Well, will we all have to pay for listings soon?

12 years ago

i think is going to get more sales the big merchants that have the money to spend on paid advertising. Smaller companies will no longer be able to compete and I would imagine that a lot of them would have made a good chunk of revenue from this source in the past.

Thanks

Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outstanding Web Design and SEO <= CLICK HERE To Find Out More
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365189].message }}

gax13

Banned 12 years ago

OMG, I hope not.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365195].message }}

pavionjsl

12 years ago

Just saying the game may change completely soon. This would be a way to end Google needing to constantly redo their algo's and they are monetizing to the max. It could create a bidding war that only the rich can negotiate mass ranking purchases to swallow up any results for the best keyword searches.

Thanks

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365279].message }}

WillR

12 years ago

Google would lose the respect of all their users if their search results were based on how deep people's pockets were not their relevance. They would never do that for normal websites.

Thanks

Signature

.

âž¨ Here's How to Make Your First $177 Online
This Week Using the Piggyback Method...

.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365370].message }}

Heath Allison

12 years ago

I doubt if Google will go down the paid only track, they like free relevant information too much.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365412].message }}

Fadiz

12 years ago

Originally Posted by WillR

Google would lose the respect of all their users if their search results were based on how deep people's pockets were not their relevance. They would never do that for normal websites.

Originally Posted by Heath Allison

I doubt if Google will go down the paid only track, they like free relevant information too much.

I agree with you guys don't think this will happen.
Don't know why lots of warriors look at google like it's big bad monster. Google is actually good company they "almost" care about the user more than making money, lots of adwords BIG money spenders get their account closed for violating google TOS everyday. I got one account banned for running tobacco campaign for E-cig and I was spending 100$ per day, I know few guys that spent 1000's daily and got banned so in other words, google is not bad google is your friend

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365562].message }}

pavionjsl

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Fadiz

I agree with you guys don't think this will happen.
Don't know why lots of warriors look at google like it's big bad monster. Google is actually good company they "almost" care about the user more than making money, lots of adwords BIG money spenders get their account closed for violating google TOS everyday. I got one account banned for running tobacco campaign for E-cig and I was spending 100$ per day, I know few guys that spent 1000's daily and got banned so in other words, google is not bad google is your friend

Well lets translate that business model to other monopoly's. Google is the 300lb gorilla when it comes to organic traffic and adwords. So they are "good" for banning your account, making a good moral decision with the power they hold for the betterment of the world. How noble. But there is a real market for E-cigs and I do not see how it is their call. Lets put it this way, if the oil industry tracked all your driving habits and because you speed on highways they decided not to sell you gas, does that make them good? What if your cell phone company decided because someone cussed while using their services to cut off their service. Maybe the cable company should terminate all accounts who watch certain programming. Many area's of the world are serviced by giants who control the best of what is offered. When they take the information they gather on you and start deciding the morals and values of the activity of users we are all in trouble. One step always leads to another.

They are good? I see a different responsibility when you get to controlling this large of share of internet traffic in the world. And when a company this powerful decides to slant the internet, because they can, I do not view them as "GOOD". They have a right to do this, do not get me wrong. They own this space. But somewhere they went from a option for internet search, to the main world traffic controlling body. To me morality at this point changes on their part. Let the governments decide through rules and laws what is legal and moral. No business like this should ban a business owner from selling E-cigs paying for the ads, ever. As long as it's legal. And who invited Matt Cutts to post here anyway?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Dog Attacks Getting Worse In London

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365780].message }}

Fadiz

12 years ago

Originally Posted by pavionjsl

Well lets translate that business model to other monopoly's. Google is the 300lb gorilla when it comes to organic traffic and adwords. So they are "good" for banning your account, making a good moral decision with the power they hold for the betterment of the world. How noble. But there is a real market for E-cigs and I do not see how it is their call. Lets put it this way, if the oil industry tracked all your driving habits and because you speed on highways they decided not to sell you gas, does that make them good? What if your cell phone company decided because someone cussed while using their services to cut off their service. Maybe the cable company should terminate all accounts who watch certain programming. Many area's of the world are serviced by giants who control the best of what is offered. When they take the information they gather on you and start deciding the morals and values of the activity of users we are all in trouble. One step always leads to another.

They are good? I see a different responsibility when you get to controlling this large of share of internet traffic in the world. And when a company this powerful decides to slant the internet, because they can, I do not view them as "GOOD". They have a right to do this, do not get me wrong. They own this space. But somewhere they went from a option for internet search, to the main world traffic controlling body. To me morality at this point changes on their part. Let the governments decide through rules and laws what is legal and moral. No business like this should ban a business owner from selling E-cigs paying for the ads, ever. As long as it's legal. And who invited Matt Cutts to post here anyway?

You have a good point here and yes I agree e-cig business owner have the right to advertise their product however google is not targeting just e-cigs they don't allow alcohol and tobacco ads I assume it's an federal regulation thing however they allow porn and that's still a mystery to me, now my point was that they don't just ban site from SERP they ban paying customer as well. Now if you wanna talk about about privacy and data control, I have mixed feelings about that and it would make it a long post

PS. when the last time you saw tobacco related ad on TV
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PPS. I'm not matt cutts i'm so much better looking