When will everyone see the REAL google?

[Numbuh362]

Simple solution use bing

 

[gtothem]

Before google, the WWW was free, you could do whatever you wanted and you didn't have some fat ass corporate drone talking head on a video dictating what you should do *or else be banned from their 80% search traffic*.

There is 2 sides to this coin. You are on a blackhat forum where most people are churning out shitty content and focusing purely on beating the system to gain traffic. That SUCKS for use as people looking for decent content when searching.

Sure if they didn't impose their rules we could be more free and generate easy traffic.. but the internet would be a complete shithole. It's like the people who say fuck the police.. watch what happens when there is no police (africa).

 

[kegnum]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-google.html

News after news, story after story. When will everyone begin to realize that this is the *REAL* google that most SEO's already know: monopolistic, arrogant and a threat to freedoms on the WWW.

Any of you who came into the IM game after google already existed you should know: before google you could link wherever you wanted to, they would not dictate where you can and cannot link to.

Before google, the WWW was free, you could do whatever you wanted and you didn't have some fat ass corporate drone talking head on a video dictating what you should do *or else be banned from their 80% search traffic*.

Wake up, world! We need an open and trustworthy search engine, not google's monopoly!

Never, most people are stupid as shit.

 

[jazzc]

When a company reaches monopoly status, there is no choice but to use their services.

a) Monopoly means that there are obstacles for competitors to enter the market and compete, not how much market share you have. This is not the case in the search market.
b) Google provides a service. It does not provide free money to anyone who feels entitled to.

If you own a website and "choose" not to be in google's search, you're losing money and going broke. And if you make a living from IM, that's not an option, you have no choice.

Great, so use their service. Just because you 're betting your income on their services, does not mean you own part of it and you are entitled to it.

Google is abusing this monopoly power, and has been abusing it for a long time.

They provide a service and since it 's their own shit, they can do whatever they like with it. You don't like what they do with their own property, use some other search engine. But that 's not your issue, you simply want them to hand over traffic to you. And exactly, why is it fair to handle traffic to you and not the guy who flips burgers?

They don't need to provide explanations why they ban people, because they're "free". They don't have to explain why they banned an adsense publisher.

No, they don't. Just like you don't have to explain to anyone who you want to hang around with in your home.

In the meantime all these news stories show a different google which, at some point, most people will realize is the real google: arrogant, monopolistic and a company that stifles innovation on the WWW.

Google stifles innovation? Do you have any idea how many important new technologies they have spearheaded?

 

[bartosimpsonio]

a) Monopoly means that there are obstacles for competitors to enter the market and compete, not how much market share you have. This is not the case in the search market.

That's debatable. There are obstacles for entry into the search market, one of them is the fact that Google itself controls 80% of WWW traffic.

b) Google provides a service. It does not provide free money to anyone who feels entitled to.

That's a ridiculous statement. I work 16 hour days to earn my money, I don't feel entitled to any free money and life hasn't given me any free money. Show some respect there.

Great, so use their service. Just because you 're betting your income on their services, does not mean you own part of it and you are entitled to it.

I make good $$$ online since 1996, don't lecture me on this, this is NOT what I said anywhere alright.

They provide a service and since it 's their own shit, they can do whatever they like with it. You don't like what they do with their own property, use some other search engine. But that 's not your issue, you simply want them to hand over traffic to you. And exactly, why is it fair to handle traffic to you and not the guy who flips burgers?

Corporations follow several rules, it is not at all like what you do in your home. Corporations can't do anything because they own their "shit". The comparison with your personal private property is in fact ridiculous. Individual rights are totally unrelated to corporate rules, governance, shareholder transparency. In fact, it's quite the contrary to what you argue: if Google burned their shit, the shareholders could in fact put their board in jail.

Google stifles innovation? Do you have any idea how many important new technologies they have spearheaded?

They stifle third party innovation. They themselves have lots of good technology, but if you are a competitor then you are in trouble, especially the little guys. They control web traffic and direct it to major corporations, there is zero transparency and contrary to what you just said, corporations must be accountable. Google argues they have first ammendment right to rank things however they want, with which I agree. But once they reach monopolistic position, the authorities should intervene, they're simply trying to control the WWW as their own.

 

[jazzc]

That's debatable. There are obstacles for entry into the search market, one of them is the fact that Google itself controls 80% of WWW traffic.

When we say obstacles we don't mean "Google is so great I can't compete" - obviously.

That's a ridiculous statement. I work 16 hour days to earn my money, I don't feel entitled to any free money and life hasn't given me any free money. Show some respect there.

Then why do you demand that Google gives some of its property (in this case traffic) to you by force?

I make good $$$ online since 1996, don't lecture me on this, this is NOT what I said anywhere alright.

I didn't make any claims doubting how much $ you make.

Corporations follow several rules, it is not at all like what you do in your home. Corporations can't do anything because they own their "shit". The comparison with your personal private property is in fact ridiculous. Individual rights are totally unrelated to corporate rules, governance, shareholder transparency. In fact, it's quite the contrary to what you argue: if Google burned their shit, the shareholders could in fact put their board in jail.

Maybe in North Korea. In any country that wants to call itself free, property rights are property rights and not some soup.
When we say Google owns their shit, the shareholders own it, not the management. So of course, if the management devalues the stock on purpose, they are liable.

They stifle third party innovation. They themselves have lots of good technology, but if you are a competitor then you are in trouble, especially the little guys.

Let me cry a river for all those inefficient, expensive businesses who can't compete with the efficent, lean, productive ones. Truly a shame...

They control web traffic and direct it to major corporations, there is zero transparency and contrary to what you just said, corporations must be accountable.

Yes, they control it because people use their services. By accountable, you mean those failure competitors that couldn't compete fair now want to strong arm the traffic away from the winner.

Google argues they have first ammendment right to rank things however they want, with which I agree.

No you don't.

 

[netmoney1]

I've got a like / love situation with Google. I like it when it's ranking me top 3 for at least 50% of me and my clients sites and I Love it when it's ranking me top 3 for at least 75% of me and my clients sites.

Please just stop lol...

 

[bartosimpsonio]

When we say obstacles we don't mean "Google is so great I can't compete" - obviously.

Maybe we disagree as to how "great" Google is.... I think they're the greatest search engine, but what came next isn't good - not for us internet marketers.

Then why do you demand that Google gives some of its property (in this case traffic) to you by force?

I could only answer this if I had ever demanded they give me anything by force. Since I didn't.... I said Google is anti-competitive, and that they're current policies stifle innovation. Reporters write stories concerned about the links in the stories, bloggers trade links among interconnected friends/partners in all kinds of subtle ways to promote each other in Google, not for the original intent of the http link. All in all, Google has distored the graph of the WWW and then they tell US we can't buy/sell/trade links. How cute! They turned web linking into a business, but they can control it and we cannot participate in this link market. They ban link sellers and buyers like we're criminals! This is monopolistic behavior, they can only do that because they know that without 80% of that juicy search traffic, we can't make a profit.

I didn't make any claims doubting how much $ you make.

My point was I'm not asking for anything for free and I've worked hard for anything I own, I do not expect anything for free from Google, or anyone. Oh but Google expects everything for free from webmasters. Currently, they're sucking content and presenting it on their pages! Ain't that nice. Wikipedia spends a bazillion dollars in hosting, live off donations, have zero ads, are a great resource, then Google simply presents Wikipedia content as answers to queries. And if YOU do the same, Matt Cutts will tell you it's oh so wrong and unethical and black hat and whatever because you're a scraper.

Maybe in North Korea. In any country that wants to call itself free, property rights are property rights and not some soup.
When we say Google owns their shit, the shareholders own it, not the management. So of course, if the management devalues the stock on purpose, they are liable.

Nope, jazzc, in America, not in North Korea, corporations do not have the same rights as people. Contrary to what Mitt Romney would like you to believe.

Let me cry a river for all those inefficient, expensive businesses who can't compete with the efficent, lean, productive ones. Truly a shame...

We're not discussing efficiency, we're discussing dirty online practices. Basically Google does everything they tell us NOT to do. WE compete against Google and that's unfair in several aspects. Their search results are full of their own affiliate partnerships, you cannot do the same. Their search results are basically our work they scraped. You cannot do the same. They sell links in the form of Adwords but buying/selling any other kind of link is BAD, but Google is good. Google spies on average citizens and news after news reveals a deeper and deeper involvement in espionage which is what North Korea does, not American businesses.

Yes, they control it because people use their services. By accountable, you mean those failure competitors that couldn't compete fair now want to strong arm the traffic away from the winner.

A lot of unethical businesses have tons of clients, I still think they're wrong. By accountable I mean the State enforcing what Google tells others not to do on Google itself.

No you don't.

I respect you and your superpowers, jazzc, but I don't think you can read minds just yet

 

[spectrejoe]

Google is doing their job just like you're doing yours, their job is to make sure only the most relevant and hq links show up in the search terms and what we are trying to do is forge the results, which if you ask me is ok however you must understand google is doing their job just like you're doing yours by doing SEO.

 

[jazzc]

I could only answer this if I had ever demanded they give me anything by force. Since I didn't....

Yes, you did. You want an proxy entity (the government) to forcibly reduce Google 's market share for your benefit.

My point was I'm not asking for anything for free and I've worked hard for anything I own, I do not expect anything for free from Google, or anyone. Oh but Google expects everything for free from webmasters. Currently, they're sucking content and presenting it on their pages! Ain't that nice. Wikipedia spends a bazillion dollars in hosting, live off donations, have zero ads, are a great resource, then Google simply presents Wikipedia content as answers to queries.

They don't steal the content. You give it to them. If you don't want to give it to them, you block their crawlers or you strike a paid deal (like the book owners did).

And if YOU do the same, Matt Cutts will tell you it's oh so wrong and unethical and black hat and whatever because you're a scraper.

Do the content owners from your scrape have the same easiness to stop you like they can with Google?

Nope, jazzc, in America, not in North Korea, corporations do not have the same rights as people.

My point exactly, how proud are you turning into a little USSR? See, corporations aren't some extra-physical entities. They are just groups of people sharing ownership of assets and actions.

We're not discussing efficiency, we're discussing dirty online practices.

Dirty? Like "I don't like it"? How about we discuss legal (as in "I own that") and illegal?

Their search results are full of their own affiliate partnerships, you cannot do the same.

Remind me to send you my affiliate links to post in your sites.

Google spies on average citizens and news after news reveals a deeper and deeper involvement in espionage which is what North Korea does, not American businesses.

Yes it does, just like MS and Apple and every major company. You see, just like in North Korea, they have to rat for the government.

I respect you and your superpowers, jazzc, but I don't think you can read minds just yet

It 's not about reading minds, more like reading text. You 've been saying "yes, it 's their property" followed by a ton of BUTs and how the government should force them to do what you want with it instead. See any contradiction?

 

[bartosimpsonio]

looks like you're on great terms with google, jazzc. i wouldn't blame ya, why risk those precious rankings by publicly antagonizing the talking head on those link indoctrination videos.... they know who you are and by now i'm sure they know who i am, ain't that right? i'm probably being manually penalized as we speak.

i'm just doing my part, it's not in North Korea, jazzc, Google is ruining the WWW right there in America, but you'll only realize it when it's too late. the rest of us have already seen where Google's headed and I'll speak against it until they change.

link trade should be free market, uncontrolled by Google. Google adapts to the WWW, not adapt the WWW to them. the WWW is not Google, they don't own it, they can't continue to ruin it for everyone.

their search is the best, but the spying, the abusive policies against webmasters, the hypocrisy are taking their toll.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

their job is to make sure only the most relevant and hq links show up in the search terms

And there lies the problem : who judges what a relevant and hq link is? Google? So Google gets to control the web graph? I disagree, I think we need an open and accountable entity to watch over the WWW, definitely not Google

 

[jazzc]

looks like you're on great terms with google, jazzc. i wouldn't blame ya, why risk those precious rankings by publicly antagonizing the talking head on those link indoctrination videos.... they know who you are and by now i'm sure they know who i am, ain't that right? i'm probably being manually penalized as we speak.

Full meh, nothing more to say.

 

[jazzc]

who judges what a relevant and hq link is? Google?

For their search engines, they do. For Bing, it 's MS. For yours, it 's you. See how easy it is?

So Google gets to control the web graph?

The web graph?

I disagree, I think we need an open and accountable entity to watch over the WWW, definitely not Google

The WWW is fine obviously by any metric, doesn't need any big daddy just because your seo/sem business isn't going well.

 

[J@bz.]

Google can do whatever they like with just like you can with your sites...and they do not have any sort of control over WWW either.

Google would not had to ban link trade if spammers didn't spam LQ shit. Do you think people would want to use google if they turned up LQ results?? I don't think so...You want to really blame someone?? blame LQ spammers...because of them they had to judge what relevant and hq link is....and google are doing it fine so far. Don't be a LQ spammer and you will get somewhere with Google.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

My biz is doing fine, jazzc. But why am I not surprised at getting one more attack from you, questioning my capacity to work rather than address the issues....not cool for a mod....

The WWW doesn't belong to any of those corporations you mention and they shouldn't be running the show.... And the WWW is not "fine", it is being controlled and gamed by very few players, when the WWW should be free(libre, free as in freedom). Google should adapt to the changing WWW, not shape the WWW as they see fit - which is what they're doing now.

Have a great day.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

Don't be a LQ spammer and you will get somewhere with Google.

Will sure do that, thanks for the great advice.

 

[jazzc]

My biz is doing fine, jazzc. But why am I not surprised at getting one more attack from you, questioning my capacity to work rather than address the issues

I 'm glad you 're just bitching at Google because it 's bringing you so much traffic.

....not cool for a mod....

...what a lame attempt at patronizing... (see? I used double "..." too! ...must be a special phrase...)

The WWW doesn't belong to any of those corporations you mention

It does not, so...

 

[bartosimpsonio]

See you, jazzc!

 

[UrsuAke]

See you, jazzc!

Relax barto. Just because you don't agree with jazz's arguments doesn't mean you have to get upset, accept the fact that you disagree in this matter and that's that. The truth is kind of in the middle, yes the internet is free but to certain extents, if you don't break any laws at least.

In the future yes, probably some big entities will control the internet blatantly but I hope I won't be around when that happens. Also it's in human nature to control stuff, we are hardcoded this way. Even in the early ages, if you were the biggest baddest motherflower in the village and you liked a certain parcel of land, that was your land. If someone came and try to take it, well, good luck to him trying.