Blogcritics: Comments on Should Google Be Regulated?

Comment by John Mudd

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:41:16 EST

Google with guns...now that's a scary thought. If that happened I would hate to see how they punish those who use the hacks...ouch.

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:17:03 EST

Not that there are no good reasons to be suspicious of the influence of businesses, but I much prefer that powers be held by private companies such as Google or Microsoft that do not get to enforce their edicts at gunpoint, as do government entities.

Comment by John Mudd

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:00:28 EST

Well, it is an immense power, sure, but so is the power of free speech. Google took a lot of heat for changing its algorithms. If it were a public company, its stock price would have dropped massively when news of it came out about how it affected various industries. If it does go public, which it probably will at some point in the not so far off future, the shareholders will hold the power, and their decisions will be affected by Google users views, whether paying or non-paying. Cheers.

Comment by BB

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:09:06 EST

Has it occurred to anybody the immense power of owning the only serious search engine on the net? I would suggest whomsoever controls access to the net and the information thereof also controls the net.

Comment by John Mudd

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:50:40 EST

Very true. Yahoo! is trying to make their own search system, though. It will be interesting to see how it competes with Google. My website actually gets more hits from Yahoo!, but that may not happen once they complete the switch over to their own engine. Cheers.

Comment by TDavid

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 14:47:26 EST

People can't make software that competes with Google because it isn't an easy or inexpensive thing to do. If it was, then search engine portals would be as prolific as dating sites ;)

Comment by BB

Sun, 7 Dec 2003 13:54:57 EST

I will have to disagree with 'cjones' opinion this discussion is silly or that Google does not have a monopoly. You can have a monopoly by having the worst software but dominate the industry through unscrupulous means - aka Microsoft. Or, you can have a monopoly by just being the best. So good in fact that you have no serious competitors. Without a good search engine we are surfing the net blind. It is an absolute necessity for anybody who wants to find anything or to be found. And if it were that easy to just switch to another engine then why can't anybody make a product that even comes close to Google? I would suggest this topic is serious and worthy of discussion.

Comment by John Mudd

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:33:21 EST

Umm...Google already does punish those sites...there are hacks that make Google smack you down hard, so it already is self-regulating. They cracked down a little more on Google-bombers with the algorithm change, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since Google-bombing can cloud search results. DMOZ does what you're talking about, without smacking people down, though, although they remove spammers and do not allow multiple listings. DMOZ is human-edited, though, so it's a little bit different than Google. Cheers.

Comment by jadester

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:22:05 EST

the reason there is no search engine around that is that good is because to program one would be very difficult, take alot of processing power and alot of time. You'd have to program good enough AI routines to intelligently sort through answers. This is already done to a certain extent but as has been pointed out, it is nowhere near what you could have if e.g. each time you searched, you had someone with the speed of a computer but (average) human intelligence whose sole job was to produce search results for you what i was suggesting is that maybe, altho i don't think regualtion of google itself is the answer, if there was some kind of official body that could really severely punish websites that try and cheat search engines (not just google - there are other search engines that use similar techniques) it would not be so widespread. google may slap down real bad cheaters but in the end they're still "just a company"

Comment by John Mudd

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:06:13 EST

I would have to disagree with you there, but only because I was the one who raised the question, originally, but I'm also the person who said Google should NOT be regulated. Google is the most dominant search engine for a reason, primarily because it gives the best results. However, some would argue that temporarily after the algorithm change, the results were horrible. Read all about it in my postings, or click the links to find out more. Cheers.

Comment by cjones

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:39:54 EST

Google is not a monopoly. There are tons of others search engines out there. Google just works well and is extremely popular. Why regulate Google? Because its popular? This entire topic is silly. Whats the criteria for regulating a piece of software? To apply it to one means you will eventually have to apply it to all that fit the same criteria. Then you have to realize that search engines cross borders so if Google shifts its base to Canada is the US gonna regulate them there or the Canadian government? Are they gonna be seen as renegade software like Kazaa. This entire line of questioning reveals the ignorance of most people who don't understand the complexities, opportunities and limitless possibilites of the Internet.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 5 Dec 2003 03:50:23 EST

I think too much is being made of Google, period. It may be the best search engine, but it is still not very good. The rate of time wasted in any search engine is very high, considering irrelevant hits, dead pages and missing pages. Perhaps people should consider ways to attract visitors that don't rely on the chanciness of search engines.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:30:24 EST

At which point Google would be dead and gone. Everyone would switch to another search engine. It's not like there is some magic in the very name "Google." It has clout because a big majority of serious internet users find it to be THE best functioning search engine for getting the results they actually want. When it no longer gives them that, the name will be deader than Napster.

Comment by BB

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:03:10 EST

Yes I can see it now. Query Google with the word 'software' and all that comes up is Microsoft products.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:22:35 EST

if microsoft takes google over that'll be the end...unless they can keep their inept mits away from the current google staff. microsoft has yet to produce a clean, zenlike product...with no strings attached. hell, when i'm trying to dig up some msoft-related info, i end up googling it rather than use the pathetic capabilities of the msdn search engine.

Comment by BB

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:04:39 EST

Just think of it. Microsoft owning the monopoly on search engines and fudging the algorithms. It doesn't take much imagination to see where this could end up. Scary stuff. Brrrrr!

Comment by John Mudd

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:52:18 EST

Microsoft acquiring Google would certainly make it dominant in search as well as in software. It would also allow Microsoft to collect information to use in various other undertakings. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but it will certainly be interesting to see what it is. Cheers.

Comment by BB

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:35:12 EST

Why do you think Microsoft wants to acquire Google? Just think of the consequences.

Comment by BB

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:32:58 EST

Can you spell MONOPOLY?

Comment by John Mudd

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:46:01 EST

I don't think Google should be regulated. The great thing about the Internet is that it is still one of the relatively regulation-free areas of business and commerce. I just thought people may be interested in discovering that the topic was being broached by a major Web-based publication, that's all. I'm sure that Google hacks are one of the reasons it regularly changes its algorithms. There are hacks, though, that Google will slap you down for doing. Regardless, though, Google has shown that it is truly THE dominant search engine.

Comment by jadester

Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:13:51 EST

if google were to be regulated, so would the business sites. I'm not accusing you of it, but as has been pointed out (in fact in one of your blgocritics articles on this too) there is a whole culture of "hacking" google to get good rankings, which is unfair on those who don't do it. there are, in my opinion, two options: 1)make google hacking techniques widely enough available that EVERY commercial site uses them, thus putting them all back on an equal(ish) footing again. 2)regulate google, as you suggest, but also regulate commercial sites' usage of google to the same degree Unless you eman you want google regualted so that it can't try and combat google hacking (which i seriously doubt is what you mean but anyway) To be honest, i did think 1) was already happening. Not owning a commercial-based site though, i have not properly investigated, and drawing conclusions on incomplete facts has shown me up, as 1) does not appear to be anywhere near the current situation. I'd think google might actually take a suggestion like regulation seriously, if it is possible to do it fairly and responsibly but without too much hassle. Then again, they might not.