Please Read - Google dangerous monopoly for all of us
- Thread starter King444
- Start date
classifiedcaptain
Regular Member
- Oct 20, 2010
- 216
- 114
Google banned me last year and kept $9000 in adsense revenue.....was I playing 100% by the rules....technically not because I was using craigslist to generate traffic.
I have no hard feelings towards google - frankly I admire them. You should just use what you feel like and if you dont like what they are doing, start something of your own then.
Google is not all bad like you make it sound. They also have helped millions of businesses too.
I have no hard feelings towards google - frankly I admire them. You should just use what you feel like and if you dont like what they are doing, start something of your own then.
Google is not all bad like you make it sound. They also have helped millions of businesses too.
scorpion896
Senior Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 929
- 214
Nobody will be able to compete with google so deleting your gmail or google accounts is stupid and will do absolutely nothing even if a million people followed. Adapt adapt adapt. Honestly these changes are good it weeds out the inexperienced. Should give you extra motivation to get smarter and adapt as the rest won't be able to.
This is a good thing
This is a good thing
nothingnothing
Regular Member
- Jan 20, 2008
- 276
- 239
How come
is the solution of
is the solution of
- Mar 10, 2010
- 42,695
- 107,114
That is EXACTLY how to work with Google... just make the adjustments you need to do in order to get the organic traffic from them.
I actually love Google as they send me thousands of targeted visitors daily who happen to click on my ads and buy my products which puts cash in my pocket.
The internet is a business that is very dynamic and you have to work to keep your sites where they ought to be in the rankings.
Panda update?
That is easy to overcome if you build your sites properly and backlink them properly.
We do not hear about all the updates that Google does all the time and we never will but if you test, test and test some more you will always be able to keep your sites ranked properly.
captchadreams
Power Member
- Sep 19, 2008
- 509
- 133
adapt or die
Bizmarkie40
Junior Member
- Dec 11, 2011
- 138
- 14
It is a dangerous monopoly. Congress may force them at some point to break up the company like it has with others using anti trust - anti monopoly laws. Of course that will take years and in the meantime we're stuck either using paid ads (which as we know is risky) or adapting to their rules. Until there's a viable competitors who offers more bells & whistles, there are not many options here.
Not sure why Face book has not started their own search engine incorporated with your face book page. They could use their own algorithm and maybe make it totally unique. Not dependent on just back links but let's say strictly on content and how much real human traffic it gets (so that your back linking strategy would require real visitors to come to you and make back links from non visited sites useless)
I realize that might not be the best example but you get the idea.
That would be one sure way to siphon off traffic from Google.
Not sure why Face book has not started their own search engine incorporated with your face book page. They could use their own algorithm and maybe make it totally unique. Not dependent on just back links but let's say strictly on content and how much real human traffic it gets (so that your back linking strategy would require real visitors to come to you and make back links from non visited sites useless)
I realize that might not be the best example but you get the idea.
That would be one sure way to siphon off traffic from Google.
meatro
BANNED
- Nov 21, 2009
- 568
- 1,001
I don't believe Google is monopolizing the way Microsoft was. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I was only a teenager at the time of the MS case..
But Google recognizes opportunities and adapts their own flavor/technology to them. Microsoft recognized competition and bought the technology, shut the company down and made it a paid feature for their existing platform (Windows). So making new software with them around was a sketchy situation because if it was useful, Microsoft was probably just going to buy you (and the credit) out.
Google on the other hand develops most of their technology, they have also bought out a lot of them, but for the most part they make it themselves. So really they're very different from a monopoly as you describe it, they're actually more of a boost of whatever market it is because they're contributing to the competition.
.... If you can't compete, well (not to sound like a dick, but) that's not their problem. Lots of places can compete with Google and there's plenty of markets that Google is not in. I'm a Hotmail user, I don't like GMail too much and I've been using Hotmail for years and years and years. There's one example.
As for search results, I'm right there with you. I think the way they handle CERTAIN results is completely fucking jacked. I also have my own crockpot theory regarding much of it, especially what you were talking about. Google has said that social media is their new favorite flavor recently, you can tell that with the introduction of Google+ and I'm sure most people have noticed that social triggers are very powerful in terms of SEO.
That doesn't sound all that bad. Until you think about adding in their new found love affair with brand names! I don't care who you are or what you're capable of, I'd be willing to bet that BHW's very best social marketing guru couldn't generate the social media buzz that a top brand name can.
So all that happened was basically, Google slapped JCPenney and said, "No, bitch you don't buy search positioning with paid links! You pay for it with social media campaigns." (and in real time while I'm posting this, it occurs to me, anybody seen JCP's new commercials? Why don't you have a look at their new LOGO.) JCP changed their entire marketing strategy, company image and even their logo to be one big ass social media campaign.
With that in mind, while Panda has done quite a bit to clean the bullshit off the internet.. And while there was some collateral damage... There's a lot more work to be done as far as the Google algo goes in my mind. We cannot have search results so heavily skewed by social signals and an obsession with brand names. That completely goes against Google's original gameplan of being an index of INFORMATION. Good, quality, unique information used to get the bump over a shitty product placement. Now, not so much.
edit: BTW, for such a terrible monopoly, they are not stopping you from creating your own search engine, outgrowing them and taking over their share of the market. That's always an option.
But Google recognizes opportunities and adapts their own flavor/technology to them. Microsoft recognized competition and bought the technology, shut the company down and made it a paid feature for their existing platform (Windows). So making new software with them around was a sketchy situation because if it was useful, Microsoft was probably just going to buy you (and the credit) out.
Google on the other hand develops most of their technology, they have also bought out a lot of them, but for the most part they make it themselves. So really they're very different from a monopoly as you describe it, they're actually more of a boost of whatever market it is because they're contributing to the competition.
.... If you can't compete, well (not to sound like a dick, but) that's not their problem. Lots of places can compete with Google and there's plenty of markets that Google is not in. I'm a Hotmail user, I don't like GMail too much and I've been using Hotmail for years and years and years. There's one example.
As for search results, I'm right there with you. I think the way they handle CERTAIN results is completely fucking jacked. I also have my own crockpot theory regarding much of it, especially what you were talking about. Google has said that social media is their new favorite flavor recently, you can tell that with the introduction of Google+ and I'm sure most people have noticed that social triggers are very powerful in terms of SEO.
That doesn't sound all that bad. Until you think about adding in their new found love affair with brand names! I don't care who you are or what you're capable of, I'd be willing to bet that BHW's very best social marketing guru couldn't generate the social media buzz that a top brand name can.
So all that happened was basically, Google slapped JCPenney and said, "No, bitch you don't buy search positioning with paid links! You pay for it with social media campaigns." (and in real time while I'm posting this, it occurs to me, anybody seen JCP's new commercials? Why don't you have a look at their new LOGO.) JCP changed their entire marketing strategy, company image and even their logo to be one big ass social media campaign.
With that in mind, while Panda has done quite a bit to clean the bullshit off the internet.. And while there was some collateral damage... There's a lot more work to be done as far as the Google algo goes in my mind. We cannot have search results so heavily skewed by social signals and an obsession with brand names. That completely goes against Google's original gameplan of being an index of INFORMATION. Good, quality, unique information used to get the bump over a shitty product placement. Now, not so much.
edit: BTW, for such a terrible monopoly, they are not stopping you from creating your own search engine, outgrowing them and taking over their share of the market. That's always an option.
timepassblogs
BANNED
- Jan 18, 2012
- 151
- 30
screw google..it's like dictatorship..
LakeForest
Supreme Member
- Nov 11, 2009
- 1,268
- 1,816
Monopoly?
Bing? Yahoo? AOL? Ask?
You have choices, but you choose to give google a monopoly of your searches because, with the given alternatives, google has been the better choice.
They're now going into the social game, while Facebook is thinking about creating it's own SMS system and search engine. In the end, you have many choice and will continue to have more. Everyone wants to sell your privacy, which merchant will you choose?
Google isn't a monopoly; there are other PPC services, and you can bet that the other search engines will create their own too.
Microsoft had such little to almost no competition, plus every PC you bought was loaded with Windows. Also, the monopoly case against Microsoft was much more insidious than that they were being "unfair;" Microsoft was targeted because they weren't "playing ball," and the full story is a lot shadier and a bit unsettling.
Bing? Yahoo? AOL? Ask?
You have choices, but you choose to give google a monopoly of your searches because, with the given alternatives, google has been the better choice.
They're now going into the social game, while Facebook is thinking about creating it's own SMS system and search engine. In the end, you have many choice and will continue to have more. Everyone wants to sell your privacy, which merchant will you choose?
Google isn't a monopoly; there are other PPC services, and you can bet that the other search engines will create their own too.
Microsoft had such little to almost no competition, plus every PC you bought was loaded with Windows. Also, the monopoly case against Microsoft was much more insidious than that they were being "unfair;" Microsoft was targeted because they weren't "playing ball," and the full story is a lot shadier and a bit unsettling.