyone for anything?

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134029].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

I'll grant, I have no PROOF they manipulate, but their own products (for profit) being listed at all, completely destroys any portrayal of the 'integrity of most relevant to users.'

So if I want to find something on Google Shopping...

I should have to use a non-Google search engine?

Are you listening to yourself?

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135627].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

I think she means that it's hard for Google to have and/or show that they have integrity when they and they alone know the secret formula they use to come up with rankings.

They have insider knowledge that no one else on the planet has.

Well that's something you'll have to get over.

BTW, it's also true with bing and every other search engine.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134100].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

Well that's something you'll have to get over.

BTW, it's also true with bing and every other search engine.

Yes, it is.

The difference being that Bing and every other search engine does not have any kind of stranglehold on the search market. Then turn that stranglehold into an unfair advantage to destroy anything they choose at any time. This only becomes a problem when one company gets a monopoly stranglehold on any one market that has the potential to affect everyone else.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134573].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

Yes, it is.

The difference being that Bing and every other search engine does not have any kind of stranglehold on the search market. Then turn that stranglehold into an unfair advantage to destroy anything they choose at any time. This only becomes a problem when one company gets a monopoly stranglehold on any one market that has the potential to affect everyone else.

This is partially true...

See, the only reason that Google has the 'stranglehold' is because the 'general public' gives them that power.

Now, the group of egocentric marketers who want to think, (and want the rest of us think too) that 'the general public' should 'know better' are only thinking in the terms of not wanting anyone to tell them what they can do with their website/property.

The problem is that 'the general public' decided long before Google came along that they should not have to 'guess' at what 'advertising' to believe in. Hence the reason the laws were passed.

Google, with it's own words (integrity, most relevant, for users) has repeatedly and implicitly implied that that the 'organics' were not a source of profit for them when they claimed that rankings could not be bought, and when they insisted that paid search was their profit model and was kept distinctly separate from organic to maintain the integrity of organic.

The egocentric 'marketers' know how the model operates, but the general public does not. I repeat... it's about 'the general public'.

And so... the law is in place, and as long as Google is permitted to carry on with leading 'the general public' to believe it's unbiased in organic, the general public will continue to believe it, because they trust in the laws that protect them from that kind of deceit.

And that's just the false advertising deceptive business practices aspect.

The antitrust laws come into play because of Google's ability to create a stranglehold on search, through that deception, and control entire markets at will. (It sounds like RICO to me, but I'm not an attorney)

Now, some have said they've seen evidence, some have said they have not.

1.) If it happens even once in their 'unbiased' organics, that Google can profit, then organics are not unbiased and Google cannot be permitted to claim or imply that they are, thus continuing a deception that increases their stranglehold.

2.) Prosecutors don't start investigations without some form of 'probable cause' to do so.

3.) To those who say 'it's ok for them to put 1-2 of their own products in the supposedly unbiased organics:
So it's ok, to cheat or a break a law if it's only 1-2 times? As long as what? It's profitable?

The main thing here is for marketers to stop thinking this is about them, or about being able to do what you want on your website.

This is about 'the general public' and their right to trust in the laws they supported to protect them from deception and moreover... the laws that allow them access to the information and education that is unbiased by agenda, and is the key to the 'freedom' that my countrymen have risked and given their lives to protect.

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134650].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

I want to add:

To those who say, "You can still go use Bing or Yahoo or Alta Vista..."

I say, if you tell anyone in the general public that, the response is:

"Why should I? Google gives me the most relevant information to my search"

If you try to tell them that that's not always true, they'll tell you "It has to be. If it's not, that's false advertising and the authorities would shut them down."

And THAT is how Google gets the stranglehold.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134672].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

I want to add:

To those who say, "You can still go use Bing or Yahoo or Alta Vista..."

I say, if you tell anyone in the general public that, the response is:

"Why should I? Google gives me the most relevant information to my search"

If you try to tell them that that's not always true, they'll tell you "It has to be. If it's not, that's false advertising and the authorities would shut them down."

And THAT is how Google gets the stranglehold.

[Well, my self-imposed moratorium on letting your posts go didn't last long]

Dani, I don't know who you think the general public is or who would respond like that, but you must know a lot of stupid people if you hear enough foolishness like that to believe that's the way people think.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135022].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

[Well, my self-imposed moratorium on letting your posts go didn't last long]

Dani, I don't know who you think the general public is or who would respond like that, but you must know a lot of stupid people if you hear enough foolishness like that to believe that's the way people think.

JD,
The antitrust laws and the FTC exist because enough people decided that they wanted 'Big Brother' to protect them from themselves.'

Did you only skim my posts? Because you address none of the reasons why people made those choices to support those laws in the first place.

-Dani

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135593].message }}

tpw 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

The antitrust laws and the FTC exist because enough people decided that they wanted 'Big Brother' to protect them from themselves.'

No. Anti-trust laws were created to protect the public from those entities who desired to crush all competition in the marketplace, through any means necessary.

Anti-trust laws were not designed to keep good companies down.

When the FTC was created in 1914, its purpose was to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce as part of the battle to “bust the trusts.”

Over the years, Congress passed additional laws giving the agency greater authority to police anti-competitive practices.

In 1938, Congress passed a broad prohibition against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Since then, the Commission also has been directed to administer a wide variety of other consumer protection laws, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Pay-Per-Call Rule and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

In 1975, Congress gave the FTC the authority to adopt industry-wide trade regulation rules.

Source
- Thanks
Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135643].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

JD,
The antitrust laws and the FTC exist because enough people decided that they wanted 'Big Brother' to protect them from themselves.'

Not exactly.

Did you only skim my posts? Because you address none of the reasons why people made those choices to support those laws in the first place.

Oh yes. I read your points... the first time... and every time you repeat the same thing.

I should be asking you if you're reading.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137453].message }}

VanessaB 14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

Not exactly.

Oh yes. I read your points... the first time... and every time you repeat the same thing.

I should be asking you if you're reading.

I guess if I'm repeating them, I'm reading them... even if just while copying and pasting.
- Thanks
Signature

The Recon Report
Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137511].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Well over 200 posts in this thread and still, not a single example to justify the case against google.

Interesting.

I also want to comment on the general assertion by some that google results are inferior, and probably due to google's manipulation of results to serve google.

Well, as CD mentioned, relevant results are different for everyone. A search engine knows 1's & 0' like any computer. It is not a mind reader.

The simple fact is that most people do not know how to conduct searches. They don't know how to fine tune. Hell, how many people routinely use advanced search?

I usually have no trouble finding what I want.

The irony, as it pertains to this discussion, is that the worst results are the ones full of crappy article directories and adsense pages that make it through in spite of google's attempts to clear out the riff raff.

The other thing is laziness. Do you only look at what's stuffed under your nose? Do you use advanced search and set the results per page to 100? At the very least, did you notice the "next" link and do you bother to click on it?

It may take a tiny bit of intelligence and sleuthing to get what you're looking for.

You know, God invented scrolling for a reason. It's not that hard to move down past the news, video and shopping results to get to what you're looking for.

Really, it's not hard. Try it sometime.

Now I know that half the population is below average, but does everything have to be spoonfed? And if you do think so, do you think everyone should be fed the same flavor?

Part of this thread is beyond absurd, but I must admit, it's been quite enlightening... although not in the way some of you may think it is.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137617].message }}

tpw 14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

Now I know that half the population is below average

Quote of the Day...
- Thanks
Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137664].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

Well over 200 posts in this thread and still, not a single example to justify the case against google.

Interesting.

I also want to comment on the general assertion by some that google results are inferior, and probably due to google's manipulation of results to serve google.

Well, as CD mentioned, relevant results are different for everyone. A search engine knows 1's & 0' like any computer. It is not a mind reader.

The simple fact is that most people do not know how to conduct searches. They don't know how to fine tune. Hell, how many people routinely use advanced search?

I usually have no trouble finding what I want.

The irony, as it pertains to this discussion, is that the worst results are the ones full of crappy article directories and adsense pages that make it through in spite of google's attempts to clear out the riff raff.

The other thing is laziness. Do you only look at what's stuffed under your nose? Do you use advanced search and set the results per page to 100? At the very least, did you notice the "next" link and do you bother to click on it?

It may take a tiny bit of intelligence and sleuthing to get what you're looking for.

You know, God invented scrolling for a reason. It's not that hard to move down past the news, video and shopping results to get to what you're looking for.

Really, it's not hard. Try it sometime.

Now I know that half the population is below average, but does everything have to be spoonfed? And if you do think so, do you think everyone should be fed the same flavor?

Part of this thread is beyond absurd, but I must admit, it's been quite enlightening... although not in the way some of you may think it is.

JD,
I'm truly shocked that you think the 'investigation' into Google is not justified.

"Media" is supposed to have journalistic 'integrity' without a bias toward it's advertisers.

Google has portrayed itself and positioned itself as the same model, with the same 'journalistic integrity'. And the same revenue model of 'advertising.'

So if organic is about 'integrity' then it should be 'reference' only... and any 'advertising pages' should have to be paid for.

They could almost be a library, except for that pesky little problem of wanting to generate income, that's where the become more like a media outlet... but organic is portrayed, by Google, like a giant library of news stories that Google thinks people want access to.

And again, the just cause for the investigation is because if they can do it in 1 or 2 organic listings here and there, how about 3-4? At what point do they cease to become anything of the 'journalistic integrity' they claim and are now just a store, with a search engine in it?

-Dani

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137951].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

If you try to tell them that that's not always true, they'll tell you "Who cares?"

Fixed that for you.

Do you remember when Google first appeared? I do. I was using AltaVista for all my searches, for exactly the reason you state: it gave me the most relevant information for my searches.

But my girlfriend used Google. I thought Google looked silly. It was all bright and colourful and reminded me of the balloon design on Wonder bread. But AltaVista was from Digital Equipment Corporation, who made the DEC Alpha, the 64-bit architecture on which the AltaVista search engine ran. And the DEC Alpha was awesome. Google was running on crap consumer hardware, WTF. They even used Linux instead of a real, industrial-grade operating system like Digital Unix.

And while I could generally find what I was looking for, my girlfriend could find more of it faster and often with better quality results.

So over time, I started to use Google. Because Google was better. They didn't come out and rampantly destroy other search engines: they just quietly and consistently did a better and better job, until the other search engines were just not worth using anymore.

And do you want to know the funny part?

There were pretty much the same grumblings about AltaVista, at the time. That it was starting to be too popular, and would soon control all search on the internet, and then DEC could misbehave and manipulate search results.

Google has been designed from the ground up to make it impossible for any human being to productively manipulate meaningful search results in the long term.

Let's analyse that, because there's a lot of qualification in it.

First, "productively manipulate." This means that you're unable to effectively predict how your website is going to be ranked until after it is ranked.

Second, "meaningful search results." Google's algorithm is designed to give MASSIVE importance to the behaviour of users viewing the SERPs. The more people see your site in the SERPs, the more data they give Google on whether you belong there, and the faster your site LOSES whatever it might have "faked" to get into that page of the SERPs.

Third, "in the long term." Google's algorithm is iterative. It improves rankings for all sites in the background by classifying and categorising entire swaths of the internet by similarity of subject. That's why every so often, an entire category of stuff like "flogs" or "autoblogs" or "article directories" will dump out of the rankings all at once... usually right around the time our community thinks they've figured out how to make lots of money with no work by tricking Google.

There was a recent report in the news about Google manipulating search results to test a theory about Bing stealing their search results, for example. Everyone had a fit, but there are two things they didn't consider.

First, the results Google manipulated were not meaningful. They were terms which already had no results available in Google. If there HAD been results available, that would have been a "productive manipulation" and they would not have been able to do it reliably.

Second, the results were not long term. Once the story went out explaining what they did, the manipulated search results - formerly the only results for those queries - rapidly dumped to the bottom of the search listings, because that wasn't what people wanted to see.

The whole system is designed to have unimpeachable integrity. You can't make search engines do what you want in the long term. SEO is like a bag of water with a hole in it: you keep pouring more water in, but the hole keeps getting bigger, until eventually it won't hold water. Then you have to throw out the bag and get a new one.

The brilliance of Google's search engine is that they've built it in such a way that they couldn't be evil even if they wanted to be.
- Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135681].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

Yes, it is.

The difference being that Bing and every other search engine does not have any kind of stranglehold on the search market. Then turn that stranglehold into an unfair advantage to destroy anything they choose at any time. This only becomes a problem when one company gets a monopoly stranglehold on any one market that has the potential to affect everyone else.

I'll respond here because I've gone after my friend Dani enough... for now

Stranglehold? Sure, a high percentage of searches go through google, but they are not the only option. They get those searches because most people like what they see. It's no different than CBS getting higher ad rates than NBC because, yep, more people like what they see on the big eye rather than the peacock.

Where's the unfair advantage and what are they destroying? Your inability to rank your adsense site?

Is that how it effects everyone else? Does CBS prevent NBC from putting better shows onthe air?

You need to stop and take your IM hat off for a moment and look at the reality of the situation. Search is nothing more than an advertising platform. There are many other advertising vehicles and based on the numbers I could dig up quickly, google's share of ad revenue is roughly 30% of all online advertising and 10% of all advertising in the US.

Those numbers don't jibe with with your assertions.

Where's the stranglehold?

It's all market-driven and search is results-driven. Like it or not, the sites that rank significantly higher than yours are usually more relevant. And as some examples posted in this thread prove, even google has no problem ranking other products above theirs -- no matter how hard you try to ignore that simple fact.

Excuse me for reading between the lines here, but all I continue to hear is sour grapes. What else can it be? The real irony is how many people bitch about their inability to rank, or because they got slapped, when the site they're trying to get traffic to is so often an adsense site... ADSENSE! A google program!

Tell me how that makes any sense... "Gee guys, I'm pissed because that f'n google won't let me rank higher so that I can make money by using something they created and allow me to use... for free... to make money."

What?!!!

How nuts is that logic? Actually, it's completely illogical. In fact, it smacks of the same selfishness that you're trying to pin on google, only worse because they actually created something useful.

Now I never dreamed of defending google, but I just cannot stomach a complete lack of common sense and logic.

So here we are. A group of marketers, allegedly, and some are hell bent to destroy honest success.

More irony.

And I'll bet that many of you also bitch about government intervention in your life and business. But you have no problem proposing that google be spanked by the feds because you imagine that they're doing something to keep you from making a buck.

This just kills me. If it wasn't so disturbing I'd be laughing.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135013].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

I wasn't sure how to snip your post so I just picked the above paragraph...

Dani, you're not making any sense so I have no choice but to turn the tables:

1) How would you propose a search engine be designed?
2) Do you have an alternative?
3)If you answer that there should be no advertising, who do you think should provide such a free service?

Most importantly, you have yet to provide any evidence that results are being actively manipulated.

You say that search cannot have integrity if there is any way to manipulate results. Think about that for a sec and tell me what that means.

The moment that an algorithm is written and executed it's ready to be manipulated. In fact, that's the idea!

Search algorithms use data. Data is created by people. Those people have specific self-interests. Some of those people actively use what they consider to be SEO.

Now, is that the manipulation you speak of? If not, what? If so, then you might as well give up now because unless you want all results to come from .gov and .edu sites, you're never going to see results that have no manipulation. It's flat out impossible. Not because everyone is out to make a buck, but because you cannot possibly have a search engine without a method of finding results. (I know that's absurdly obvious, but it had to be said.)

So what that means is that you need an algorithm, and the search engine circle of life begins.

So, one more time. I've provided evidence that google's results are not rigged. I'm waiting for evidence to the contrary.

JD,
It is not about HOW the search engine should be run.

It IS about Google being allowed to deceive the public about the 'organic listings' purpose.

If organic's purpose is to serve as 'advertising', then Google cannot falsely advertise it as: 'not about advertising.'
That's all. Nothing else.

It is NOT about how a search engine should be designed.
It is NOT about an alternative.
It is NOT about advertising.

The design of the engine is fine with me.
Therefore I seek no alternative.
Advertising on a search engine is fine with me...

What is not fine with me, is Google falsely portraying their 'organic' search engine unbiased. (Regardless of the actual use of that actual word... the words they have used 'integrity', 'for users' has PORTRAYED it as 'unbiased' to: the general public)

They have falsely portrayed it as unbiased, which, if they are placing their own products in there at all, it isn't.

False advertising is considered a deceptive business practice.

If Google is profiting from it, then it ceases to be as 'unbiased' as they PORTRAY it to be.

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133978].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

What is not fine with me, is Google falsely portraying their 'organic' search engine unbiased. (Regardless of the actual use of that actual word... the words they have used 'integrity', 'for users' has PORTRAYED it as 'unbiased' to: the general public)

They have falsely portrayed it as unbiased, which, if they are placing their own products in there at all, it isn't.

You still have no evidence.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134104].message }}

VanessaB 14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

Well that's something you'll have to get over.

BTW, it's also true with bing and every other search engine.

Actually, it's not something he just has to 'get over.' That's for the FTC to decide.

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

You still have no evidence.

And it's still the FEDS job to get the proof.

-Dani
- Thanks
Signature

The Recon Report
Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134222].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

the 'deception' that they promote is that 'organic' is about integrity... it can't have integrity if there is any way, for anyone to manipulate it for profit.

Who on Earth says organic is about "integrity"?!?!

Organic is about whatever Google wants it to be about... because it's they website, their algorithm and their product. They can tweak and reprogram their organic search algorithm in whichever way they want, and they don't owe YOU or the FTC a damn thing.

Google's organic search is not an NGO... it's a product from a publicly-traded corporation!

Does anyone tell you what to display on your website? then why should anyone tell Google what to display on theirs?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134211].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

Who on Earth says organic is about "integrity"?!?!

Organic is about whatever Google wants it to be about... because it's they website, their algorithm and their product. They can tweak and reprogram their organic search algorithm in whichever way they want, and they don't owe YOU or the FTC a damn thing.

Google's organic search is not an NGO... it's a product from a publicly-traded corporation!

Does anyone tell you what to display on your website? then why should anyone tell Google what to display on theirs?

Are you serious?

1.) GOOGLE has said that that 'organic' is about integrity.
2.) Correction: Organic CAN be about whatever Google wants it to be about, as long as they are CLEAR on what it's about to the PUBLIC.
3.) YES... the FTC DOES tell me what to do on my website! They tell me I can't be deceptive, they tell me I have to DISCLOSE... they tell me all kinds of things I can and cannot do... On my website.. in my business, even on the 'real' property (house, land) I OWN... through LAWS.

Why anyone thinks Google shouldn't have to operate under the same set of LAWS that any other business has to operate under is beyond me.

Do you actually believe that because you OWN a property, real or cyber, that there are no LAWS you still have to abide by?

If you do, try running a casino out of your house, or on your website, if you're in the US... then come back and tell me what you discovered about 'the law.'

-Dani

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134249].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

1.) GOOGLE has said that that 'organic' is about integrity.

2.) Correction: Organic CAN be about whatever Google wants it to be about, as long as they are CLEAR on what it's about to the PUBLIC.

The organic search is about integrity AS PER GOOGLE'S UNDERSTANDING of what integrity is.

Why, you ask? because it's their damn algorithm. Their mathematical formula, their filters, and thus their choice on what is relevant enough to be displayed on page #1.

I repeat: it's THEIR algorithm and their filters. Not the FTC's but Google's. They decide what's relevant to any given search query.

Let me see if I get this straight: so you're saying that, since Google owns YouTube, Google is not allowed to deem any particular YouTube video (or a Google map, or any of Google's other products) relevant to a specific search query? are you saying that Google's been deceptive because they post an accurately-matched YouTube video on "how to bake chocolate biscuits" when I indeed type in "how to bake chocolate biscuits" in the organic search? What's that got to do with integrity at all?!?!

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134291].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

The organic search is about integrity AS PER GOOGLE'S UNDERSTANDING of what integrity is.

Why, you ask? because it's their damn algorithm. Their mathematical formula, their filters, and thus their choice on what is relevant enough to be displayed on page #1.

I repeat: it's THEIR algorithm and their filters. Not the FTC's but Google's. They decide what's relevant to any given search query.

Let me see if I get this straight: so you're saying that, since Google owns YouTube, Google is not allowed to deem any particular YouTube video (or a Google map, or any of Google's other products) relevant to a specific search query? are you saying that Google's been deceptive because they post an accurately-matched YouTube video in the organic searches? What's that got to do with integrity at all?!?!

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

The organic search is about integrity AS PER GOOGLE'S UNDERSTANDING of what integrity is.

This is what Google has said:
The organic search is about integrity

This Google has never 'added' to that- AS PER GOOGLE'S UNDERSTANDING of what integrity is.

That's a 'half truth' at best, and laws about deceptive business practices like false advertising exist because most people interpret the withholding of information (a half truth) to be the same as LYING. They didn't want 'half truths' to be a legal way for a business to deceive the public.

I am not saying that Google can't display whatever IT deems most relevant. I am saying that I agree they can do whatever they want with their site, as long as they are honest about what they are doing, and they DISCLOSE what they are doing.

-Dani

P.S. I notice you elected not to address the questions regarding the 'laws' that all businesses have to operate under, whether they own the property or not.

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134324].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

The organic search is about integrity AS PER GOOGLE'S UNDERSTANDING of what integrity is.

Why, you ask? because it's their damn algorithm. Their mathematical formula, their filters, and thus their choice on what is relevant enough to be displayed on page #1.

I repeat: it's THEIR algorithm and their filters. Not the FTC's but Google's. They decide what's relevant to any given search query.

Let me see if I get this straight: so you're saying that, since Google owns YouTube, Google is not allowed to deem any particular YouTube video (or a Google map, or any of Google's other products) relevant to a specific search query? are you saying that Google's been deceptive because they post an accurately-matched YouTube video on "how to bake chocolate biscuits" when I indeed type in "how to bake chocolate biscuits" in the organic search? What's that got to do with integrity at all?!?!

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Google's understanding as you put it don't necessarily line up with what the laws state. Just because you have an understanding or the lack there of of something doesn't make you immune to the consequences if you have been found to be breaking the law.

It may be Google's algorithm, but that doesn't give Google the right to break the law just because it's their property. That would be like me saying it's my car and I can run over anyone I want or run into anyone I want and who is the police and government to stop me?

Google is not above the law. They don't have the right (even though they think they do ) to break the law. If they break the law they should pay the penalty. It doesn't matter if it's their algorithm or not. Pretty simple.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134406].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

Originally Posted by scrofford

Google's understanding as you put it don't necessarily line up with what the laws state. Just because you have an understanding or the lack there of of something doesn't make you immune to the consequences if you have been found to be breaking the law.

GEEZ... What law is being broken at all? I mean, seriously, let's keep our heads clear of a sec.

This is how Google's organic search works: You type in "how to bake chocolate biscuits" and Google displays whatever THEY THINK relates to that as per their algorithm. And yes, they might toss in a YouTube video on how to bake cookies and a Google Map to your closest cooking school.

Do we have to call the anti-trust cops for that?

I repeat: what freaking law is being broken there?!?!

Seriously, some times I just cant figure out what some people are complaining about... If we want the guvt to stop treating citizens as kids, then we gotta stop whining about nonsense like kids!

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134435].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

GEEZ... What law is being broken at all? I mean, seriously, let's keep our heads clear of a sec.

This is how Google's organic search works: You type in "how to bake chocolate biscuits" and Google displays whatever THEY THINK relates to that as per their algorithm. And yes, they might toss in a YouTube video on how to bake cookies and a Google Map to your closest cooking school.

Do we have to call the anti-trust cops for that?

I repeat: what freaking law is being broken there?!?!

Seriously, some times I just cant figure out what some people are complaining about... If we want the guvt to stop treating citizens as kids, then we gotta stop whining about nonsense like kids!

The LAW that is being broken is the one that says "You can't pretend that this isn't a profit center for you if it is."

Aside from the FTC, the DOJ, and the general public... I think that's probably also going to violate some IRS laws too.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134461].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

The LAW that is being broken is the one that says "You can't pretend that this isn't a profit center for you if it is."

LOL! Google is a publicly-traded corporation... of course they pretend their products to be a profit center, and of course everyone expects them to try to make money with their products/services.

LOL are you truly serious?! Google's search engine is not a NGO, you know? It's a product that's cost BILLIONS to develop and that's been merrily used by millions of people every day. Do you truly expect them to offer such global-scale service without attempting to benefit from it?

Millions of people BENEFIT from Google's FREE search engine every day. And you're complaining that they display a YouTube video and a Google Map among the organic listings?!? People should be GLAD that they offer such a fantastic service for free, for Christ's sake.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134485].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

LOL! Google is a publicly-traded corporation... of course they pretend their products to be a profit center, and of course everyone expects them to try to make money with their products/services.

LOL are you truly serious?! Google's search engine is not a NGO, you know? It's a product that's cost BILLIONS to develop and that's been merrily used by millions of people every day. Do you truly expect them to offer such global-scale service without attempting to benefit from it?

Millions of people BENEFIT from Google's FREE search engine every day. And you're complaining that they display a YouTube video and a Google Map among the organic listings?!? People should be GLAD that they offer such a fantastic service for free, for Christ's sake.

I'll take this one by one:

Yes, I'm serious. An NGO has NOTHING to do with it at all.

Corporations do not 'pretend' to be 'not for profit.' Do you not realize that when articles of corporation are filed, they have to indicate if they are filing as 'for profit' or 'not for profit'?

No, I don't expect them to provide it without benefiting from it. I expect them not to falsely portray that they don't, to the general public who doesn't realize that the 'organic' is not 'unbiased'. The fact is, the minute the owner of the publication can profit from it, or use it to further any agenda of it's own, the publication ceases to be 'unbiased.'

The fact is, we passed laws that said you can't make untrue claims in advertising. So if Google keeps 'implying' that it's organics are unbiased, then people will believe it to be true because if it weren't Google would be in violation of that law and would be prosecuted for it.

Those laws were enacted so that people don't have to 'guess' whether or not advertising is lying or not. If it is, then it gets prosecuted.

-Dani

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134547].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

Millions of people BENEFIT from Google's FREE search engine every day. And you're complaining that they display a YouTube video and a Google Map among the organic listings?!? People should be GLAD that they offer such a fantastic service for free, for Christ's sake.

Those complaining that youtube appearing high in the results also have short memories.

It wasn't so long ago that google did not own youtube yet youtube still ranked high when warranted.

What's interesting is that the integrity (if I may borrow the popular buzzword used to condemn google in this thread) of search results over a period of time likely cost google hundreds of millions more for the acquisition of youtube.

Yep, that's one hell of a strategy if you're going to manipulate results to increase your own profits at the expense of others. :rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135214].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

GEEZ... What law is being broken at all? I mean, seriously, let's keep our heads clear of a sec.

This is how Google's organic search works: You type in "how to bake chocolate biscuits" and Google displays whatever THEY THINK relates to that as per their algorithm. And yes, they might toss in a YouTube video on how to bake cookies and a Google Map to your closest cooking school.

Do we have to call the anti-trust cops for that?

I repeat: what freaking law is being broken there?!?!

Seriously, some times I just cant figure out what some people are complaining about... If we want the guvt to stop treating citizens as kids, then we gotta stop whining about nonsense like kids!

Well first of all, there is NO proof ANY law is being broken YET. There are complaints that Google isn't being on the up and up when it comes to the "fairness" of their search engine.

So, if their ads are always going to the top of the search for instance and it's just pure organic according to their algorithm without them manipulating their system, then I guess they are experts in a lot of different markets for a lot of different products and no law has been broken...Doubtful though.

If they ARE manipulating their algorithm and making it to the top of EVERY search for certain products and pushing others down, then it's wrong because it violates the law.

I have no problem with beating out other competition fairly, but if Google is manipulating their system and making it so they are at the top every time or only their ads are on the first page of Google because of their their system, then it's wrong.

That would be like someone hosting a game of some sort and saying it was a fair game but it's really fixed in the hosts favor so the host can win and benefit. It's deceptive. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134473].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

The organic search is about integrity AS PER GOOGLE'S UNDERSTANDING of what integrity is.

Why, you ask? because it's their damn algorithm. Their mathematical formula, their filters, and thus their choice on what is relevant enough to be displayed on page #1.

I repeat: it's THEIR algorithm and their filters. Not the FTC's but Google's. They decide what's relevant to any given search query.

Let me see if I get this straight: so you're saying that, since Google owns YouTube, Google is not allowed to deem any particular YouTube video (or a Google map, or any of Google's other products) relevant to a specific search query? are you saying that Google's been deceptive because they post an accurately-matched YouTube video on "how to bake chocolate biscuits" when I indeed type in "how to bake chocolate biscuits" in the organic search? What's that got to do with integrity at all?!?!

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Then you aren't "getting it". Let me explain with an example from another industry.

Let's take the Billboard charts for instance.

Billboard's Top 100 songs of the week. They compile sales figures and give us the songs that sold the most that week. That is straightforward.

Ok... Now lets say that Billboard acquires its own Record Label. They aren't quite making as much money as they hoped with their record company division so they decide HEY, this is our magazine, let's start listing the songs from our artists higher on the list and see if we can't boost sales.

All the sudden, 4 of the top 10 songs in Billboard's Top 100 are now songs from Billboard's own record label. Sales start rising and they start making a lot more money.

"Wow", they say... this is really working... Why stop there?

Pretty soon the Billboard Top 100 is 50% Billboard Record Division artists and songs. And it goes on and on from there.

If you want to have a song get played on the radio and make any money... you better become an artist for Billboard.

Is Billboard doing anything "wrong"?

They are simply putting the songs on the list that they want to be there. It is their magazine and they can do what they want.

Problem is, that magazine has a huge affect on airplay and that in turn drives sales. Billboard becomes the people that can make or break anyone at any time. What is to stop them from taking a song off the list just because they can? What would that do to the artist?

Now, is this a conflict of interest for Billboard to be THE chart that radio uses for airplay and to also have their own Record Label?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134615].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

Then you aren't "getting it". Let me explain with an example from another industry.

Let's take the Billboard charts for instance.

Billboard's Top 100 songs of the week. They compile sales figures and give us the songs that sold the most that week. That is straightforward.

Ok... Now lets say that Billboard acquires its own Record Label. They aren't quite making as much money as they hoped with their record company division so they decide HEY, this is our magazine, let's start listing the songs from our artists higher on the list and see if we can't boost sales.

All the sudden, 4 of the top 10 songs in Billboard's Top 100 are now songs from Billboard's own record label. Sales start rising and they start making a lot more money.

"Wow", they say... this is really working... Why stop there?

Pretty soon the Billboard Top 100 is 50% Billboard Record Division artists and songs. And it goes on and on from there.

If you want to have a song get played on the radio and make any money... you better become an artist for Billboard.

Is Billboard doing anything "wrong"?

They are simply putting the songs on the list that they want to be there. It is their magazine and they can do what they want.

Problem is, that magazine has a huge affect on airplay and that in turn drives sales. Billboard becomes the people that can make or break anyone at any time. What is to stop them from taking a song off the list just because they can? What would that do to the artist?

Now, is this a conflict of interest for Billboard to be THE chart that radio uses for airplay and to also have their own Record Label?

That's totally different, because music charts are calculated on strict sales numbers, which is an unbiased and absolute figure, whereas Google's listing is based on "Google's understanding of relevancy".

See, "Relevancy" is not a measurable concept, thus the only thing that matters is "Google's Relevancy". Whether Google believe their own content is more relevant than others is entirely up to them to decide, since it's their algorithm. If people don't like it, use Bing. Problem solved.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135099].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

That's totally different, because music charts are calculated on strict sales numbers, which is an unbiased and absolute figure, whereas Google's listing is based on "Google's understanding of relevancy".

See, "Relevancy" is not a measurable concept, thus the only thing that matters is "Google's Relevancy". Whether Google believe their own content is more relevant than others is entirely up to them to decide, since it's their algorithm. If people don't like it, use Bing. Problem solved.

They are NOT totally different. How would anyone know if Billboard was fudging the sales numbers or not? They are the only ones who keep tabs on it.

That is also the beef with Google. How can we be sure Google isn't manipulating the results in their favor all the time?

This is exactly why something like say... the state lotteries do not let lottery employees or their families play the lottery. If an employee of the lottery actually wins the lottery, it doesn't matter one bit if it was legit or not, it would appear to the outside world to be corrupt.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138803].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

Then you aren't "getting it". Let me explain with an example from another industry.

Let's take the Billboard charts for instance.

Billboard's Top 100 songs of the week. They compile sales figures and give us the songs that sold the most that week. That is straightforward.

Ok... Now lets say that Billboard acquires its own Record Label. They aren't quite making as much money as they hoped with their record company division so they decide HEY, this is our magazine, let's start listing the songs from our artists higher on the list and see if we can't boost sales.

All the sudden, 4 of the top 10 songs in Billboard's Top 100 are now songs from Billboard's own record label. Sales start rising and they start making a lot more money.

"Wow", they say... this is really working... Why stop there?

Pretty soon the Billboard Top 100 is 50% Billboard Record Division artists and songs. And it goes on and on from there.

If you want to have a song get played on the radio and make any money... you better become an artist for Billboard.

Is Billboard doing anything "wrong"?

They are simply putting the songs on the list that they want to be there. It is their magazine and they can do what they want.

Problem is, that magazine has a huge affect on airplay and that in turn drives sales. Billboard becomes the people that can make or break anyone at any time. What is to stop them from taking a song off the list just because they can? What would that do to the artist?

Now, is this a conflict of interest for Billboard to be THE chart that radio uses for airplay and to also have their own Record Label?

Being in the music business, this is the best example and argument I've
heard so far.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135466].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

Who on Earth says organic is about "integrity"?!?!

Organic is about whatever Google wants it to be about... because it's they website, their algorithm and their product. They can tweak and reprogram their organic search algorithm in whichever way they want, and they don't owe YOU or the FTC a damn thing.

Google's organic search is not an NGO... it's a product from a publicly-traded corporation!

Does anyone tell you what to display on your website? then why should anyone tell Google what to display on theirs?

You are still missing the point.

Those things are only true before a company get a monopoly and a stranglehold in a certain area. Once Google started getting 60% and more of the search traffic on the planet, the rules changed. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Maybe you would enjoy it if Google became THE search engine and had 99%+ of the searches running through them? Have fun with that. At that point Google would become King and have absolute power over all things search.

What they say goes. No arguments, they don't want to hear it. It's Google's way or NO WAY.

You will sing a different song at that point... But only because at that point it would affect YOU.

Again, yes, it is fine to be a search engine and promote your own things first. It becomes a problem with that search engine starts controlling ALL searches.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134566].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Reality: Google is stacking the deck and showing their own sh*t first when it
suits them and f**k everybody else, including the people who have made it
so that Google could get to where they are in the first place.

Steve just in case. I mean If because I don't know if you are getting your blood pressure up but if just remember - Bill really doesn't determine the law, the law states that you cannot do anything you want when you hold a compelling piece of a market and regardless of what anyone here says the subpoena went out and the probe is going forward. The FTC already knows if it finds the evidence then the law would be with them.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127518].message }}

tdj

14 years ago

I see it the same way the government brought big oil companies in front of Congress. Just a dog and pony show. They know who butters their bread.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127140].message }}

Dannyboy12

14 years ago

FTC after Big G

oh man, I thought this was gunna be a gangsta rap.

Thanks

Signature

Content that converts

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127261].message }}

travlinguy

14 years ago

Google gets to display any results they want, like it or not. Maybe we should look at the news media and have the FCC slap them around a bit because they don't report real news. They get to report anything they want and call it news. Much of it is biased in the same way Google delivers search results. That is, for their own benefit be it obvious or not so obvious.

Or maybe the FDA needs to look at the medical industry and start allowing certain remedies and treatments that are known to compete with the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA cartel. Ain't gonna happen.

As it's been mentioned many times in this thread already, this Google thing with the FTC is all for show. Once Google gets the once over, they're home free to do even more of what they want (as if they're not doing that right now).

Virtually everything in the BIG BUSINESS arena is a rigged game. The trick is to learn to play it the best you can.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127464].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by travlinguy

Google gets to display any results they want, like it or not. Maybe we should look at the news media and have the FCC slap them around a bit because they don't report real news. They get to report anything they want and call it news. Much of it is biased in the same way Google delivers search results. That is, for their own benefit be it obvious or not so obvious.

Or maybe the FDA needs to look at the medical industry and start allowing certain remedies and treatments that are known to compete with the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA cartel. Ain't gonna happen.

As it's been mentioned many times in this thread already, this Google thing with the FTC is all for show. Once Google gets the once over, they're home free to do even more of what they want (as if they're not doing that right now).

Virtually everything in the BIG BUSINESS arena is a rigged game. The trick is to learn to play it the best you can.

The problem with your example is that single news media has the monopoly that Google does. When you become that big, the rules change. Hence, we have antitrust laws.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128123].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

You guys are so not getting it.

You are confusing not wanting to choose with not getting to choose.

Google is the best place to get free traffic through SEO.

There are other places to get traffic.

You can get traffic that is not free.

You can get traffic that is not from SEO.

So when you complain that you can't get traffic without Google, you're full of crap. What you're really complaining is that you don't want to get traffic without Google.

And what you don't want is not Google's problem.

Grow the hell up.

What you are ultimately complaining about is that a company does not want to do business with you.

And your solution to this is to say that this company should be required by law to do business with you.

That cannot be based on the size of the company.

It would have to apply to every company.

And that means when Joe Dipstick serial refunds your products, you can't ban him because you're required by law to do business with him.

When your competitor signs up to your coaching program and rips you off to make his own cheaper inferior coaching program, you can't stop coaching him because you're required by law to do business with him.

When you have the client from hell who abuses and berates you for not being a better service provider, but pays his bills on time, you can't stop taking his orders because you're required by law to do business with him.

You can yell "but that's different!" all you want. From a regulatory standing, no it is not. And if you want those decisions I listed above to stay in your hands, not the government's, then you want them to stay in Google's hands too.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127503].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

You guys are so not getting it.

You are confusing not wanting to choose with not getting to choose.

Google is the best place to get free traffic through SEO.

There are other places to get traffic.

You can get traffic that is not free.

You can get traffic that is not from SEO.

So when you complain that you can't get traffic without Google, you're full of crap.

CD

No one has stated that you can't get traffic anywhere but Google and a strawman argument is by definition always utter crap.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127533].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

No one has stated that you can't get traffic anywhere but Google

That would be why I never said anyone did.

and a strawman argument is by definition always utter crap.

I believe you are right.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127555].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

That would be why I never said anyone did.

So exactly who was full of crap and the guys not getting it?

Never mind I sense a version of "it depends on what the meaning of is is" moment coming. I'll pass.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127580].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

So exactly who was full of crap and the guys not getting it?

Never mind I sense a version of "it depends on what the meaning of is is" moment coming. I'll pass.

I don't exactly think that he was referring to you, when he said that, although I am actually unable to speak to Caliban's intentions.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127613].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

I don't exactly think that he was referring to you, when he said that, although I am actually unable to speak to Caliban's intentions.

No I wasn't saying he was particularly but I don't see anyone saying that google is the only place you can get traffic.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127679].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

No I wasn't saying he was particularly but I don't see anyone saying that google is the only place you can get traffic.

I made that insinuation, because we see every day in the forums people who say that "the only source of traffic that really matters is Google."

I am pretty sure that most of the people who say that actually believe it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127927].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

So you're saying that if Google believes this list of ten things makes a store the best possible thing in the world...

And they set up their search engine to look for those ten things...

And they set up their store to be those ten things...

It is somehow deceptive when their store comes up at the top of the search listings?

Aren't you basically saying that Google should DELIBERATELY make either their search engine or their store worse, just so it doesn't make all the other stores look bad when they aren't as good?

No CD... what I am saying is that Google has always 'held' that their 'organics' are determined from an algo (a mathematical equation, and by the definition of math, cannot be influenced by 'opinon' - except of course the weight the algo gives to other parts of the algo) and that their 'paid' search side has absolutely no relation to their 'organic' results... Google IS making money off it's advertising, and that's FINE with me... Google can make money off their 'organic' listings too.. and that ALSO would be fine with me.... BUT.... then they can't continue to claim 'most relevant' without adding the words 'to our own pocketbooks' to the end of that statement.

Google has convinced the general public that 'organic' is based on 'quality' but when the only 'quality' to factor is if GOOGLE stands to make a profit, than 'organics' have no meaning, relevancy to anything other than their pocketbook goes right out the window... and that's all FINE... as long as they DISCLOSE and don't continue misleading the public to think that those results are 'organic or unbiased.'

If you want to define 'most relevant' as 'subjective' then without a disclosure, it's a HALF truth.

Originally Posted by TCrosby

First of all DanielleS, by quoting me and inserting your own statements in bold, you misrepresent me to anyone who reads your post without reading my post first.

I am not "Hooked on believing they're the best thing in the world." I am a computer science major currently working for Amazon. I understand the industry. I understand "Do no evil" means crap. Regardless, they provide billions will amazing services for free.

What YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, is that google has no divine calling to be the search engine from heaven who seeks no profit of their own and serves the people at their own expense. Their home page doesn't say "These results are 100% guaranteed to be the absolute most relevant results, displayed in the simplest manner, with nothing intruding on your path between searching and finding the result you want." They have no obligation to do that. They are neither imposing the burden on themselves by claiming such, nor are they obligated to by any rules or regulations of the government. They are a business. It is that simple. T

Let me draw a comparison for you. If comcast is your internet service provider, they set your homepage to comcast.net. It doesn't have to be, and it is not part of your contract. However, on comcast.net, they will host search, email, and also have options to upgrade to their other products, such as television, or the comcast triple-play. This is essentially what google is doing, but Google not charging you a contract. Instead of getting monthly payments from you, Google advertises for others or for themselves, so that they can stay in business. The end.

Caliban DOES get it.

Your words about 'not having a divine calling' are exactly my point. Their search engine isn't so great if it only wants to show me what is relevant to THEIR WALLET... and not other choices.

They've tried to play 'altruistic' superhero by saying 'organic is separate from paid search' and organic is for the 'users'... but if organic search is still another way for them to profit... then they need to disclose that it's not 'most relevant to quality', except to their opinion that quality is only what they can profit from.

I have zero issues with Google making money any way they can. But I happen to think they need to disclose... "most relevant' is to THEM... not YOU.

-Dani

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128158].message }}

TCrosby

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Your words about 'not having a divine calling' are exactly my point. Their search engine isn't so great if it only wants to show me what is relevant to THEIR WALLET... and not other choices.

They've tried to play 'altruistic' superhero by saying 'organic is separate from paid search' and organic is for the 'users'... but if organic search is still another way for them to profit... then they need to disclose that it's not 'most relevant to quality', except to their opinion that quality is only what they can profit from.

I have zero issues with Google making money any way they can. But I happen to think they need to disclose... "most relevant' is to THEM... not YOU.

-Dani

They can place 1-2 things of their own up top, and still have great search results. Overlook the top item or two if you want, that's your call. It doesn't make it a bad service.

Saying that they need to disclose that they are going to try and feature some things that will make them money is like saying a business needs to tell you they are going to try to make money from you. That's what they are. While I understand the public might not view them as a business, and might just view them as a service that should give them the best results, the root of the matter is that they ARE in fact a business.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128246].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TCrosby

They can place 1-2 things of their own up top, and still have great search results. Overlook the top item or two if you want, that's your call. It doesn't make it a bad service.

Saying that they need to disclose that they are going to try and feature some things that will make them money is like saying a business needs to tell you they are going to try to make money from you. That's what they are. While I understand the public might not view them as a business, and might just view them as a service that should give them the best results, the root of the matter is that they ARE in fact a business.

Google has always publicly stated that their mission in organic is integrity. They have 'paid' search for profit. If they can exploit their inside information about their own algo to take 1st place rankings, the 'integrity of organic has been compromised.'

And because they have 'held it up to integrity' is the reason that have to disclose that they would be making a profit in a center that they have always promoted as 'not for profit.'

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128310].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by TCrosby

Saying that they need to disclose that they are going to try and feature some things that will make them money is like saying a business needs to tell you they are going to try to make money from you.

Same thing is done in news reporting every day though. You are acting like something is new. When a company is in a news piece and it has a connection to the company there is disclosure and when theres a review of a product its expected that the reviewer indicates that there are connection between the reviewer and the company whose product is being reviewed.

Google does have an obligation to disclose when they rank a site based on money or their financial gain. they rank and rate sites in a way that is in essence a review saying this is the best fit for what you want with the quality of info you are looking for.

Anyway I've kicked this around enough. The FTC isn't asking anyone permission to do what they are doing so we'll see how it plays out. Its been a good discussion for the most part though.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128630].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

algo (a mathematical equation,

All mathematical equations are algorithms, but not all algorithms are mathematical equations.

Similarly, all dogs are mammals, but all mammals are not dogs.

When explaining what a hyena is, I might say it's a mammal and someone else might say "What's that?"

And I would say "it's like a dog," because a hyena is also like a dog so it will put the right image into your head.

But when someone later says "dolphins are mammals," and you say "dolphins are nothing like dogs," they will stare at you more or less the way I would be staring at you right now if we were in the same room.

The algorithm of a search engine is a mathematical equation in roughly the same way a seven-course banquet is a cow. There were certainly cows involved, but we are not going to walk a herd of cattle into the room for the main course, and the overwhelming majority of the event does not have anything to do with a cow.

Google has convinced the general public that 'organic' is based on 'quality' but when the only 'quality' to factor is if GOOGLE stands to make a profit

But you haven't demonstrated it's a factor.

All you've demonstrated is that Google thinks their own store is the best.

Why would you build something that you thought wasn't the best?

And if you honestly think your store is the best, why would you suggest any other store first?

You're presuming that Google doesn't believe they're telling the truth. It's entirely possible that they're wrong, but that doesn't mean they are lying - and you haven't even demonstrated that they're wrong.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128595].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

So exactly who was full of crap and the guys not getting it?

Anyone who does that, or anything like it, because of the underlying thought process I described.

I am very deliberately not pointing my finger at real people and real events, because it is not productive to do so.

And complaining that I didn't identify who did what when is, amusingly enough, a straw man argument.

Which makes YOU full of crap, by your own rules.

Thank you, drive through.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127748].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

I am very deliberately not pointing my finger at real people and real events, because it is not productive to do so.

And complaining that I didn't identify who did what when is, amusingly enough, a straw man argument.

More straw but feel free to amuse yourself . I wasn't complaining that you didn't identify any particular person . I complained that there are no "you guys" in the entire thread that fit the made up assertion of yours. have the last word on it. I don't have the time to educate you further on fallacious reasoning or on the proper use of pronouns in a sentence clearly addressed to real people.

Originally Posted by tpw

I made that insinuation, because we see every day in the forums people who say that "the only source of traffic that really matters is Google."

Not seeing that at all . Your entire point has been that you should use other sources and no one has claimed they do not exist.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128578].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I wasn't complaining that you didn't identify any particular person . I complained that there are no "you guys" in the entire thread that fit the made up assertion of yours.

Oh, I see.

The problem isn't that you didn't understand my example was not supposed to be something someone actually did...

But that you didn't understand my example was not supposed to be something someone actually did.

Most ignorance is willful.

(Hey, Bill: DID I CALL IT OR WHAT?)

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128637].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Oh, I see.

The problem isn't that you didn't understand my example was not supposed to be something someone actually did...

But that you didn't understand my example was not supposed to be something someone actually did.

Most ignorance is willful.

(Hey, Bill: DID I CALL IT OR WHAT?)

I love it man. its like the emperor with the new clothes brilliance and depth instead of bad language skills.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128798].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

You guys are so not getting it.

You are confusing not wanting to choose with not getting to choose.

Google is the best place to get free traffic through SEO.

There are other places to get traffic.

You can get traffic that is not free.

You can get traffic that is not from SEO.

So when you complain that you can't get traffic without Google, you're full of crap. What you're really complaining is that you don't want to get traffic without Google.

And what you don't want is not Google's problem.

Grow the hell up.

What you are ultimately complaining about is that a company does not want to do business with you.

And your solution to this is to say that this company should be required by law to do business with you.

That cannot be based on the size of the company.

It would have to apply to every company.

And that means when Joe Dipstick serial refunds your products, you can't ban him because you're required by law to do business with him.

When your competitor signs up to your coaching program and rips you off to make his own cheaper inferior coaching program, you can't stop coaching him because you're required by law to do business with him.

When you have the client from hell who abuses and berates you for not being a better service provider, but pays his bills on time, you can't stop taking his orders because you're required by law to do business with him.

You can yell "but that's different!" all you want. From a regulatory standing, no it is not. And if you want those decisions I listed above to stay in your hands, not the government's, then you want them to stay in Google's hands too.

CD,
No... you're not getting... it's not about marketers vs. Google for rankings, traffic, profits.... It's about Google deceiving the public at large by stating that their organics are 'unbiased.' As soon as THEIR products just happen to override the rankings, then it's not 'unbiased at all'. That is deceptive to the public.

Originally Posted by TCrosby

I think there is an aspect to this which no one has yet to broach.

Some people are saying that google is using their platform to push their own stuff. Sure, It is after all their platform. People can use it or not use it. You can then come up with the argument like "people who pay with adwords are getting snubbed if google shows more of their own stuff." Reasonable point...

HOWEVER

It's too bad the government doesn't look at the big picture of where the internet is bringing mankind (I can't expect them to, but I still hate them for it). Google has REVOLUTIONIZED THE INTERNET. Google offers the top product in existence, in several different niches, and it keeps pumping out more. At what cost to the public? FREE.

Now that they have you hooked on believing they're 'THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD' and convinced that you have to do all your searching through THEM to find exactly what you want, and it just happens to be ONLY products THEY stand to make a profit from... the cost to the public... is THE FREEDOM TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES.

I know I'm not willing to pay that price.

I can't remember where, but there is a government in Europe that is pushing the internet as a "natural right" that every citizen should have. Sure, this will most likely just end up in some fees, but what is the ultimate punishment in monopoly investigations? Trying to break companies up. Trying to pick apart the monopoly. I know that realistically that isn't what is going to come of this, but the fact that the government is pursuing something in that line angers me. This is the company that provides the entire world with top of the line search, email, images, calendar, collaborative docs, and more... for free.

Sure Google is going to try and turn a profit. They are a damn business after all. But they provide the entire world with invaluable services for nothing.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127785].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

It's about Google deceiving the public at large by stating that their organics are 'unbiased.'

So you're saying that if Google believes this list of ten things makes a store the best possible thing in the world...

And they set up their search engine to look for those ten things...

And they set up their store to be those ten things...

It is somehow deceptive when their store comes up at the top of the search listings?

Aren't you basically saying that Google should DELIBERATELY make either their search engine or their store worse, just so it doesn't make all the other stores look bad when they aren't as good?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127862].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

So you're saying that if Google believes this list of ten things makes a store the best possible thing in the world...

And they set up their search engine to look for those ten things...

And they set up their store to be those ten things...

It is somehow deceptive when their store comes up at the top of the search listings?

Aren't you basically saying that Google should DELIBERATELY make either their search engine or their store worse, just so it doesn't make all the other stores look bad when they aren't as good?

Well, it certainly is a little fishy that any market that google is in... a search will show that the Google items are the top ones.

So... Google is #1 at everything it does??

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128144].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

Well, it certainly is a little fishy that any market that google is in... a Google search will show that the Google items are the top ones.

Fixed that for you.

So... Google is #1 at everything it does??

Google certainly thinks so.

If you are selling, say, blue widgets... and I say "Where's the best place to buy blue widgets?"... isn't the answer to buy them from you?

No?

Then you are doing a crappy job of selling widgets, and you should do better. You should improve your blue widget selling until that really is the answer.

And when you're doing that, you will improve what is important to you, until in your opinion it has become the answer.

And when it becomes the answer? You had damn well better say it's the answer, or you're giving a crappy answer.

If Google are just working very hard and doing the best job they can possibly do, hey presto it looks just like what you're seeing.

Everyone I've met from Google works very hard and does the best job they can do. They tell me all their colleagues do, too. So when you sit around saying Google must be full of lying, cheating scoundrels... I'm sorry, I just don't see it. There's simply no evidence.

But I've got plenty of personal experience pointing to the idea that they're working very hard and doing the best job they can possibly do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128551].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Fixed that for you.

Google certainly thinks so.

If you are selling, say, blue widgets... and I say "Where's the best place to buy blue widgets?"... isn't the answer to buy them from you?

No?

Then you are doing a crappy job of selling widgets, and you should do better. You should improve your blue widget selling until that really is the answer.

And when you're doing that, you will improve what is important to you, until in your opinion it has become the answer.

And when it becomes the answer? You had damn well better say it's the answer, or you're giving a crappy answer.

If Google are just working very hard and doing the best job they can possibly do, hey presto it looks just like what you're seeing.

Everyone I've met from Google works very hard and does the best job they can do. They tell me all their colleagues do, too. So when you sit around saying Google must be full of lying, cheating scoundrels... I'm sorry, I just don't see it. There's simply no evidence.

But I've got plenty of personal experience pointing to the idea that they're working very hard and doing the best job they can possibly do.

A funny guy I see... A funny guy who is missing the point.

Just because Google THINKS they have the best blue widgets does not mean they actually HAVE the best blue widgets... and that is not really the issue to begin with.

The issue is that Google has, by most definitions, a monopoly on search traffic and they have the ability to abuse that.

Take your blue widgets for instance. It really doesn't matter whether Google has the best blue widgets or if I have the best blue widgets... Google can always put their blue widget site in the #1 spot whether they are the best or if they are actually to worst. I do not have the ability to do that. That in itself makes it a conflict of interest for Google.

Even if the organic results are 100% unbiased and Google should actually have the #1 spot for blue widgets, it is still anti-competitive... Google knows the exact formula they use to rank websites and I do not. I will never be able to outrank Google because they have insider knowledge.

That is textbook violation of antitrust law.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128984].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

Just because Google THINKS they have the best blue widgets does not mean they actually HAVE the best blue widgets

But all Google's search results are what Google THINKS, not some sort of vast cosmic truth.

The issue is that Google has, by most definitions, a monopoly on search traffic

That's kind of like saying the highway has a monopoly on commuter traffic. There are plenty of smaller roads, but most commuters prefer not to use them. The commuters will still be able to get to work if the highway is closed... they just don't want to.

And the highway does not produce or provide the traffic, either. It just happens, because people like the highway. Blaming the highway for how much people like it is just stupid.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4129228].message }}

TCrosby 14 years ago

First of all DanielleS, by quoting me and inserting your own statements in bold, you misrepresent me to anyone who reads your post without reading my post first.

I am not "Hooked on believing they're the best thing in the world." I am a computer science major currently working for Amazon. I understand the industry. I understand "Do no evil" means crap. Regardless, they provide billions will amazing services for free.

What YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, is that google has no divine calling to be the search engine from heaven who seeks no profit of their own and serves the people at their own expense. Their home page doesn't say "These results are 100% guaranteed to be the absolute most relevant results, displayed in the simplest manner, with nothing intruding on your path between searching and finding the result you want." They have no obligation to do that. They are neither imposing the burden on themselves by claiming such, nor are they obligated to by any rules or regulations of the government. They are a business. It is that simple. T

Let me draw a comparison for you. If comcast is your internet service provider, they set your homepage to comcast.net. It doesn't have to be, and it is not part of your contract. However, on comcast.net, they will host search, email, and also have options to upgrade to their other products, such as television, or the comcast triple-play. This is essentially what google is doing, but Google not charging you a contract. Instead of getting monthly payments from you, Google advertises for others or for themselves, so that they can stay in business. The end.

Caliban DOES get it.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127881].message }}

enterpryzman

14 years ago

This is an unfortunate series of claims being made and google will prevail, I would assure you they will prevail, as they should......end of story.

Keep in mind that even those who openly talk here on WF about how to charge and what prices they are charging are in clear violation of FTC rules, the same rules and that is as crazy all the same.

Enterpryzman

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127554].message }}

TCrosby

14 years ago

And let's make one more thing clear.

Google was not made to help the "internet marketing" community in our sense of the word internet marketing.

For the people saying "we make google what it is": get real.

The only "marketing" that google was made for is companies and adwords.

Any intermediary like us is just a fly to google. We didn't make them. In many ways we "abuse/use/exploit" the system.

Sure if we make great content, then we our success in google's rankings might be deserved, but ultimately Google is there to bring searches to destinations that make them happy. If warrior didn't exist, searchers would just get to the end by other means than our websites. Might our "good content" be helpful? Sure, but it's not essential. They don't need us, never did, and don't trick yourself into thinking otherwise.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127578].message }}

John Romaine

14 years ago

This is certainly interesting.

Was looking at buying a Blue Yeti Microphone just recently and guess what's first result?

Google Products.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127707].message }}

Kay King 14 years ago

A year or two of investigation...leaks...charges...attempts to negotiate....maybe court....more negotiations. Enough discussions to sink a mid-sized island.

Wouldn't it be rich if in the end Google must place a disclaimer on its search results? Man, that'd show'em. "objects in the rear view mirror may be..." sung to the tune "search results shown on this page may not be quite as they appear".
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4127750].message }}

Roaddog

14 years ago

9/10 of the people on this thread are arguing points that have absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

Why they are being investigated.

edit: whoops my fault put the wrong one in. anyway my point still stands

An investigation would focus on whether Google search is unfairly driving traffic to its other sites.

Those companies said that Google's anticompetitive practices include using other companies' content without their permission, deceptive display of search results, manipulation of search results to favor Google's products, and buying up competitive threats to its dominance.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128135].message }}

TCrosby

14 years ago

Please show me what makes it their legal obligation to not include their own item at the top and I will pay heed to what you are saying.

I understand it doesn't fall in line with their "motto," but that doesn't mean anything legally

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128388].message }}

VanessaB 14 years ago

How about the 'insider trading laws' that keep Wall Street in line?
- Thanks
Signature

The Recon Report
Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128410].message }}

BlakeM

14 years ago

The only google products/services that should appear as the first result are the ones that actually deserve to be there. If it's just there for them to make money then it should appear in the paid advertising section not organic results.

But the fact is, google will probably end up continuing to do wherever they want because it brings in boatloads of cash. Sad, but true!

Thanks

Signature

Fact About Dreams
^^^
Control Your Dreams! (Lucid Dreaming)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4128936].message }}

HigherPrThanGod

14 years ago

I suppose my way of looking at it is this.

Google can be as biased as they want with search results.

However, if they commit fraud then it'd be up to the ad words buyer to bring charges.

That's how I look at it. It doesnt take a genius that the government would like to have agents stationed at all major search engines and ISP's lol

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

http://amazonpcbuilder.com/

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4129145].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by HigherPrThanGod

Google can be as biased as they want with search results.

As I am sure you already know, Google will always be biased.

They set up their algorithms to display the types of results that "management" believes will best represent their product.

Every week, often every day, they make tweaks and changes to the algorithm to push some websites down in the results and other websites up in the results.

Often, there is unintended collateral damage, but that is not their concern. They are trying to "improve" the listings, based on what Google's management believes will improve the overall output, based on their own biases and goals.

Staffers in Matt Cutts group dig through the search results looking for anomalies and results that they do not want to see in the listings, then they try to figure out how to remove the bad stuff without damaging the good stuff.

They are not always successful in not hurting the good stuff. But as long as the change introduces more positive change than negative change, they will roll-out the change throughout the network.

Every single tweak to the algorithm introduces more of their bias into the output that their computing systems deliver.

Anyone who believes that Google "is" or "should be" unbiased doesn't understand the first thing about how search engines are actually designed and built.

Originally Posted by gefflong

A funny guy I see... A funny guy who is missing the point.

Just because Google THINKS they have the best blue widgets does not mean they actually HAVE the best blue widgets... and that is not really the issue to begin with.

The issue is that Google has, by most definitions, a monopoly on search traffic and they have the ability to abuse that.

Take your blue widgets for instance. It really doesn't matter whether Google has the best blue widgets or if I have the best blue widgets... Google can always put their blue widget site in the #1 spot whether they are the best or if they are actually to worst. I do not have the ability to do that. That in itself makes it a conflict of interest for Google.

Even if the organic results are 100% unbiased and Google should actually have the #1 spot for blue widgets, it is still anti-competitive... Google knows the exact formula they use to rank websites and I do not. I will never be able to outrank Google because they have insider knowledge.

That is textbook violation of antitrust law.

Having the ability and exercising the ability are two different things.

Unless the Minority Report is now all the rage, people should be condemned for their actions, not their ability to do something terrible.

I have the capability to kill my children, and sometimes the thought crosses my mind

, but unless I actually do it, you cannot put me in prison for it.

I think you are among those actually missing part of the point as well.

I believe that Applebee's is the "best" restaurant in my hometown. And my wife believes that the Japanese restaurant is the "best" restaurant in my hometown.

That does not mean that I am right and my wife is wrong, or vice versa. It just means that we determine "best" based on our own considerations of what we consider important.

"Best" is a subjective analysis that is always based on individual preferences and biases.

How do you know that Google's other properties are not "best" according to the biases programmed into their algorithms?

You don't.

You are simply "assuming" that if their properties show up near the top of Google's organic results, that they MUST be doing something wrong, unfair, or illegal.

Google can always put their blue widget site in the #1 spot whether they are the best or if they are actually to worst. I do not have the ability to do that.

You are not powerless to outrank a Google website. Anyone can do it, if they can manipulate (SEO) how the Google algorithm sees their website.

People can outrank a Google property. I have seen it done, although I did not screenshot it when I saw it, so I cannot prove it now.

Ask anyone who has ever done SEO professionally, and you will hear stories from people who aren't interested in playing the "victim".

I don't hear anyone crying, in this thread, about how "I" can outrank them in Google, because I have learned how to manipulate Google. No one is complaining about how "Mike" helps his clients outrank their competitors in Google.

We also have an "unfair" advantage over you, because we know how to manipulate Google to our own advantage too.

"Best" is subjective, and so is "unfair".

Google has never been 100%, or any other percentage, unbiased.

The entire algorithm has been built on the biases of Google managers.

The only part of Google's natural results that are "unbiased" is that they claim that they let all of their websites sink or swim in the algorithms the same as your site does.

I for one believe them. You don't.

You believe they are guilty, and you welcome prosecution because you believe they are guilty of a "textbook violation of antitrust law".

You have made it more than clear that you believe they are guilty, because they have the capability to be guilty.

I still believe in "innocent until proven guilty." You and others have already condemned them to guilt.

Does Google really have the "best" results or the "most relevant" results?

Well, that depends on who you ask.

Google management hopes that each individual decides that their organic listings are the "best" and "most relevant", but every individual decides that for themselves.

And if the individual decides that Google is not the "best" or "most relevant", they are free to go use the competition, and more people are starting to move to the competition. Google has lost nearly 10 points of market share since the roll-out of Caffeine.

Clearly, Bing is starting to make inroads on Google's market share.

As to the claims of "anti-competitive", the only area where people claim Google is anti-competitive is on the Google website.

I am anti-competitive on my websites too, and I am sure you don't link to your competitors either...

You say that they are anti-competitive, but if you search for Google on Google, they will show you some of their competitors in the left sidebar. If you don't believe me, test it.

When Microsoft was taken to task for anti-trust violations, they were trying to force OEM manufacturers to carry their software on all systems, or not be able to get the Windows operating system.

They were trying to use their market share to crush choice in the marketplace.

Google is not guilty of that kind of behavior at all. They simply allow their own websites to compete with the world in their "organic" listings, i.e. free advertising slots in the "content" part of their website.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131648].message }}

Robert Puddy

14 years ago

any company can do what they like in thier own business to increase their market share...until they become so big that just farting will kill other people business

At that point they are subject to different rules

The FTC are just bringing google down to a size where their farts wont kill people

That seems like a senesible thing to do

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Testing and tracking is a great way to give yourself a pay raise & itâ€™s easier than ever with hitsconnect

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4129201].message }}

TCrosby

14 years ago

This is the equivalent of us putting upsells in a free product.

And then having people bitch and whine that "Omg your product tricked me into paying for something" or "Omg you recomended your own upsell as opposed to someone else's product."

This is stupid. We put a disclaimer of potential earnings somewhere in our site. Should google do that? Sure. Do they probably already have one somewhere? Probably. This is trivial.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4130803].message }}

zerofill

14 years ago

It actually doesn't shock me in the least that this is coming up. What actually shocks me is it took that long lol.

Now do I think Google basically has the right to do whatever it wants with their search results? Basically yes...

Do I think they favor other companies and manipulate their own rankings of some sites not purely based on algorithm alone? yeah... no doubt they do.

But what comes into play is... I think FTC wants to claim that Google has the power to make or break a business online, and to change the way large numbers of people actually think.

So once you become that powerful in comes the Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." deal...

So the FTC wants to find out if they are abusing their power now.

one part of me says... They have the right to abuse it all they want because people are not stuck with Google as the only alternative for search results.

But then again...

Google has tried to become the common thread by which the vast majority of ways you find things on the internet have something to do with them in some manner.

I would think it is a fact that the highest percentage of people that use the internet are not techies of any sort. They only know so many ways to find things on the internet. pretty much it boils down to going to yahoo/bing or Google. They may also find something on a a social site that someone else found on yahoo/bing or Google lol.

Now when you start making it where your search is powering mobile devices, it is in physical search appliances that corporations use and incorporate in their intranets, it is powering toolbars, installed via software with chrome, etc... You start gaining power to actually have the ability to change the way people think. By providing them the information you want them to see and blackballing the other info out there.

This is something I said years ago... That Google was going to start making people see what they wanted them to see. The open source goody goody Google isn't the real agenda here. But it is hard to go into what I think the agenda is without sounding like a nut conspiracy theorist lol.

But I think that is what the FTC is looking at... Google having the ability to sway government elections, building up their joint venture business partners by giving them the edge in search results, pushing video via YouTube, etc... etc... etc... In the end actually being in the big boys club that controls our government anyway... We all know our U.S. government is controlled in large by the big corporations. Google wants in the club...

If Google was still just a simple search engine that wasn't entwined in virtually everything anymore. They would leave them alone...

Now they are more powerful then the FTC and the people that sent the FTC after them feel comfortable with. Just like Facebook will be hounded by the FTC soon as well.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Serp Shaker
The IM World Will Be Shaken to the Core!
Join my list at: IMCool.Biz
New Podcast --> podcast.imcool.biz

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131024].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by zerofill

Google has tried to become the common thread by which the vast majority of ways you find things on the internet have something to do with them in some manner.

As marketers, isn't that the kind of thing we all dream of?

People coming to our site more often to buy more of our stuff?

Google has positioned themselves well, and succeeded in becoming a household name like: Coke, Pepsi, Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, Ford, Toyota, NBC, Fox, and American Airlines.

The Google brand is synonymous with the Internet and search.

I agree with most of what you have said Don.

I just find it baffling that so many marketers want to kick Google in the balls, just because Google has become so successful.

In the outside world, I would not be so surprised. But this is a forum for marketers dammit.

It is sort of like I have always said:

People don't play, "Let's keep up with the Joneses." Instead, more people are concerned with,"'How do we keep the Joneses down to our level."

Many of the people posting in this thread are celebrating Google getting smacked by the Feds.

They are not celebrating because they know that Google has done wrong. They are celebrating because they think Google has too much power in the market place.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131752].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Bill, let's talk about search results since we're on the subject.

Being semi retired, lately I am more a customer than a seller. In fact, I do a
ton of searching on Google.

Know what I find in the majority of my searches outside of entertainment?
(IMDB, TV.com, Wiki, etc.)

Most of the top results DON'T give me what I am looking for.

In fact, I'm left scratching my head wondering..."Is this the best that's out there?"

So if Google is indeed giving us the most relevant results, I have to wonder
just how good their service is in the first place.

Because for me, way too often, it sucks big time.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131788].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Know what I find in the majority of my searches outside of entertainment?
(IMDB, TV.com, Wiki, etc.)

Most of the top results DON'T give me what I am looking for.

In fact, I'm left scratching my head wondering..."Is this the best that's out there?"

So if Google is indeed giving us the most relevant results, I have to wonder
just how good their service is in the first place.

Because for me, way too often, it sucks big time.

Steve: "Best" and "most relevant" are subjective statements, as defined by the person saying them.

I am with you. If I did not have the Google toolbar installed, I probably would never use them.

In my own subjective opinion, I have felt that Bing has delivered more relevant results for a long time.

But we are still in the minority of the global population.

p.s. In case you are confused, I am defending Google on principle alone.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131858].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

This is all quite amazing. Chicken little is on the loose but has yet to present a stitch of evidence that the sky is falling.

Where's the bias in google results?

Are paid ads proof of bias? Well, for the person who can't distinguish between ads and content, maybe. But who's fault is that? All ads are identified aren't they?

Are there shenanigans within the organic results? Show me.

Do you think that shopping results appearing high on the list is proof of bias and manipulation? Well, sure, that's manipulated, but if the search terms indicate a desire to shop, is that improper manipulation?

Finally, if you honestly believe that google is doing something in an underhanded way, can you show me that bing is not doing the same thing?

Just for fun, and in an effort to see what chicken little is crying about, I tried a few simple searches.

Music: music - Google Search=

Oh no! Could it be? Google let Yahoo take the top spot?!!! Well someone's gonna get canned for that! Or maybe... no, it can't be...
can it? Is this some sort of collusion? A ploy to keep the regulators at bay?

And this one is really fun...

Online advertising: online advertising - Google Search=

Wow! Did google plaster the top results with adwords promotions? Take a look and judge for yourself.

I can't help but think that chicken little's sky is falling because he can't get his site on page one.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131947].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

This is all quite amazing. Chicken little is on the loose but has yet to present a stitch of evidence that the sky is falling.

Where's the bias in google results?

Are paid ads proof of bias? Well, for the person who can't distinguish between ads and content, maybe. But who's fault is that? All ads are identified aren't they?

Are there shenanigans within the organic results? Show me.

Do you think that shopping results appearing high on the list is proof of bias and manipulation? Well, sure, that's manipulated, but if the search terms indicate a desire to shop, is that improper manipulation?

Finally, if you honestly believe that google is doing something in an underhanded way, can you show me that bing is not doing the same thing?

Just for fun, and in an effort to see what chicken little is crying about, I tried a few simple searches.

Music: music - Google Search=

Oh no! Could it be? Google let Yahoo take the top spot?!!! Well someone's gonna get canned for that! Or maybe... no, it can't be...
can it? Is this some sort of collusion? A ploy to keep the regulators at bay?

And this one is really fun...

Online advertising: online advertising - Google Search=

Wow! Did google plaster the top results with adwords promotions? Take a look and judge for yourself.

I can't help but think that chicken little's sky is falling because he can't get his site on page one.

LOL

YouTube is #4 on the "music" search.

And Google is #10 in the "online advertising" search. But Google did buy into the Paid Listings at #4 in the paid results!!

Murphy's Law maybe?

"When a theory about unfair bias could go wrong, it usually will?"

... proving the bias of the Google haters ...

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132013].message }}

Steven Wagenheim 14 years ago

Well, I've read both sides of this argument, yet again. Caliban, I especially
like your take on it as well as the search examples you came up with. It's hard
to argue with cold, hard facts.

So where do I stand?

Back in the old days (yes, I'm old) Bell Telephone was the only game in town.
In fact, I don't even know if there WAS another phone service in our area.

But we were fine with it because the service was good. I never had any
real problems and the prices were more than reasonable.

Then came the Bell/AT&T breakup.

Today, my phone bill looks like my old rent bill.

WTF?

Deregulation certainly hasn't helped my phone service any. In fact, I'd say
it's worse now than it was years ago. I can't tell you how many dropped
calls I get or calls I don't even receive because I'm in some kind of "dead"
zone.

What does this have to do with Google?

I'm already at that stage where I feel that things can't get any worse.

They've essentially made it so that I can forget about relying on anything
to do with traffic in the MMO niche because of their outright war against
MMO sites and programs. YouTube slammed my account months before the
actual hammer fell recently. Adwords? I won't even go there. My account
was slapped silly so long ago, I don't even remember was Adwords looks like.

And I'm one of the good guys who always played by the rules.

So what did it get me?

At least with Bell Telephone, I had good service. That's a monopoly I
wish they had let alone.

Over time, Google's abuse of power (forgetting about whether it's legal or
not) is only going to get worse.

As I said previously, my only hope is that karma will catch up to them and
they'll lose enough market share to make them reconsider their business
model.

Until then, I'm going to bow out of the legal/illegal debate because I'm not
a lawyer, and as I said earlier, both sides make good points.

Personally, I hate Google, and therefore I am biased. But that hatred has
nothing to do with whether or not they should be fined, regulated or
whatever.

I'm just going to leave that to the folks who know what they're doing.

I'm assuming that somewhere in this messed up world, they still exist.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132690].message }}

zerofill

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

As marketers, isn't that the kind of thing we all dream of?

People coming to our site more often to buy more of our stuff?

I wasn't condemning them for it... I was basically just trying to get across what the FTC and the powers that be are probably thinking...

Heh, I don't condemn anything they have done as far as marketing goes. If I was in their spot I would do the same damn thing lol.

Just trying to state where I think it all comes from as far as them being looked at under a magnifying glass now.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Serp Shaker
The IM World Will Be Shaken to the Core!
Join my list at: IMCool.Biz
New Podcast --> podcast.imcool.biz

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132036].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by zerofill

I wasn't condemning them for it... I was basically just trying to get across what the FTC and the powers that be are probably thinking...

Heh, I don't condemn anything they have done as far as marketing goes. If I was in their spot I would do the same damn thing lol.

Just trying to state where I think it all comes from as far as them being looked at under a magnifying glass now.

I realize that Don.

I understood what you was doing, and was not disagreeing with you.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132049].message }}

dagaul101

14 years ago

I think Google will probably get out of this relatively scot free, Google has always played it well with the authorities

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4131854].message }}

enterpryzman

14 years ago

This is actually starting to be a funny thread.......several quite obviously have never dealt with nor do they understand the FTC, time to wake up because they can pretty much move in on a company ( not as big as Google ) and completely crush them with fines and legal problems.

This is not fiction, it is a fact. I would also suggest that many whom go out of business in this way truly did nothing wrong.

I deal with the FTC in my industry and one big problem is that they empower other enforcement divisions to police their regulation in some area's. In other words, if you require some type of license and your state regulatory board inspects your place of business or comes in to check your license or anything, they are asked by the FTC to "look" for possible violations and report them.

I fully understand this is not the case with Google, I am simply adding this because unless you fully understand the power they have it is impossible to grasp what can happen especially to small or mid-sized companies who are not able to afford to fight them.

LMAO,
Enterpryzman

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132040].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by enterpryzman

This is actually starting to be a funny thread.......several quite obviously have never dealt with nor do they understand the FTC, time to wake up because they can pretty much move in on a company ( not as big as Google ) and completely crush them with fines and legal problems.

This is not fiction, it is a fact. I would also suggest that many whom go out of business in this way truly did nothing wrong.

I deal with the FTC in my industry and one big problem is that they empower other enforcement divisions to police their regulation in some area's. In other words, if you require some type of license and your state regulatory board inspects your place of business or comes in to check your license or anything, they are asked by the FTC to "look" for possible violations and report them.

I fully understand this is not the case with Google, I am simply adding this because unless you fully understand the power they have it is impossible to grasp what can happen especially to small or mid-sized companies who are not able to afford to fight them.

LMAO,
Enterpryzman

I am sure you are not laughing at me, but if you are, you must have skimmed my previous posts.

I have basically said exactly what you just did, twice in this thread.

I do not know of a single case where the company investigated was not found guilty by the FTC. Someone was telling me yesterday it happens, but they could not show me case history to back up that assertion.

As I have heard it, the FTC never makes mistakes. So if they decide the investigate someone, that person/entity is guilty.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132070].message }}

Cali16 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

As I have heard it, the FTC never makes mistakes.

A U.S. government agency that never makes mistakes...?!!

(No disrespect towards you, Bill, but that really struck me as funny!)
- Thanks
Signature
If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4133173].message }}

BlakeM

14 years ago

I agree that websites should be able to add what they want to their website (if is legal) but not in googles case. The advertising spots are googles "upsells"!!

Organic search results should be relevant to what Google "thinks" should come up. Which, if they weren't bias, would not always be their products.

If putting their services/products at the top of organic search is comparable to an upsell than that's like promising a product/service and then say, oh by the way, you have to read this/ do this first before you get what I promised you'd get right away.

Thanks

Signature

Fact About Dreams
^^^
Control Your Dreams! (Lucid Dreaming)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4132858].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

What a bunch of &$·%·$&!

Google is a BUSINESS, and as such they promote their PRODUCTS, just like we all do!

No one forces anyone to use Google over Bing, Yahoo, etc. If you CHOOSE to use Google, you understand that you'll be exposed to Google's products. Guess what? if you visit my website, you will be exposed to my products too!

Don't like it? use Bing instead of Google. Problem solved.

This anti-trust crap is ridiculous. Why does the FTC have the need to "protect us poor dumb citizens" from problems that don't exist?

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134172].message }}

ajspencersolutions

14 years ago

Can anyone say New World Order?

Thanks

Signature

Get FREE List Building Help Here
90% Of IM'ers Fail. Why? 90% Of Im'ers Don't Build A Good Email List. Learn the Golden Rule of Internet Marketing And Join The Successful 10%.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134306].message }}

ajspencersolutions

14 years ago

You know what people screw Google and Bing and Yahoo. I'm going to keep building my list and get as much traffic as I want from my list. How's that for " up yours" to the search engines. And how much money does one need really? once you reach a certain point its like having a big dic* contest. whooo hooo look at mine. Who The F*** Cares?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Get FREE List Building Help Here
90% Of IM'ers Fail. Why? 90% Of Im'ers Don't Build A Good Email List. Learn the Golden Rule of Internet Marketing And Join The Successful 10%.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134333].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by ajspencersolutions

You know what people screw Google and Bing and Yahoo. I'm going to keep building my list and get as much traffic as I want from my list. How's that for " up yours" to the search engines. And how much money does one need really? once you reach a certain point its like having a big dic* contest. whooo hooo look at mine. Who The F*** Cares?

AJ,
I couldn't agree with you more. You know, I used to think that the "Doctor God Complex" was unrivaled, but now I think the Marketers have them beat by a mile.

Here's the thing: This investigation is not about US... it's not about MARKETERS...

It's about 'the general public' whose only dog in the fight is that they have a right to be disclosed of Google's true agenda.

Anyone who expects the 'general public' to 'know better' has no concept of the feudalistic society that can and will be created when any organization (government, corporation) has the right to deceive you into believing that they are an unbiased, altruistic resource of information, when information they show serves any agenda of their own, and blocks other information and education in pursuit of that agenda.

I would call that 'thought engineering.'

Feudalistic societies survived by depriving people of information and education.

Some people thought for themselves, and eventually enough of them organized to escape that feudalism.

When organizations try to block a society of people from thinking for themselves, the organization can and will become that feudal lord.

-Dani

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134418].message }}

SerpSmasher

14 years ago

Finally this happens! im sick of googles crap, but at the same time, google has alot of money and power. so its far from over!

Thanks

Signature

Articles any niche! 50 Articles for $30 PM ME!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4134516].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

The only entities that have a right to tell me what to present on my websites are law-makers.

They tell me by statute what kind of content is acceptable on my website, and I must present my content within the constraints of their rules, or else face the consequences.

I accept this, and that is not my complaint.

When I said that "no one can tell me what to put on my website", I was thinking about DanielleS, Joe Schmoe, Jane Doe, Joe Blow, or any marketer who complains that I don't give them enough free advertising on my website.

I am still bound by what my residential jurisdiction lawmakers have to say is acceptable on my website.

My issue with the FTC is that it appears that anyone who gets investigated will be found guilty, even if there is evidence that would exonerate that person in a normal court of law.

For someone who rants about the excesses of specific government agencies in the State of Florida, I find it hard to believe that you are willing to give a pass to the FTC for its excesses.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter how you cut it. But any government agency who is never wrong is prone to the same kinds of abuses that they have been assigned to protect us from.

If ever you find yourself in the cross-hairs of the FTC, you might think that you have "proof of innocence" that will allow you to avoid conviction. But any lawyer who has defended someone in FTC proceedings will assure you that your "proof of innocence" will not save your ass...

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135034].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

The only entities that have a right to tell me what to present on my websites are law-makers.

They tell me by statute what kind of content is acceptable on my website, and I must present my content within the constraints of their rules, or else face the consequences.

I accept this, and that is not my complaint.

When I said that "no one can tell me what to put on my website", I was thinking about DanielleS, Joe Schmoe, Jane Doe, Joe Blow, or any Warrior who complains that I don't give them enough free advertising on my website.

I am still bound by what my residential jurisdiction lawmakers have to say is acceptable on my website.

My issue with the FTC is that it appears that anyone who gets investigated will be found guilty, even if there is evidence that would exonerate that person in a normal court of law.

For someone who rants about the excesses of specific government agencies in the State of Florida, I find it hard to believe that you are willing to give a pass to the FTC for its excesses.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter how you cut it. But any government agency who is never wrong is prone to the same kinds of abuses that they have been assigned to protect us from.

If ever you find yourself in the cross-hairs of the FTC, you might think that you have "proof of innocence" that will allow you to avoid conviction. But any lawyer who has defended someone in FTC proceedings will assure you that your "proof of innocence" will not save your ass...

Bill,
Ok, one by one...

The only entities that have a right to tell me what to present on my websites are law-makers.

Uh.... no... so does Law ENFORCEMENT, COURTS, JUDGES, and JURIES!

The laws tell you more than just 'what kind of content' you can display.

The laws also tell you what kind of business practices you must adhere to.

Accusing ME of claiming that it's about free advertising on anyone's site proves that you're only skimming my posts...and makes me question whether you skim everything I write.

I have stated repeatedly and very vocally in this thread and outside of it, that I do not believe that anyone is 'entitled' to free advertising. Hell, Bill, I shout that from every podium I get up on and you are in the audience of most of them. You should know better than to keep insinuating that I in any way believe that anyone should be looking at the 'entitlement' mindset that suggests my problem is with rankings.

Or is that just your 'smoke and mirrors' misdirection from what my position actually is?

That borders on insulting Bill, and it's arrogant on your part.

Now, again, as to the FTC... you want them to investigate no one because you think they persecute anyone... You want Google to have 'due process' and not be 'convicted' without proof, but you don't want to give the FTC the benefit of that same due process.

You imply that you believe the FTC to be corrupt.

And by that belief, you think that Google, and any other business, should be allowed to be corrupt because the only authority they have is too corrupt to oversee it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Bill.

Now, as to my personal beliefs on excessive government interference...

The operative word is 'personal'. Just because I don't agree with certain laws, it doesn't give me the right to break those laws.

The fact is, the laws are there.

My personal feelings were outnumbered and outvoted. And now the law is there and must be adhered to.

If you want to change the law, that's a different conversation altogether.
And one I am more than willing to have...

But until that conversation is had and that law is changed, I must adhere to what the law is, and so must you, and so must Google.

And until the FTC prosecutes itself (that's sarcasm) or the general public finally does it, they are the authority meant to enforce that law, and the public relies on them to do so.

You keep insisting this is any way about you, marketers, websites, free advertising, rankings...

But it's not about any of those things. It's about the 'general public.'

-Dani

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135754].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Bill,
In response to your post #200 (too long to quote)

I will say that I see the validity of all your points...

BUT this... you are not attempting to imply in any 'part' of your website is not for your own profit.

Google attempts to imply that 'organics' are not about their profit, through the use of words and phrases like "integrity, most relevant, for users, and the mantra that paid search is separate from organic to maintain the integrit of organic'.

In response to post #203

No. Anti-trust laws were created to protect the public from those entities who desired to crush all competition in the marketplace, through any means necessary.

Anti-trust laws were not designed to keep good companies down.

When the FTC was created in 1914, its purpose was to prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce as part of the battle to “bust the trusts.”

Over the years, Congress passed additional laws giving the agency greater authority to police anti-competitive practices.

In 1938, Congress passed a broad prohibition against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Since then, the Commission also has been directed to administer a wide variety of other consumer protection laws, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Pay-Per-Call Rule and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

In 1975, Congress gave the FTC the authority to adopt industry-wide trade regulation rules.

Source

No. Anti-trust laws were created to protect the public from those entities who desired to crush all competition in the marketplace, through any means necessary

The first reference I can find to antitrust laws was from 1890

Later...

Over the years, Congress passed additional laws giving the agency greater authority to police anti-competitive practices.

In 1938, Congress passed a broad prohibition against “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.” Since then, the Commission also has been directed to administer a wide variety of other consumer protection laws, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Pay-Per-Call Rule and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

I would say that: crush all competition in the marketplace, through any means necessary, includes engaging in "unfair and and deceptive acts or practices"

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135794].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Google outright says that 'organics' are not about their profit

Fixed that for you.

So let's make this nice and sparkling clear.

Google says something is NOT true.

You don't believe them.

So... what? They're not allowed to say anything you don't believe?
- Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135810].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

You keep insisting this is any way about you, marketers, websites, free advertising, rankings...

But it's not about any of those things. It's about the 'general public.'

-Dani

Yes, I do believe the FTC is sometimes corrupt. LOL (I can back my opinion on this with examples, but that would distract the overall conversation.)

And you keep insisting that Google is corrupt - even when shown evidence that contradicts your claims. You are willing to leave the investigation to the FTC, confident in the idea that "justice will be served."

Lynch mob justice wasn't right in the 1800's, and it is not right today. Lynch mobs have never delivered real justice, and the FTC also will not deliver real justice in this case.

The FTC will do its investigation. Google will be charged with improprieties, and a dog and pony show will be served up for the American public to consume.

Right or wrong will not have any bearing in the outcome.

Google will be fined. It will pay its fine. Then it will go forward.

Google will survive the FTC investigation, get a black eye in public opinion, marketers will cheer about how the "big, bad Google" got its come-up-ance, Google's competitors will froth from their mouths in hopes of benefiting from the Google smack, and life will go on.

As to your charge of me "skimming" your posts. Anyone who has ever watched us cuss and discuss with each other knows that you always skim. And you have probably skimmed most of my excellent comments in this thread too... Think about this... Kettle... Black...

Regarding my twisting your words, your words are so twisted already that some of us wonder if you skim your own posts too, when you are trying to follow the logic of your own arguments.

Arrogant? Yes, some people believe I am. Confidence is often mistaken for arrogance.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135867].message }}

Laurie Rogers 14 years ago

Dani, don't forget you're dealing with stubborn men ... sorry guys, anyway, it's an interesting read you all have kept on going.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135897].message }}
Laurie Rogers 14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Yes, I do believe the FTC is sometimes corrupt. LOL (I can back my opinion on this with examples, but that would distract the overall conversation.)

They're all corrupt, someone's always in bed with someone else or sending people pics of themselves in their underwear or having illegitimate children or lying about having sexual acts performed on them or accepting *cough* bribes *cough* errr I mean "donations" for political campaigns and not claiming them... and I could go on and on. Do I believe the FTC is doing us all a big favor in this scenario? Nope not at all, but hey you gotta make it look good so that funding keeps a rollin in.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135921].message }}

enterpryzman

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

The only entities that have a right to tell me what to present on my websites are law-makers.

They tell me by statute what kind of content is acceptable on my website, and I must present my content within the constraints of their rules, or else face the consequences.

I accept this, and that is not my complaint.

When I said that "no one can tell me what to put on my website", I was thinking about DanielleS, Joe Schmoe, Jane Doe, Joe Blow, or any marketer who complains that I don't give them enough free advertising on my website.

I am still bound by what my residential jurisdiction lawmakers have to say is acceptable on my website.

My issue with the FTC is that it appears that anyone who gets investigated will be found guilty, even if there is evidence that would exonerate that person in a normal court of law.

For someone who rants about the excesses of specific government agencies in the State of Florida, I find it hard to believe that you are willing to give a pass to the FTC for its excesses.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter how you cut it. But any government agency who is never wrong is prone to the same kinds of abuses that they have been assigned to protect us from.

If ever you find yourself in the cross-hairs of the FTC, you might think that you have "proof of innocence" that will allow you to avoid conviction. But any lawyer who has defended someone in FTC proceedings will assure you that your "proof of innocence" will not save your ass...

I will say that you DO understand how the FTC works, I promise everyone that you are correct in these statements.

Enterpryzman

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135908].message }}

azmanar

14 years ago

Hi,

About the G-FTC situation, I think we already have all that we need to know being explained well by most Warriors in this thread.

I classify public perception towards G into 4.

Public perception (1) : reinforced after G SERPs gave them what they want. They seemed to be easily satisfied with G SERPs or they really got what they want.

Unfortunately, I'm one of those who never got the sort of results I want from Google. And I ... NEVER... got any satisfactory result even after the PANDA UPDATE, which is supposedly to give better relevancy to users.

Instead, I get better results from Bing and Yahoo. A search in Wikipedia, About and other portals gave me better results. Maybe it's just me.

Public perception (2) : It is common for people easily satisfied with G SERPs to talk to their friends as well about G.

This must be viral marketing. Even if their friends were not into using G a lot for their work and play, they tend to believe what friends say. It is like an endorsement. And then they pass this on to others. Friends, friends of friends and friends of friends of friends etc etc.

If I were to use the 80:20 theory, I would say 80% of those who say G gives good SERPs are not really G users. They are friends of friends. Only 20 % are hardcore users.

Public perception (3) : if G gives good SERPs then other G apps must be good too.

I'd say this group of people as major G enthusiasts. They dig many G apps and make full use of them. Whatever results G apps and tools give, are considered as defacto standards for them. They linked everything between apps with a single login. G is the world.

And these are the most vulnerable people much affected by G when she decides to dance, change or drop anything. G-loving IM'ers mostly will be affected.

Public perception (4) : G is becoming a monster just like others before it. We know how it goes. Get them hooked in large numbers. Get them addicted. Suck as much money from them. Then do whatever you want with them.

What is really going on in the Search Market?

The recent SE Competition shows that G control 60% of the Search Market in the US. And Bing is climbing fast and growing, faster than Yahoo.

But Europeans seems to be in love with G. 90% searches in Spain uses G. Other Euro folks 70% to 80%. Maybe their local searches bring about more relevant results than the US. Bing and Yahoo is also munching their way up.

Play Safe

1. Spread the risks. Avoid putting all the eggs in 1 basket. If G caused you to accidentally drop the basket, much will be broken.

2. Get out of the G cave sometimes. Get some fresh air. Expand your horizon. The world is bigger outside.

3. Marriage is a 2-way deal. So don't marry yourself to G. She can kick you out anytime she wants. Ban you forever.

4. Don't waste your time trying to support G against FTC. She's clever and cunning enough for anything. G don't even need your help at all.

5. THE LAW OF SUCCESS says. " Success often leads to arrogance, and arrogance to failure. ". If you see the symptom of arrogance, failure is imminent. And if you're in that tunnel, get out fast. Time to pay more attention to a couple of alternatives.

Thanks

Signature

=== >>> Tomorrow Should Be Better Than Today

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135413].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

On my next website, I am going to give FREE advertising to millions of websites. The FREE advertisements for those millions of websites will be my content.

The challenge is, "How to organize that content?"

People could never load a page with millions of listings on it, so I will need to find a way to sort the information into smaller sub-sets.

I may even need to sort the content into categories somehow, since Internet users tend to want content categorized by their interests. The more relevant I can make the display of my content to the interests of my users, the more successful I will be with my business.

Every day, I will need to take a look at the categorization of my content to see if it matches the kind of content that I would want to see if I was using my website as a consumer.

If I find sections in my category organization that do not deliver the kind of content that makes sense, I might need to tweak my sorting rules to get better content. Of course, I must be careful that any changes I make in one category do not create worse sorting results in other categories.

As a sole proprietor, I don't have time to manually compare all of the millions of free advertisements to make sure that I am sorting my content display properly, so I will need to watch for patterns of good organization and assume that it will work across the board.

I know you would like to have your "free advertisement" shown in my content in a location where most of my users see it, and I feel your need. But to maintain the "integrity" of my sorting system, I really should let the sorting rules define the output.

Of course, I will not exclude my other websites from that mix of free advertisements, because the content on this site I am building consists of free advertising for millions of websites. I am as much entitled to free advertising as those other people whom I am advertising for free.

I do have to make the puppy profitable somehow though, because in order to build an index of millions of websites and to sort that content out in a respectable manner, that will take some real computing power.

So, I am going to monetize this website by putting paid advertising in the sidebar.

Third-parties will not be able to compel me to advertise their website in my "free advertising" section, because that is my content, and I get to decide how I display my content, so long as I don't break any laws with what I include in my free content.

Hopefully my other websites will remain profitable as well.

As long as my other websites add value for my users, and I let my other websites sort naturally into the content of my website where the "free advertising" is shown, there should be no problem.

I am not going to give my other web properties an unnatural boost in the organization of the content, but I am not going to exclude them either.

If I am giving free advertising to the world, why should people fault me for giving free advertising to my other sites also?

I will let my other websites sort naturally according to the sorting rules I have defined, but no one knows the sorting rules better than I do.

I admit that I will have an "unfair advantage" on my competitors, because I know all of the sorting rules and they do not. But I am still advertising millions of websites for free, gosh darn it.

I refuse to advertise the sorting rules, because I want to maintain the "integrity of my sorting rules" that have been designed to show the public what I consider to be the most relevant content. If my users agree with me that I am sorting the content in a way that they think is appropriate, people will love me, and they will keep coming back for as long as they continue to agree with how I present those other websites to them in the "free advertising" section of my website.

Yes, the sorting rules are biased, because I want my users to see what "I consider" to be the best quality content that is most related to what they are looking for, according to how my rules sort the data.

I admit that my sorting rules will not always present the best content all of the time, but I am going to try and I am going to work hard to see where I can make improvements to the system.

I also admit in advance that some things that I do in hopes of improving my content will actually backfire and have unintended consequences. I may at times need to make other changes to compensate for the unintended consequences introduced by an earlier change.

My product is not the content that exists on other websites. My product is how I sort and display the free advertisements that point to other websites.

If I expose my sorting rules to the public, then people will try to manipulate the system to push their Bigger Penis ads to the top of my content pages. If I let the public see my sorting rules, others with less integrity than I have will spam the hell out of my system, pushing their garbage to the top, and the good content to the bottom. And, if I let that happen, my users will flee en`masse to my competitors.

I will have invested a lot of time and money to make my content pages the best that I can make them, but the minute I make my sorting rules public, I will destroy the quality of my content that I have spent years and possibly millions of dollars to create.

Now who would be stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot like that? Not me!

Sure, some people might bitch, groan and moan about my "unfair advantage", but it is the nature of the beast.

The only way I could be 100% unbiased in how I display my content is to not let any of my other websites infiltrate the public display of the "free advertising" section of my website.

But if one of my other websites provide the value that my users are looking to find, why should I actively seek to block that content from my "free advertising list"? Wouldn't I be doing more of a disservice to my users by preventing them from seeing the information they want that can be found on other websites I own?

Overall, my goal is to make a profit from my business. If lots of people like my content, lots of people will use my website on a regular basis. That should make my website really attractive to other advertisers who will be willing to pay me a lot of money to advertise their wares in my website.

Some advertisers may even offer me more money for an exclusive advertising deal. I will consider those opportunities on a case-by-case basis.

I will be able to advertise some of my other properties in the paid advertising area of the site, AND some of my other websites might even match the sorting rules in such a way as to be listed in the "free advertising" section of my website.

As long as I don't give my other websites an unnatural boost in the "free advertising" section of my website, the integrity of my content will not be compromised.

Even if I did give my own properties an unnatural boost in the "free advertising" section of my website, it is my website to do with as I see fit to do, so long as what I am doing is legal to do. If I give my own properties an unnatural boost in the free area of my website, my users will determine if that unnatural boost affects their perception of the quality of my free content.

People are always free to use my competitors, and if they feel that I am too heavily promoting myself, they will start going to my competitors' websites. So maybe it would be better for me to not give my own websites an unnatural boost -- even if it is legal to do.

In the end, I will have my critics and people who love me.

Most of those who criticize me will be those people who think I am being "unfair" to them.

So be it. You cannot please all of the people all of the time.

So the next best thing is to earn the trust and respect of those people who want to love you. Give people what they want, and they will keep coming back.

In my mind, I will be offering an advertising platform built on The Power of FREE: free organization of content offered to the general public for free; free advertising for big and small websites; and other free services. If enough people like my version of FREE, paid advertisers will be willing to open their wallets wide to be able to get access to my user base.

I LOVE the Internet and Capitalism!!!

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135481].message }}

robs132

14 years ago

They served Microsoft and won and they will surely win with Google as well

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

$537.35 and 1,051 FRESH SUBSCRIBERS? Here's How...
Solo Ads

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135934].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Laurie Rogers

They're all corrupt, someone's always in bed with someone else or sending people pics of themselves in their underwear or having illegitimate children or lying about having sexual acts performed on them or accepting *cough* bribes *cough* errr I mean "donations" for political campaigns and not claiming them... and I could go on and on. Do I believe the FTC is doing us all a big favor in this scenario? Nope not at all, but hey you gotta make it look good so that funding keeps a rollin in.

We have been dancing pretty close to the edge throughout this entire thread Laurie.

We have got to be careful not to cross too far over into the "politics" of Washington, or the thread will disappear.

Originally Posted by robs132

They served Microsoft and won and they will surely win with Google as well

In the Microsoft case, it was a pretty black-and-white case of anti-competitive behavior.

In the Google case, there are only shades of yellow.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135954].message }}

Laurie Rogers

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

In the Microsoft case, it was a pretty black-and-white case of anti-competitive behavior.

In the Google case, there are only shades of yellow.

And in reality, I'd have to say there's no comparison between those two filings.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4135973].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

CD,

I think you're entirely missing the point.

On Google Shopping... Google is not 'pretending' that they don't profit directly from the products shown to consumers.

But the general public has been led to believe that 'organic' is ruled by what can only be compared to 'journalistic integrity.' Which by definition and public view has always been that the news does not profit directly from what they report. You could not 'pay' the media to publish an advertisement, disguised as a story, about your business.

In newspapers, radio, tv and all other media, the advertising is separate from the actual 'news.'

Google instituted 'paid search' in order to profit from advertising revenues that could be generated from their 'reporting' so as to keep the integrity of that reporting which could not be bought.

But once their own 'products' make their way into what's supposed to be 'unbiased' reporting, they cease to be 'unbiased.'

It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to compare Google to any other media because Google has been able to accomplish that, which is something no other media ever has ever been able to accomplish.

You see, in all other media, advertising had to be paid for. There was no 'free lunch' for businesses. Now because search engine listings are viewed as 'free advertising' for anyone who can manage to get them, there is no market driven pricing.

And that is where Google has the problem.

They want to claim that organic has that 'journalistic integrity' so that they can profit from paid search.

When any other 'media' inserts it's own advertising into it's own product, it's at the expense of not 'selling' that advertising space somewhere else (because their integrity dictates that it can't place those 'ads' INSIDE what is supposed to be 'the unbiased reporting of a story.)

Google's ability to list it's own products inside the 'news' that they projected as having 'journalistic integrity' with no expense of lost advertising revenue, clouds that integrity.

And that is the problem.

I've said that I don't think Google should have to keep their own products out of the search engine rankings at all.

I think that they should just not be allowed to claim that those rankings are 'unbiased' if they stand to directly profit from that ad.

-Dani

P.S. I don't believe it because I know better. The public at large, has, through their vote, taken the stance that they don't HAVE to become educated enough to know better, and have allowed a law to be put in place that puts an agency in charge of telling them what they should or should not know better.

Originally Posted by tpw

Yes, I do believe the FTC is sometimes corrupt. LOL (I can back my opinion on this with examples, but that would distract the overall conversation.)

And you keep insisting that Google is corrupt - even when shown evidence that contradicts your claims. You are willing to leave the investigation to the FTC, confident in the idea that "justice will be served."

Lynch mob justice wasn't right in the 1800's, and it is not right today. Lynch mobs have never delivered real justice, and the FTC also will not deliver real justice in this case.

The FTC will do its investigation. Google will be charged with improprieties, and a dog and pony show will be served up for the American public to consume.

Right or wrong will not have any bearing in the outcome.

Google will be fined. It will pay its fine. Then it will go forward.

Google will survive the FTC investigation, get a black eye in public opinion, marketers will cheer about how the "big, bad Google" got its come-up-ance, Google's competitors will froth from their mouths in hopes of benefiting from the Google smack, and life will go on.

As to your charge of me "skimming" your posts. Anyone who has ever watched us cuss and discuss with each other knows that you always skim. And you have probably skimmed most of my excellent comments in this thread too... Think about this... Kettle... Black...

Regarding my twisting your words, your words are so twisted already that some of us wonder if you skim your own posts too, when you are trying to follow the logic of your own arguments.

Arrogant? Yes, some people believe I am. Confidence is often mistaken for arrogance.

Bill, I love the way you focused on 'arrogance' and not 'insulting' when you out and out accused me of having a position that I have over and over again stated I DO NOT HAVE.

You are basically calling me a liar, Bill.

I don't believe anyone is 'entitled' to free advertising, and I've been saying that since long before this 'investigation' came about.

So for you to say that I'm angry about that, says that you are calling me a liar.

I read every word you write.

I have agreed with your position on most things...

It's their site, they can do what they want.
It's their business, they can exploit any profit center that they have any opportunity to exploit.
No one is 'entitled' to free advertising
Yes I believe government is corrupt
Yes, I agree that Google will come out of this unscathed
I have even 'hinted' that I agree that it shouldn't BE law...(to a point, but that is NOT actually what is up for discussion regarding the case)

I AGREED with you on just about everything except:

It IS law.
I have actually seen evidence that Google is corrupt... maybe not in 'search' but in enough other areas to warrant distrust.
And the FTC IS the authority on the matter, whether you or I like or not.
They may be corrupt, but that doesn't mean the rest of us get to be corrupt too.
And that they must disclose any bias, as the rest of us must.

If it's not the FTC running the investigation, then who?

Or do we just let it go, based on the fact that everything and everyone is corrupt?

Well Hell, Bill, then let's have no law at all.

You probably support that notion, but we do have LAW... so when you have changed the LAW... then we can revisit the discussion.

-Dani

Originally Posted by Laurie Rogers

Dani, don't forget you're dealing with stubborn men

... sorry guys, anyway, it's an interesting read you all have kept on going.

Laurie,
LOL... I think it's inherent in every male species that things are supposed to be taken by force and deception. After all, that is exactly how it works in the animal kingdom. Men just haven't fully evolved from the animal kingdom yet.

They're 'cowboys' who want to be able to do whatever they want, and take whatever they want, by force or deception, and hide behind blaming people for not 'knowing better.'

The problem there is that they're not looking past their own self interests.

They don't see the repercussions of doing that though...

The first of which is the creation of that 'feudalistic' society I mentioned earlier.

They are willing to live in that society for the chance to be the feudal lord.

I know better than to want to live in a feudal society or be a feudal overlord (that's a job you only have for life,) and I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can escape the fate that would accompany that risk.

I am also enlightened enough to realize that we can cull the herd too much, that it's necessary for any species to have a 'weaker class' in order to ensure the species' own survival.

-Dani

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4136478].message }}

Bill Farnham

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

LOL... I think it's inherent in every male species that things are supposed to be taken by force and deception. After all, that is exactly how it works in the animal kingdom. Men just haven't fully evolved from the animal kingdom yet.

They're 'cowboys' who want to be able to do whatever they want, and take whatever they want, by force or deception, and hide behind blaming people for not 'knowing better.'

The problem there is that they're not looking past their own self interests.

They don't see the repercussions of doing that though...

The first of which is the creation of that 'feudalistic' society I mentioned earlier.

They are willing to live in that society for the chance to be the feudal lord.

I know better than to want to live in a feudal society or be a feudal overlord (that's a job you only have for life,) and I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can escape the fate that would accompany that risk.

I am also enlightened enough to realize that we can cull the herd too much, that it's necessary for any species to have a 'weaker class' in order to ensure the species' own survival.

-Dani

Dani,

Go to your room and don't come out until dinner time. That's no way for a young lady to talk.

Love,

Dad

P.S. It looks like somebody could use a time out...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4136601].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Bill Farnham

Dani,

Go to your room and don't come out until dinner time. That's no way for a young lady to talk.

Love,

Dad

P.S. It looks like somebody could use a time out...

There's actually a wine called "Mommy's Time Out." So I'll go to my room, but only because I'll need a nap after the wine and not because you said so.

You're not the boss of me!:p

-Dani

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4136985].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

I AGREED with you on just about everything except:

It IS law.
I have actually seen evidence that Google is corrupt... maybe not in 'search' but in enough other areas to warrant distrust.
And the FTC IS the authority on the matter, whether you or I like or not.
They may be corrupt, but that doesn't mean the rest of us get to be corrupt too.
And that they must disclose any bias, as the rest of us must.

If it's not the FTC running the investigation, then who?

Or do we just let it go, based on the fact that everything and everyone is corrupt?

Well Hell, Bill, then let's have no law at all.

You probably support that notion, but we do have LAW... so when you have changed the LAW... then we can revisit the discussion.

This is where your credibility starts to suffer Dani.

You have obviously either skimmed my posts, or you are in denial about what I actually said.

It IS law.

-- I have agreed that deceptive advertising is a crime by U.S. statute.

I have actually seen evidence that Google is corrupt... maybe not in 'search' but in enough other areas to warrant distrust.

-- Your whole argument about Google being corrupt has been that their organic search results are corrupt.

Now you say you "have seen Google corruption, but maybe not in 'search'..." Either they are corrupt in search, or they are not... And either you know it to be true, you are speculating, or you are taking the word of others...

And the FTC IS the authority on the matter, whether you or I like or not.

-- I have agreed on this fact as well.

They may be corrupt, but that doesn't mean the rest of us get to be corrupt too.

-- I have never said that it is okay for Google to be corrupt. I have instead suggested that I don't believe they are.

And I have also said that when the FTC is finished with its investigation of Google, we won't know whether Google was guilty or innocent of the original charges of corruption. All we will know is that Google agreed to pay a fine to the FTC.

And that they must disclose any bias, as the rest of us must.

-- The entire search engine is biased by design.

I don't have an issue with disclosure specifically.

The problem I have is your attempt to turn subjective observations into a case for deliberate deception on the part of Google's management.

You say that Google promises the "most relevant" content, and therefore, they are deceiving the public, because their results are not always the "most relevant". But "most relevant" like "best" is a subjective opinion based on the POV of the person sharing the opinion.

On Google's technology page, Google promises no such thing.

Regarding relevance, Google's Larry Page said, "We want to give you back 'exactly what you want.' "

Google has defined their "goal", and YOU SAY that they promise they are giving the thing already, which THEY ACTUALLY SAY they want to give.

My goal in life is to have "well behaved children". But if anyone were to hear me say that, then assume I was telling them that "I already have well behaved children," then people would be telling others that I am making deceptive claims too.

It is a matter of context. And when you tell the story in the wrong context at the beginning, everything that is implied in the wrong context will lead to more assumptions that are not based in fact.

Another area where we do agree is that the FTC is going to do its thing, and we will have no say in those discussions.

Six months from now or even a year from now, we are going to turn on the TV and hear about how Google settled a lawsuit with the FTC, and how Google paid a fine.

What we will never no for sure is whether Google was guilty of anything in the first place.

But you and others will be standing on your soapbox, proclaiming how awful Google is and how they got everything they deserved.

And a smaller group of marketers will be ranting about how the FTC did not go far enough in its proceedings against Google, and how Google must have bought off some politician to get a lighter punishment.

Context Dani, Context.

I have never said or implied that you are a liar.

Instead I have suggested several times that you don't have all of your facts straight and that maybe you are taking your guidance from others who also don't have their facts straight.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137057].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Bill,

I said "I don't have a dog in that show. I don't give a damn about rankings, I don't do SEO, and don't rely on it for my traffic, or profits.'

You said I was angry about not getting free advertising from search engine rankings.

That is calling me a liar.

But I forgive you for it, cause I luv's ya, (you are my "Internet Husband" after all).

I have seen evidence of corruption AND I still don't think Google can portray any kind of unbiased integrity in organic if their products show in it. Whether MY opinion on that will be supported by 'authorities' we are all yet to see.

It is my BELIEF, that Google has portrayed organic as on par with 'journalistic integrity' and that when their own products start appearing in the 'stories' and not the 'paid' advertising, it doesn't have that integrity and shouldn't be permitted to continue to say it does, because that is deceptive.

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137287].message }}

Sid Hale

14 years ago

Hey Dani,

Originally Posted by DanielleS

I said "I don't have a dog in that show. I don't give a damn about rankings, I don't do SEO, and don't rely on it for my traffic, or profits.'

Must have a lot of time on your hands, then. Because you sure have a lot of (very strong) opinions for someone who "doesn't have a dog in that show".

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sid Hale
Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137379].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Sid Hale

Hey Dani,

Must have a lot of time on your hands, then. Because you sure have a lot of (very strong) opinions for someone who "doesn't have a dog in that show".

Sid,
My opinons aren't on the rankings themselves, so that's the 'show' my dog is sitting out. My opinions are on the 'business practices' regarding deception to the general public.

-Dani

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137447].message }}

Laurie Rogers

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Sid Hale

Hey Dani,

Must have a lot of time on your hands, then. Because you sure have a lot of (very strong) opinions for someone who "doesn't have a dog in that show".

Why do people always resort to comments such as these? Is it really anybody's business who spends their time doing whatever?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137720].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Laurie Rogers

Why do people always resort to comments such as these? Is it really anybody's business who spends their time doing whatever?

Laurie, maybe we wimmenfolk shouldn't be allowed the time to be an active participant in governing, and business, to actually have no O'pinions bout matters of politics and such.

It takes too much of our time away from bein' barefoot and pregnant cooking and cleanin' and takin' care of our menfolk so they can drink their beers and continue on their testosterone fueled quest for domination over all things.

/sarcasm.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137972].message }}

Laurie Rogers

14 years ago

I reckon I best be gittin in that there kitchen an cookin up some grits and fresh possum pa rounded up for supper 'fore the younguns git home. Leave all these there folks to discussin their google schmoogle talk cuz I ain't be understandin it! What in tarnation be a google? Sounds like they be a fixin for a voodoo goin on down by the pond I reckon.

LMAO

j/k guys

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Laurie, maybe we wimmenfolk shouldn't be allowed the time to be an active participant in governing, and business, to actually to be have no O'pinions bout matters of politics and such.

It takes too much of our time away from bein' barefoot and pregnant cooking and cleanin' and takin' care of our menfolk so they can drink their beers and continue on their testosterone fueled quest for domination over all things.

/sarcasm.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138235].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

But the general public has been led to believe that 'organic' is ruled by what can only be compared to 'journalistic integrity.'

I prefer to compare it to a starship's "structural integrity field," which holds the ship together when forces outside of the ship threaten to damage the hull.

While it may suffer some slight damage, that damage is easily and quickly repaired, and the field prevents the damage from spreading rapidly and destroying the ship.

So much for "only." And I suggest Google's engineers are a lot more like the crew of the Enterprise than they are like the reporters and editors at a newspaper.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137250].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

I prefer to compare it to a starship's "structural integrity field," which holds the ship together when forces outside of the ship threaten to damage the hull.

While it may suffer some slight damage, that damage is easily and quickly repaired, and the field prevents the damage from spreading rapidly and destroying the ship.

So much for "only." And I suggest Google's engineers are a lot more like the crew of the Enterprise than they are like the reporters and editors at a newspaper.

CD... oddly, I suggest that you are a lot more like Google's ENGINEERS than you are like the general public.

But I also suggest that the 'engineers' aren't the guys handling the marketing and PR .... and I further suggest that their agenda is exactly what they want the public to perceive regarding the word 'integrity.'

Please CD, Google is too smart to hire PR people who don't know what the public's perception of 'integrity means'.

And I for one, know the difference between structural integrity and business integrity.

To suggest that Google knows what the public PERCIEVES isn't what they MEAN regarding either, is just another insult to my intelligence.

And I still have enough faith left in the general public that even they wont fall for that smoke and mirrors B**LS**T.

-Dani

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137350].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

And I still have enough faith left in the general public that even they wont fall for that smoke and mirrors B**LS**T.

Amazing!!!

You have enough faith in the public to not fall for the smoke and mirrors bull****...

But you don't have enough faith in the public to understand that Google is somehow making money off of its search engine listings...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137545].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Amazing!!!

You have enough faith in the public to not fall for the smoke and mirrors bull****...

But you don't have enough faith in the public to understand that Google is somehow making money off of its search engine listings...

The former requires less faith than the latter.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137550].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Originally Posted by tpw

Amazing!!!

You have enough faith in the public to not fall for the smoke and mirrors bull****...

But you don't have enough faith in the public to understand that Google is somehow making money off of its search engine listings...

The former requires less faith than the latter.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137575].message }}

VanessaB 14 years ago

By the way Bill, if your kids are MIA for any length of time, that's likely to trigger the investigation.

P.S. I don't think in 'extremes.' It's not all faith or no faith... I'm a bit more centric than that.
- Thanks
Signature

The Recon Report
Reliable Results, Predictable Profits
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137596].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Please CD, Google is too smart to hire PR people who don't know what the public's perception of 'integrity means'.

Specifically, that Google does not cheat.

You have a better word for that, perhaps?

That means when Google does not belong on the top of the search rankings, they're not.

And when they do, they are.

And do you know what Google has to do to make that happen?

Nothing!

Where's the deception? Where's the dishonesty?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139153].message }}

scrofford

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Specifically, that Google does not cheat.

You have a better word for that, perhaps?

That means when Google does not belong on the top of the search rankings, they're not.

And when they do, they are.

And do you know what Google has to do to make that happen?

Nothing!

Where's the deception? Where's the dishonesty?

But see you don't know that for a fact. There is no proof we have access to right now about that. I mean that's one of the reasons why this huge probe is going on. So there just might be deception and dishonesty going on. No one knows that for sure except for Google.

People can complain and speculate and get into heated discussions about it but there is no proof either way about what Google is doing. I think it points to them doing some shady things, but I can't prove it, and you and nobody else can prove there isn't shady stuff going on right now either.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139178].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

I prefer to compare it to a starship's "structural integrity field," which holds the ship together when forces outside of the ship threaten to damage the hull.

While it may suffer some slight damage, that damage is easily and quickly repaired, and the field prevents the damage from spreading rapidly and destroying the ship.

So much for "only." And I suggest Google's engineers are a lot more like the crew of the Enterprise than they are like the reporters and editors at a newspaper.

Originally Posted by DanielleS

CD... oddly, I suggest that you are a lot more like Google's ENGINEERS than you are like the general public.

But I also suggest that the 'engineers' aren't the guys handling the marketing and PR .... and I further suggest that their agenda is exactly what they want the public to perceive regarding the word 'integrity.'

Please CD, Google is too smart to hire PR people who don't know what the public's perception of 'integrity means'.

And I for one, know the difference between structural integrity and business integrity.

To suggest that Google knows what the public PERCIEVES isn't what they MEAN regarding either, is just another insult to my intelligence.

And I still have enough faith left in the general public that even they wont fall for that smoke and mirrors B**LS**T.

-Dani

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Specifically, that Google does not cheat.

You have a better word for that, perhaps?

That means when Google does not belong on the top of the search rankings, they're not.

And when they do, they are.

And do you know what Google has to do to make that happen?

Nothing!

Where's the deception? Where's the dishonesty?

WRONG CD.. the public's perception of the 'integrity' of 'organics' is that of a journalistic integrity, hence the reason Google so adamantly insists that paid search is kept entirely separate from 'organic.'

By that definition of integrity, the general public will not expect 'organics' to show any listings that have any kind of favor with Google (roughly translated, meaning, I can't pay a newspaper to publish an article about me on the front page, nor can the paper restrict the stories they publish only to their advertisers.) Since Google is the business in question, with the power to place ads anywhere they want, for them to place them anywhere outside of the organics, is a breach of those ethics.

While that in and of itself may not be illegal, continuing to claim those ethics that it does not have, IS ILLEGAL.

A *news* story about Google itself would be acceptable in organics, but a direct advertisement for a Google product would not.

Your misdirection of trying to compare 'journalistic integrity' to 'structural integrity' and then claim that what their PR people mean by integrity is ('structural integrity') means they don't cheat... I certainly don't fall for that misdirection, but even if JD's assessment of half the public being being 'below average' is true... even they won't fall for that poorly constructed smoke and mirrors campaign.

But since I am far from below average, I would kindly ask you not to try and pull that crap with me, as it makes it impossible to have an intelligent or honest conversation.

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4140571].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Google 'deceives' the general public ... by claiming that organics are distinctly separate from paid search, their revenue model.

That's only a deception if they're NOT distinctly separate, which you still have not demonstrated.

Originally Posted by DanielleS

the public's perception of the 'integrity' of 'organics' is that of a journalistic integrity

Search results are not journalism, so anyone complaining about the "journalistic integrity" of search doesn't know what they're talking about.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143127].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

That's only a deception if they're NOT distinctly separate, which you still have not demonstrated.

Search results are not journalism, so anyone complaining about the "journalistic integrity" of search doesn't know what they're talking about.

CD, journalism is the absolute closest thing it CAN be compared to.
The profit model is the same, information, kept separated from advertising revenue.

And I can guarantee that that is exactly how the public perceives their 'integrity' and it's exactly how their PR people know the public perceive it, and, it's exactly the way they want the public to perceive it.

The engineers didn't speak the word integrity, the PR guys do.

I can just hear the defense now: "We did not have unethical relations with our unbiased organics search results."

"We did not interpret our own products as relations."

And to an earlier post you made where you said:

The problem is that Google cannot avoid this conflict of interest, and simply has to behave ethically. That's all they can do.

The way you test this is to go to a non-Google search engine, and search for something Google was in the top results for on Google. If Google is behaving ethically, then they'll be in the top results elsewhere, too. If they're not, then you should look at what IS in the top results, and decide whether it's better than what Google told you.

It's cheap and easy to test, so test it. If you consistently and repeatedly find better sites than Google's at the top of other search engines when Google puts themselves on the top, then there is a problem. Otherwise, there isn't one.

No problem = no need for a solution.

The problem is that Google cannot avoid this conflict of interest, and simply has to behave ethically. That's all they can do.

???Simply has to behave ethically???

So who determines IF they behave ethically? The hordes of people who believe it because Google says it's true?

It's cheap and easy to test... now... (The Investigation no doubt is to ensure that the competition stays alive to keep it that way.)

But if you follow through the line of events...

When a company that is trusted to deliver unbiased information, free from the influence of profiteering, and has the power of the public's trust in doing that , a doorway is opened to for the public to trust no other company, all other companies fold, only one is left, and now that company has the ability to dominate not a market, but a society.

-Dani, The R.C.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143256].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

CD, journalism is the absolute closest thing it CAN be compared to.

I would say it's a lot closer to public access cable, myself. You do the work, they broadcast the result, and you don't have to pay for it. Somebody else does.

The engineers didn't speak the word integrity, the PR guys do.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what word they should be using that means what they're trying to say - that organic search results are never directly altered or manipulated.

So who determines IF they behave ethically?

You do. If you don't like Google's ethics, you don't have to use them.

It's cheap and easy to test... now...

Then test it... now... and show me where you see anything deceitful going on.

When a company that is trusted to deliver unbiased information, free from the influence of profiteering, and has the power of the public's trust in doing that , a doorway is opened to for the public to trust no other company

Allow me to translate:

"Trusting a company is bad."

Yeah. Whatever.

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143384].message }}

charless

14 years ago

I expected this to happen sooner or later...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Working on three potentially large scale business projects backed by investors.
If you'd like to chat or network with me, add me on Skype: charlesgmullen0.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4137989].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Bill, in response to post # 200...

I couldn't have said it better. You make a compelling case and one that's very
hard to argue.

I guess my real problem with Google is not so much their search engine but
everything else they do.

YouTube account banned with no way of appeal. Hell, not even an answer to
my emails. Guilty until...well, just plain guilty and I did nothing wrong.

Adwords account slapped when I did everything by THEIR rules. Yeah, the
ones THEY specifically laid out for me. Again, no replies to emails and no
chance for appeal.

Google treats us like we're second class citizens. They think they're better
than us, but they're not.

If I treated my customers the way they treated me and many others, I'd
be out of business. They can get away with it because they ARE so big.

That's my complaint. And again, if karma has any say, they'll get the
treatment they deserve, not for being a monopoly or doing anything illegal
but simply for being a company that treats its customers like crap.

IMO, not smart business.

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138108].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I guess my real problem with Google is not so much their search engine but everything else they do.

YouTube account banned with no way of appeal. Hell, not even an answer to my emails. Guilty until...well, just plain guilty and I did nothing wrong.

When were you banned? Your account is active and has been for nearly 4 years.

Adwords account slapped when I did everything by THEIR rules. Yeah, the
ones THEY specifically laid out for me. Again, no replies to emails and no
chance for appeal.

Steve, I know you're not intentionally lying... Stretching a bit perhaps?

No replies? Really? If so, you must have really pissed them off.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138295].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

When were you banned? Your account is active and has been for nearly 4 years.

Steve, I know you're not intentionally lying... Stretching a bit perhaps?

No replies? Really? If so, you must have really pissed them off.

Know what? I don't have the time to get into it with you.

Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138875].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

Bill, in response to post # 200...

I couldn't have said it better. You make a compelling case and one that's very
hard to argue.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I guess my real problem with Google is not so much their search engine but
everything else they do.

YouTube account banned with no way of appeal. Hell, not even an answer to
my emails. Guilty until...well, just plain guilty and I did nothing wrong.

Adwords account slapped when I did everything by THEIR rules. Yeah, the
ones THEY specifically laid out for me. Again, no replies to emails and no
chance for appeal.

Google treats us like we're second class citizens. They think they're better
than us, but they're not.

Been there done that.

My YouTube account was deleted.

My blogger account was deleted with dozens of blogs, even after I proved I was a human on all of my blogs 5 times.

My Adwords account was also killed.

I am not really mad about any of these. Aggravated yes, mad no.

When I go into many stores here locally, there is a sign on the wall that says,

We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone At Any Time And For Any Reason

I view Google properties in exactly the same way. They have exercised their right to "refuse service" to me.

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

If I treated my customers the way they treated me and many others, I'd
be out of business. They can get away with it because they ARE so big.

That's my complaint. And again, if karma has any say, they'll get the
treatment they deserve, not for being a monopoly or doing anything illegal
but simply for being a company that treats its customers like crap.

IMO, not smart business.

This is another matter altogether...

They pick and choose who they do business with... And I am guilty of having done the same myself, even when I was just getting started with my business...

I have fired several customers over the years.

The only difference between how I refuse service and how they do it, is that I tell people why, and they click "delete".

My wife's uncle is a professional translator. A few years ago, he had about three dozen regular clients, but he wanted to reduce his workload.

So he raised his rates across the board by 30% and waited for the fall out. He lost fewer clients than expected, but he lost enough customers to lighten his workload.

In his case, he eliminated clients who were less valuable to him, so he could achieve the higher goal of reducing his workload.

So IMO, getting rid of customers who are or you expect to be a problem, and getting rid of customers who might be less valuable IS sometimes SMART BUSINESS, regardless of the size of your business.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138962].message }}

charless

14 years ago

How could anybody be legitimately surprised? The FTC has been cracking down on anything slightly suspicious...

Thanks

Signature

Working on three potentially large scale business projects backed by investors.
If you'd like to chat or network with me, add me on Skype: charlesgmullen0.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138882].message }}

Chris Worner

14 years ago

Moral of the story; Don't rely on Google solely for traffic.

Chris

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4138982].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

I'm hoping you are blowing smoke and really do see the difference between a mom and pop operation putting a sign on the wall that says "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone At Any Time And For Any Reason" and Huge international powerhouse. In reality, the sign on the wall doesn't mean much. Let's see what happens when they refuse service to someone because they are African American.

Do you think Pepsi or Coke would get away with not selling their products to a group of people simply because they were Jewish?

I mean really... The beverages are made by Pepsi, so they can do what they want, right?!?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139098].message }}

Anonymous Affiliate

14 years ago

You know what's funny?

That all these people in their Holly Crusade against Google's Empire of Doom are most likely using Google on a daily basis, and I include the guys at the FTC. They could use Bing or Yahoo, but they know (just like we all know) that Google is the industry leader for a good reason.

If you b!tch about Google, yet you use their FREE services on a daily basis, then you are... well... what was the word for it again... Hypocrisy, perhaps?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139109].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Anonymous Affiliate

You know what's funny?

That all these people in their Holly Crusade against Google's Empire of Doom are most likely using Google on a daily basis, and I include the guys at the FTC. They could use Bing or Yahoo, but they know (just like we all know) that Google is the industry leader for a good reason.

If you b!tch about Google, yet you use their FREE services on a daily basis, then you are... well... what was the word for it again... Hypocrisy, perhaps?

I see you are still as confused as ever.

I don't think any of us ever said that we didn't think Google was the best search engine or that we didn't use gmail or whatever.

What we are saying is Google has a conflict of interest so to speak.

Kind of like employees of the lottery being able to actually play the lottery. Why shouldn't they be able to?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139190].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

What we are saying is Google has a conflict of interest so to speak.

The problem is that Google cannot avoid this conflict of interest, and simply has to behave ethically. That's all they can do.

The way you test this is to go to a non-Google search engine, and search for something Google was in the top results for on Google. If Google is behaving ethically, then they'll be in the top results elsewhere, too. If they're not, then you should look at what IS in the top results, and decide whether it's better than what Google told you.

It's cheap and easy to test, so test it. If you consistently and repeatedly find better sites than Google's at the top of other search engines when Google puts themselves on the top, then there is a problem. Otherwise, there isn't one.

No problem = no need for a solution.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139408].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

It's cheap and easy to test, so test it. If you consistently and repeatedly find better sites than Google's at the top of other search engines when Google puts themselves on the top, then there is a problem. Otherwise, there isn't one.

No problem = no need for a solution.

Not only that Caliban.

If we go to Bing and find better results, why are we still using Google?

And if we do go to Bing, will someone from Google show up at our place of business and try to use their economic power to force us to use their web properties instead of Bing's?

Will Matt Cutts send his henchman to my business, and tell us that if we don't use the Google search engine, they are going to take away our power to make a living?

Poof !!!

Here those other folks come to tell me that is why Google should be stopped, because they already have the power to make or break our businesses...

LOL

Google only has the power over our businesses that we are willing to give them.

If they give us FREE adverts in their SERPs, then we cannot really complain because they are not giving us free advertising anymore... After all, we can buy advertising in their search engine.

But Google has kicked me out of Adwords, so they won't let me buy advertising!!

I have had 3 Google Adwords accounts shut down. The first two times, they shut me down for reasons that were clearly outlined in their TOS that I did not read.

Well, two were shut down for TOS violations, and the 3rd was shut down because I hadn't used it in 3 years. LOL

Why do I not care?

Because I get 55% of my traffic through sources that are not search engines, and only 70% of my search engine traffic comes from Google... And I am not a low-traffic webmaster... +500,000 unique visitors and +7 million page views in 2010... Do the math...

I do get a lot of traffic from Google and the other search engines... In fact, I probably get more traffic from Google in one year than most of you have gotten since you got started in Internet Marketing...

But Google and the other search engines do still account for less than half of my traffic.

Why doesn't anyone else think it is okay to diversify their traffic sources? Lazy perhaps? Or narrow-minded? Google tunnel vision maybe?

If you are thinking to tell me that it is okay for me not to care about Google's traffic, because you are a small fish in an ocean of spending power, and that you need Google to get ahead in business, then you are fooling yourself...

I get most of my traffic for free, whether from Google or elsewhere... But "free traffic" is a misnomer...

You have to invest something -- usually time and effort -- to implement those "free traffic" strategies... And I invested a lot of time over ten years to develop over one hundred thousand links that deliver loads of free traffic to my websites.

Maybe I had another unfair advantage... I started doing Internet Marketing when Google was still just a blip on everyone's radar...

The only entity that has the power to destroy your business is you -- by your actions or inactions!! And if you allow your absence from Google to destroy your business, then you are the only one who should be blamed!!

Google does not prevent us from using other traffic sources to drive our business. They simply decide whether we are the kind of customer they want to work with, and they kick us to the curb if they don't want to work with us.

Many people in this thread are looking at this as an opportunity to get even with Google for some wrong Google committed against them. Nothing more. This is a chance to kick Google in the balls, in an effort to get even.

Are you a business owner, who is dedicated to your own success? OR, are you a sheep, who believes the very hype that you are ranting against -- the hype that says Google is the biggest, baddest shiny object in the advertising marketplace? And you are mad because they don't let you play?

As to refusing service to African Americans, that is not the case at all with Google. They are not refusing to do business with me, through Adwords, because I am ugly, bald, white or from Oklahoma!! Even if I was African American, they would not be booting me on that basis.

They have other reasons that they use to kick some advertisers out of their systems. And none of those reasons are prohibited under U.S. law.

They are not discriminating against us because of: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or sexual preference (soon to be added to the statute).

They are kicking us out, because we are either in violation of their TOS or we are high-maintenance customers who don't provide much value to their bottom line.

Google is not required to give service to anyone for any reason. They get to choose who they work with and why, so long as they do not discriminate in ways that will put them in violation of the law.

Google is only prohibited from discriminating against someone based on: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or (sexual preference).

LOL

Some may complain about Google refusing them service based on their budget, but there are many sites where I cannot advertise, because I don't spend at the level defined by their minimum ad budget requirements. So no issue there either.

It is exactly as Caliban said before:

Originally Posted by CDarklock

No problem = no need for a solution.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139721].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

Not only that Caliban.

As to refusing service to African Americans, that is not the case at all with Google. They are not refusing to do business with me, through Adwords, because I am ugly, bald, white or from Oklahoma!! Even if I was African American, they would not be booting me on that basis.

They have other reasons that they use to kick some advertisers out of their systems. And none of those reasons are prohibited under U.S. law.

They are not discriminating against us because of: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or sexual preference (soon to be added to the statute).

They are kicking us out, because we are either in violation of their TOS or we are high-maintenance customers who don't provide much value to their bottom line.

Google is not required to give service to anyone for any reason. They get to choose who they work with and why, so long as they do not discriminate in ways that will put them in violation of the law.

Google is only prohibited from discriminating against someone based on: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or (sexual preference).

LOL

Some may complain about Google refusing them service based on their budget, but there are many sites where I cannot advertise, because I don't spend at the level defined by their minimum ad budget requirements. So no issue there either.

It is exactly as Caliban said before:

Just trying to show the error in "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone At Any Time And For Any Reason" statement that was used as an example.

They cannot, in fact, refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are laws against that.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4142480].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

The problem is that Google cannot avoid this conflict of interest, and simply has to behave ethically. That's all they can do.

The way you test this is to go to a non-Google search engine, and search for something Google was in the top results for on Google. If Google is behaving ethically, then they'll be in the top results elsewhere, too. If they're not, then you should look at what IS in the top results, and decide whether it's better than what Google told you.

It's cheap and easy to test, so test it. If you consistently and repeatedly find better sites than Google's at the top of other search engines when Google puts themselves on the top, then there is a problem. Otherwise, there isn't one.

No problem = no need for a solution.

With that logic, then employees of the lottery should be able to play the lottery. Since most of the winners would still consistently come from people not associated with the lottery, all is well. Right?!?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4141899].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Jeff,
Unfortunately, the term Capitalism is often misunderstood as 'lacking in responsibility, social or otherwise, in pursuit of profit' and that's when logic exits the building.

The folks who are defending Google are trying to compare being able to do what they want on their own, fully disclosed as for profit, websites, with a giant information resource provider who is supposed to be 'unbiased' and who aren't disclosing that they are or could be.

Mainly, I think the reason for the 'support' is that they either

A.) Envision themselves as one day being on par with Google's level of business and want to be able to do whatever they want,

or

B.) Want support in their own mission to not have to make 'disclosures' on their own websites.

Either way, they're not looking past their own self interests to actually logically think out what will happen to a society based in capitalism absent responsibility. Feudalism.

Or maybe they just think that will never happen. All I can say to that is "Hitler, and Fidel Castro."

And with that, I am going to change my name to " Dani, The Responsible Capitalist."

-Dani, The R.C.

Thanks
4 replies

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4142247].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

a giant information resource provider who is supposed to be 'unbiased' and who aren't disclosing that they are or could be.

So in other words, you'd like to see:

We are not an evil corporation. In fact, our corporate motto is "Don't be evil."

Disclaimer: We could be evil.

Explain to me on what planet this isn't monumentally stupid.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143162].message }}

Dan C. Rinnert

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Either way, they're not looking past their own self interests to actually logically think out what will happen to a society based in capitalism absent responsibility. Feudalism.

Or maybe they just think that will never happen. All I can say to that is "Hitler, and Fidel Castro."

Neither Hitler nor Castro were capitalists.

Thanks

Signature

Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143502].message }}

Chris Worner

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Either way, they're not looking past their own self interests to actually logically think out what will happen to a society based in capitalism absent responsibility. Feudalism.

Or maybe they just think that will never happen. All I can say to that is "Hitler, and Fidel Castro."

And with that, I am going to change my name to " Dani, The Responsible Capitalist."

-Dani, The R.C.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143589].message }}

Bill Farnham 14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Or maybe they just think that will never happen. All I can say to that is "Hitler, and Fidel Castro."

XXXXXX! (loud buzzer sound)
Automatic disqualification due to Godwin's Law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Anyone that needs to invoke Hitler as a reason for defending their position loses.

Sorry.

~Bill
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143833].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

With that logic, then employees of the lottery should be able to play the lottery. Since most of the winners would still consistently come from people not associated with the lottery, all is well. Right?!?

^^^ Great example of a non sequitur.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4142523].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

^^^ Great example of a non nequitur.

LOL. In your mind, of course.

I don't see any reasoning from you as to why it is not a good example. Then again, you probably couldn't come up with one... because it is a good example.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143147].message }}

JDArchitecture

14 years ago

Originally Posted by gefflong

LOL. In your mind, of course.

I don't see any reasoning from you as to why it is not a good example. Then again, you probably couldn't come up with one... because it is a good example.

You're trying to equate rigging a game of chance to a product that is designed to give particular relevant results.

I didn't think I had to state the obvious. Then again, I need to work on knowing the audience.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143899].message }}

gefflong

14 years ago

Originally Posted by JDArchitecture

You're trying to equate rigging a game of chance to a product that is designed to give particular relevant results.

I didn't think I had to state the obvious. Then again, I need to work on knowing the audience.

Yes. You do need to work on that. We can't all be good at everything though. Obviously.

You really need to open your mind just a little bit... you are having trouble seeing past your own genius.

I am talking about the PERCEPTION of unfairness as well as the opportunity for an entity to actually be unfair and profit by being somewhat less than ethical.

We are back to the Billboard example then... no chance involved there.

Would it be fair for Billboard Magazine (widely recognized as THE chart that influences what songs get airplay) to also have their own Record Label?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4144014].message }}

Roaddog

14 years ago

Wow... Five pages, and still, hardly anyone has got past their own convoluted pant load.

Not about how good Google is, not about how your ranked, not about starship forcefields, not about how big and fascinating Google is.

Google has quietly been trying to skirt business law...period.

Thanks

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139162].message }}

Mike Linley

14 years ago

I hope something becomes of this and Google has to change some of its abusive ways. I can't believe some of you are sticking up for google and say they arent abusing their powers!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Let me show you how I get top rankings for FREE

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139268].message }}

JDArchitecture 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Linley

Google has to change some of its abusive ways.

And what are those?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139626].message }}
- CDarklock 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by JDArchitecture
  
  And what are those?
  
  Not ranking his clients' sites higher for fewer backlinks. He's tired of working so hard.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4139628].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

This whole thing was started by a little shopping comparison site called Foundem in the UK.

Foundem claims Google knocked it so low in search rankings that it all but disappeared from the Internet from the summer of 2006 until late 2009. It portrays the incident as a clear-cut case of the company abusing its dominance in traditional online search to undermine emerging competitors in what's known as vertical search, specialized sites that help people find information in particular areas online, like shopping categories, business reviews and travel booking.

Specifically, Foundem says that Google tweaked its search algorithm to give a lower ranking to sites that had little original content and were mostly designed to send users to other places on the Web.

I find it of interest that Google can bury sites that have "little original content and were mostly designed to send users to other places on the web", when that is precisely what Google is ... little original content and designed to send users to other places on the web. So by their own definition, Google should bury itself in the serps.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BUDG1K29R9.DTL

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4140029].message }}

DireStraits

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

So by their own definition, Google should bury itself in the serps.

They do - it just depends on what keywords you use.

For the phrase "search engine", in the UK, for instance, it appears that Google ranks lower than Dogpile, Bing, Wikipedia, AltaVista, and immediately above Ask Jeeves - all of which, to some extent, could be construed as competition (and some of these smaller search-engines take their results from Google anyway!).

That said, it's unlikely that anyone searching for a phrase like that on Google itself is unaware of what Google is, so that's perhaps slightly moot (little to gain from ranking themselves higher for that sort of stuff). I can see that they'd have a much bigger incentive to manipulate rankings for other sites whose product/objective is in direct conflict/competition with one of their own, anyway.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4140041].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

The problem is that Google cannot avoid this conflict of interest, and simply has to behave ethically. That's all they can do.

The way you test this is to go to a non-Google search engine, and search for something Google was in the top results for on Google. If Google is behaving ethically, then they'll be in the top results elsewhere, too. If they're not, then you should look at what IS in the top results, and decide whether it's better than what Google told you.

It's cheap and easy to test, so test it. If you consistently and repeatedly find better sites than Google's at the top of other search engines when Google puts themselves on the top, then there is a problem. Otherwise, there isn't one.

No problem = no need for a solution.

Google 'deceives' the general public into believing that 'organics' have what can only be compared to journalistic integrity, by claiming that organics are distinctly separate from paid search, their revenue model.

The public believes Google to be unbiased in organics, based on this fact.

The public chooses Google over all other search engines,

All other search engines are 'strangled', can't compete, and go out of business..

Now I ask you CD, what search engine is left for people to 'choose' to make comparisons?

NONE.

And THAT is why these laws exist.

If we allow Google to list their own products, in their 'ethical reporting' (organic rankings) AT all, once they become the ONLY search engine... guess what.... you will ONLY have the choices of what Google stands to profit from.

You also now are subject to only their own political views and agendas.

Capitalism absent responsibility inevitably leads to feudalism.

-Dani

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4140445].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Google 'deceives' the general public into believing that 'organics' have what can only be compared to journalistic integrity, by claiming that organics are distinctly separate from paid search, their revenue model.

And online marketers deceive themselves everyday about how they are powerless in the face of giants.

Here... Let me help you out...

Just click the link...

Salvation for the Oppressed Marketers of the World

Remember, YOU have the tools to inspire change and self-empowerment...

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4140482].message }}

VanessaB

14 years ago

Originally Posted by tpw

And online marketers deceive themselves everyday about how they are powerless in the face of giants.

Here... Let me help you out...

Just click the link...

Salvation for the Oppressed Marketers of the World

Remember, YOU have the tools to inspire change and self-empowerment...

Bill,
Seriously... CONTEXT, BILL, CONTEXT... don't take ONE sentence out of it to try and detract from overall point.

If you'd bothered to actually read beyond the first sentence you would see that...

You're trying to compare a gnat to a bear. It is not about YOU... or any of us. In fact, I can guarantee you that to the FTC us 'little marketers' are 'fleas.'

It's about using that deception, to quash their REAL COMPETITION, which is a threat to society as a whole.

-Dani

P.S. and PEOPLE deceive themselves every day, that's a far cry from deceiving the public.

Thanks

Signature

The Recon Report

Reliable Results, Predictable Profits

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4140588].message }}

tpw

14 years ago

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Bill,
Seriously... CONTEXT, BILL, CONTEXT... don't take ONE sentence out of it to try and detract from overall point.

If you'd bothered to actually read beyond the first sentence you would see that...

You're trying to compare a gnat to a bear. It is not about YOU... or any of us. In fact, I can guarantee you that to the FTC us 'little marketers' are 'fleas.'

It's about using that deception, to quash their REAL COMPETITION, which is a threat to society as a whole.

-Dani

P.S. and PEOPLE deceive themselves every day, that's a far cry from deceiving the public.

I had only trimmed sentences to save space, not to ignore what you had said....

But let me fix that for you...:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by tpw

Originally Posted by DanielleS

Google 'deceives' the general public into believing that 'organics' have what can only be compared to journalistic integrity, by claiming that organics are distinctly separate from paid search, their revenue model.

The public believes Google to be unbiased in organics, based on this fact.

The public chooses Google over all other search engines,

All other search engines are 'strangled', can't compete, and go out of business..

Now I ask you CD, what search engine is left for people to 'choose' to make comparisons?

NONE.

And THAT is why these laws exist.

And online marketers deceive themselves everyday about how they are powerless in the face of giants.

Here... Let me help you out...

Just click the link...

Salvation for the Oppressed Marketers of the World

Remember, YOU have the tools to inspire change and self-empowerment...

Originally Posted by DanielleS

If we allow Google to list their own products, in their 'ethical reporting' (organic rankings) AT all, once they become the ONLY search engine... guess what.... you will ONLY have the choices of what Google stands to profit from.

You also now are subject to only their own political views and agendas.

Capitalism absent responsibility inevitably leads to feudalism.

-Dani

If you follow the advice I gave above, there never will be only one search engine.

Thanks

Signature

Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143277].message }}

celente

14 years ago

This is getting alot of attention and even in here.

But I am sure you will be fine, if you are running a legitamate business.

Thanks

Signature

Create a $5000 USD a month Business. 1-on-1 Coaching. By 6 figure marketer! - CLICK HERE

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4143075].message }}

Fraggler

14 years ago

Does Google make clear all affiliations they have with search results they gain from financially? That's a FTC requirement now, isn't it? (not American so not real sure...)

Thanks

Signature

- Stop Wasting Time & Money on Traffic!
- You Can't Improve What You Don't Measure
- Why You Should Create Separate Desktop and Mobile Google Adwords Campaigns

Connect with me on LinkedIn

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4144003].message }}

webinsiders

14 years ago

This has been talked about in the news for a while, check out the points made in this Wall Street Journal article from December: Rivals Say Google Plays Favorites - WSJ.com

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4144009].message }}

FTC after Big G

Trending Topics

Do You have a line of communication ...

What do you do in your retirement life??

How do I get Clients?

Why Do Women Wear Makeup?

Is Amazon KDP a good field to start in?