Re: Google dance

From: Josh Carlson <jcarlson_at_insurancejournal.com>
Date: Thu 11 Dec 2003 08:52:53 -0600

Robert Day <rpday_at_btinternet.com> wrote:

>> Robert Day <rpday_at_btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Let's start from the stated aim of Google in an email to me that
>> >they are committed to "fair representation of the Internet".
>> >This is now out of the window. The present commitment is to
>> >"fair representation of whoever will pay us the most money".
>>
>>what are you basing this comment on?
>
>I base it on the present situation where, for example, if I want to
>search for a commodity that I may be thinking of buying, I now see
>mainly .org's, .ac's, .gov's, directories, and only the big big companies.
>Whereas we used to get a choice of competing sellers/suppliers, we
>don't see them any more. This is bad for the consumer who is now
>more likely to find him/herself at the site of a conglomerate. And, I'm
>not sure how the directories have survived. They are in competition with
>Google so stand by to see if they too are zapped.

Most directories are not a competitor of google. Google provides value by
serving information that will help people find what they are looking for.

>Stemming is not what is at the root of this present state of affairs.
>I think that it's bad (e.g. stemming might now regard "train" and "training"
>as the same word?) but I think that it's just one of a range of new ideas
>that someone in charge of the alogrithms has decided to foist on us all at
>the same time to muddy the waters. IMO the main strategy is the
sledgehammer
>tactic of trying to force people to buy Adwords. Maybe they thought that by
>introducing a range of changes at the same time, we wouldn't know what
>really is going on.

I was pointing out stemming as one of many possible factors behind their
algorithm. And as you've pointed out, stemming has cons as well as pros (i.e.
reduces the number of words in the index).

As for driving adwords sales I think Robert posted a worthy argument, the price
cannot go up any more. I attended a presentation by Google when they were
just starting to rumor adwords and only selling the CPM top spots. Many
customers were pissed that there was no inventory for them to purchase or
that their competitors were bidding a higher price than they could compete
with. The google spokesman calmly explained that there are only X number of
searches for "term" ... a fine lesson in Supply v. Demand

>If you can give me an example of any changes for the better, I'd love
>to hear of them. By using Scroogle, we can compare.

There are plenty of examples already - for both sides of the argument.

>And, while we're on the subject, what is wrong with being an affiliate
>and trying to get your site as high as possible on a search engine?
>Why would companies run affiliate programs if they don't want their
>affiliates to sell (or am I being naive?)? There does seem to be a
>section of people on this list who have an intense dislike of affiliates,
>particularly when they start to be successful. I have affiliate programs
>where my sites are ranked higher than the merchants. Should the merchant
>take exception to this?

Nothing is wrong with affiliates. Without a doubt they play a key role in the
online ad biz and merchant marketing plans.

The point was (and i think you see it) A search engine strives to provide
relevance. More often then not the merchant/manufacturer is a more
authoritative source for info/pricing about their products.


>I don't see any improvements at Google.
[snip]
>Is that how Google got to be where they are today? I think not. And if they
>abandon the thing that got them where they are, then they won't be
>there for long.

exactly

>It would have been easier to adapt had they even bothered to tell us
>that they were going to kick off the commercial sites.
[snip]
>I don't see any evidence of Google being "better" unless you are one of
>the big company site owners that seems to have survived the blitz. Tell me,
>would you rather buy your next version of Windows from Microsoft or from
>a competitive smaller retailer who has a web site. If these small retailers
>remain zapped, then you'll soon have no choice.

I'd rather buy from a established and well known site. (not microsoft though).

>So far, they have zapped thousands of commercial keyphrases. This means
>that thousands of web site owners are now much worse off. I have noticed
>some phrases that they have missed. Maybe they will zap them too next time
>round. If you're in the business of making money on the Internet, then you
>are going to find it will become harder by the day. And if you are someone
>who is just using Google to search for info or services, then you will soon
>realise that they are not really delivering that any more, at least not to
>the extent that "fair representation" would require.

I'm both and google still delivers for me.

Josh
 



Received on Thu Dec 11 2003 - 08:52:53 CST