Google's Evil Ways Show Clear Need For Congressional Regulation, DOJ Investigation
Published April 09, 2006
Do no evil? Google is perhaps the most evil, dishonest, and out of touch company under the sun. Congress should regulate this obtrusive behemoth before it's too late as it has damaged far too many innocent stakeholders already. The only entity that knows who Google will step on next is Google, and those toes need to be locked down before they hurt anyone else. Google may not like this outlook, but if it removed it's head from its behind, it may actually see that many hold this view, and the sentiment is strong and growing.
The DOJ investigated Microsoft when it used questionable practices, so why aren't they investigating Google on the same basis? Businesses are suffering here and many want answers, but they are not getting them from Google, the biggest search engine monopoly in the world.
- Google's Evil Ways Show Clear Need For Congressional Regulation, DOJ Investigation
- Published: April 09, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Sci/Tech: Internet, Sci/Tech: Blogging, Culture: Business and Economics
- Writer: Mr. Real Estate
- Mr. Real Estate's BC Writer page
- Mr. Real Estate's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Google refuses to allow you and others to manipulate search data for business profit. Google has the audacity to look for perceptible benefit to users who are searching for relevant information. The complainers in all these cases want Google to simply grant businesses high rankings because they really really want high rankings, and Google refuses to play ball when asked to be dishonest in this manner.
This is the core of your argument for calling Google "evil." Every source you quote has underhanded motives, whether it's a government agency wanting to censor inconvenient political ideas, or a business wanting to receive Internet traffic regardless of whether or not they actually provide the content a searcher is trying to find. Every source you quote undermines their own credibility by clearly seeking naked self-promotion, or seeking to censor political debate.
This is why your lengthy diatribe utterly fails to convince me Google is the evil one in any of these cases. Nice try, though.
Dear Mr. Real Estate,
your argument contradicts itself. On the one hand, you interpret Google as a business directory. On the other hand, you are neither willing to pay for the service nor are you respectful about Google's freedom to change their algorithm whenever they want.
I like using Google's free service as a user and I rather think small and big businessmen are evil (as recently BMW in Germany) who would love to figure out a way to manipulate Google's algorithm for a high Pagerank position.
Google penalized my blog after I removed AdSense ads. Unless you can show me otherwise, I have no reason to believe that Google didn't penalize my blog because I removed them.
Please explain how I am seeking to "censor political debate." The comments are open, and we are debating.
To clarify, for ryan, a small business is currently suing Google for their website being penalized. Google did not do its due diligence in providing fair warning, nor did it inform the plaintiff in the case that it was violating Google's PageRank policy, if it even has one. Clear communication on Google's part could probably alleviate 99 percent of its problems, which include a massive number of lawsuits, many of which could have been prevented had Google intelligently communicated from the beginning, rather than moving forward without communicating with stakeholders.
I have a Google account. As someone who has an account with Google, I expect excellent customer service. Penalizing my blog without notice or stated reason is far from excellent customer service. It is in fact poor customer service, and I have every right to complain. If you do some research you may find that there are others who feel the same way I do.
People who have complaints have a right to complain. If Google does not address those complaints, it proves me right to say Google is arrogant and evil.
If I did to my clients what Google does to its customers I would lose my real estate license in a heartbeat, and I would lose my customers.
To clarify, I never said I was not willing to pay for services offered by Google. I said I will not buy AdSense ads due to the fact that there is a ton of click fraud, and Google has no way to track the clicks. If they had a flat fee version of text ads I might pay for them, if they can prove they'll provide excellent service. I'm skeptical of Google right now.
I never said you were seeking to censor political debate. Some of the sources you quote are trying to do that.
Google doesn't owe you any explanation of their PageRank system. That system is designed to benefit people who use Google to search for things. It is not designed to benefit people who want to pay for higher rankings, nor is it designed to penalize people who don't run AdSense ads.
If your PageRank went down, that is not proof you have been "penalized" in any way. It happened because Google got better at helping their users find what they want to find, and your site just wasn't what most searchers were looking for. If you want a higher PageRank, provide more relevant content.
nor are you respectful about Google's freedom to change their algorithm whenever they want.
I don't care if they change their algorithm. The point I made is that when it changes its algorithm it affects a large number of websites in Google. These websites are stakeholders, and they provide Google with the information foundation that, if it did not have, would be non-existent as a search engine.
My basis for complaining was not Google's algorithm change. It was that my blog was penalized without first being notified so I could fix whatever they penalized it for.
Oh, and for the record, I did pay for the Blogger PRO service, until Google discontinued it after they purchased Blogger. I don't mind paying for Google services at all. I despise poor customer service, though. They could have said, "Hey, John, your blog is in violation of TOS, you need to change this or we'll penalize your blog." Even AOL does that.
If Google pandered to business web sites as you wish they would, searchers would stop using Google and go somewhere they could find the content they actually seek, instead of being fed into somebody's marketing machine like so much meat.
I never said you were seeking to censor political debate. Some of the sources you quote are trying to do that.
Google doesn't owe you any explanation of their PageRank system. That system is designed to benefit people who use Google to search for things. It is not designed to benefit people who want to pay for higher rankings, nor is it designed to penalize people who don't run AdSense ads.
If your PageRank went down, that is not proof you have been "penalized" in any way. It happened because Google got better at helping their users find what they want to find, and your site just wasn't what most searchers were looking for. If you want a higher PageRank, provide more relevant content.
Victor, my PR is a 5, however, when I type my name in Google it is still on page 42. It used to be on page one. It had to be penalized. I don't care what they do with their PR system, personally, all I want is for them to say, "Hey, John, your blog is in violation of TOS rule xyz, fix it or we'll penalize you," if they're going to consider penalizing blogs/websites in the future. Even AOL does that, and it's automated, so Google could do the same thing, since all their stuff is probably automated anyway.
Your blog was never penalized. Your PageRank was reduced from an inflated level to a level more in keeping with the actual content you provide to web searchers.
If Google pandered to business web sites as you wish they would, searchers would stop using Google and go somewhere they could find the content they actually seek, instead of being fed into somebody's marketing machine like so much meat.
Well, maybe you're right, but if Google wants Congress to pander to it, it better stop pissing off the small business and Realtor lobby, as we have much more clout on the Hill than they do.
All I really wanted, Victor, is for Google to notify folks before penalizing them. I'm pretty sure I was penalized by them. If it gives folks a chance to remove whatever would cause a penalty before implementing it, I think that would be great.
Your blog was never penalized. Your PageRank was reduced from an inflated level to a level more in keeping with the actual content you provide to web searchers.
It was reduced to a 2. It's a 5 again now, though. How can you tell it wasn't penalized? I had SPAM links on there, and I thought I was being penalized for that. I removed them after researching what could get one penalized. But, again, if Google had said, "Hey John, remove your SPAM links or we're penalizing you," I would have been able to remove them without being penalized.
These other companies, though, that I included in the article, have more major issues than I do/did.
Oh, and for the record, in 2004 when Google did a major algorithm change that hurt a large number of businesses, I wrote some pieces similar to this one. They corrected their algorithm change somewhat. I know Google's reading this. That's why I wrote it.
It is not Google's job to help you game the system. Your job is to provide something searchers want. Google's job is to link searchers who are looking for exactly that to your web site, and link searchers who are looking for something else somewhere else. All your arguments clearly stem from your failure or refusal to understand this simple fact.
As Google gets better or worse at doing this, your PageRank may go up or down, depending on how many people were getting your site when they should have gotten something else.
You have no inherent right to any specific PageRank, and Google has no duty to notify you whenever some improvement to their algorithms might change your PageRank.
Tip for Google:
Guys, next time you're going to penalize my blog or whatever, send me an e-mail to tell me why and what I can do to prevent it beforehand. Because then I don't write stuff like this, and I don't call my friends in Congress to complain about what you guys did.
You don't have to take my advice. Of course, I don't have to give you raving reviews, either.
It is not Google's job to help you game the system. Your job is to provide something searchers want. Google's job is to link searchers who are looking for exactly that to your web site, and link searchers who are looking for something else somewhere else. All your arguments clearly stem from your failure or refusal to understand this simple fact.
As Google gets better or worse at doing this, your PageRank may go up or down, depending on how many people were getting your site when they should have gotten something else.
You have no inherent right to any specific PageRank, and Google has no duty to notify you whenever some improvement to their algorithms might change your PageRank.
Victor, I was in public relations before real estate. If you make your stakeholders or opinion leaders mad, they will turn on you. It's Public Relations 101. Google has communication issues it needs to deal with. Communication could resolve most of its problems. Communication before the fact, rather than reacting to stuff.
Google doesn't have to do anything. I don't have to buy it's stock, either, nor do I have to write raving reviews about Google, nor do I have to use my influence to produce positive results for Google. I'm a stakeholder, as I am dependent upon Google for certain things, like business. If Google turns on me, I turn on it, but more loudly. Is that what Google wants?
Victor, are you saying that Google can't control its algorithms? Or, is it set to ensure PageRank goes up and down?
If that's the case, how can that produce the best search results? Search results would differ every time if it's constantly changing. That makes it much harder to find things in a search, I would think.
From page 1 to page 42, though, I think that was a penalty, or an idiotic change in the algorithm.
Or maybe they don't have control over their search results, which is scary for a company based on being the best in search.
If you and your ilk succeed at making Google into the zombie servant you desire, millions of people like me will turn away from it. I suspect that weighs far more heavily in Google's thinking than your threats to lobby Congress in an attempt to force Google to unfairly favor your particular business sector.
A lot of people have qestions about Google's algorithms. DOJ should just investigate the algorithms so they are open to the public. After all, these algorithm changes do effect *a lot* of American and even global lives.
The American people have a right to not have their lives obstructed by a Google algorithm change, and if Google's going to play with the lives of the American people, than our government can regulate them.
If you and your ilk succeed at making Google into the zombie servant you desire, millions of people like me will turn away from it. I suspect that weighs far more heavily in Google's thinking than your threats to lobby Congress in an attempt to force Google to unfairly favor your particular business sector.
Victor, when I'm disappointed, I tell my friends. I can't help it if my friends have policy influence.
Google should be fair and it should communicate before penalizing. If its algorithm changes will harm websites, especially business websites, it should issue a press release stating that. The fact is, Victor, that Google's algorithm changes could cost businesses millions and millions of dollars, and that is something all businesses and something that Congress should be concerned about, because dollars are what allow us to buy food for our families.
If Google wants to ignore valid public concerns, it can, but it isn't likely to get favors from Congress in doing so, especially when it's seeking to influence it.
Google is a public company. If it didn't want to worry about valid public concerns about how its algorithms, penalties, etc., affect others' lives, it should have stayed private.
this is fucking ridiculous...
some hydroencepheletic greedhead is pissed because a FREE service got wise to his gaming their system?
the Poster in a comment sez...
*These websites are stakeholders, and they provide Google with the information foundation that, if it did not have, would be non-existent as a search engine.*
a bullshit postulate...
the only "stakeholders" in Google are the company employees and stockholders....NOT any website
puh-leeEEEeeEEezzZZzze spare us the bullshit
Exscelsior!
I see, so when you hurt a business you are not accountable then. This is exactly why Google is viewed as arrogant.
Search engines are places to find things. The public does not use your search engine to help your stock profit, nor do they do it to pay your empoyees. Your users are stakeholders, including those who search for things and those who have things entered into your search engine. Without them, you would have no foundation on which to build your business. Therefore, all websites i Google are stakeholders, as they have a stake in Google by using it, just as searchers do by using it, and without both of them, Google would not have a foundation for their AdSense business.
To say that is "bullshit" as you call it, only shows you are as out of touch as the folks at Google, but aren't you one of them?
Most people responding to this appear to be somewhat associated with Google, or are e,ployed by Google. I find that interesting.
You have GOT to be kidding. Search engine services change their listing criteria all the time just to shake things up and give everyone a chance. It keeps the people who try to dominate the listings through various tricks off balance and on the whole it's a good thing. Legit sites which achieve rank based on real content are rarely greatly impacted.
Just for the record, my business site's pagerank is and has been 6 for like 3 years. Not sure what I could do to bump it up any higher except I guess attract a zillion hits through some bogus means. My blog is a lowly 4, which it has slowly climbed to over the past year, along with my hit count which is now up to about 300 a day.
Dave
Google should not have to notify you when your page rank goes down. And second you assume your site was penalized for doing something wrong. It may very well be that your site just wasn't as relevant as the others.
Google isn't going to tell you how to get to the top. They do give a broad over view of things they look for but not specifics.
My website and blog both have a 5 PageRank. I'm trying to figure out how, when I type my name in, it comes up on page 42 of the search. With a 5 PageRank, I don't know how it is on page 42, unless it got penalized. My whole point was that if it was going to be penalized, I should have been contacted beforehand so as to fix whatever it was being penalized for. I don't think an algorithm change had anything to do with it. It's been in the same place for the last three years.
dada, when I type in "John Mudd" (my name) in a search, my blog should be highly relevant, as my name is at the end of every post. I fail to see how it could not be relevant. All of the news articles on the sidebar are about me, as well, and my name is everywhere. I was not suggesting I be notified of an algorithm change, but before a penalty to change what my blog may be getting penalized for would be nice. My website is on page 1. My blog is on page 42 for my name search.
gonzo,
I was just thinking about how stupid this statement was again:
the only "stakeholders" in Google are the company employees and stockholders....NOT any website
So when Google attempts to seek favors on Capital Hill, like it is doing now, do you think members of Congress who listen to Realtors and small businesses are going to care that these groups may have lost millions of dollars because of Google's narrow-minded approach?
It's a rhetorical question. Businesses are often dependent upon Google. If Google is anti-small business or anti-Realtor, no member of Congress is going to support the search engine company.
Again, if Google didn't want to worry about stuff like this, it should have remained private, but it got greedy and went public, and now it has public issues and concerns to worry about, and other stakeholders who have needs that it will have to address.
Oh, and while we're having this discussion, since all I'm getting are negative responses, some of which are coming from folks who have a direct stake in Google, please tell me why I shoulf EVER buy anything Google is selling, like AdSense.
If I'm going to have to put up with this much nonsense from Google when I am a prospect, how much worse will my experience be when I'm an actual customer?
Intelligent answers only, please.
John, dude, you are completely, embarassingly out of your f'ing tree with this anti-Google stuff. I don't know exactly how it would be possible for your to be any more wrong.
You don't get to decide what page rank you're going to get. It's not a constitutional right that a search engine's going to give your the placement that you want.
Also, you've got absolutely NO basis whatsoever for PRESUMING that you lost page rank because you didn't want some stupid ad on your page. You're obviously just making that up out of the blue. Frankly, you're delusional to think that the mighty Google would give enough of a shit about you to be bothered to screw with their carefully calculated algorithms just to screw YOU personally. Puh-lease.
Also, this is a particularly foolish statement "while its slogan says it's not evil, there are too many people displeased with Google for it not to be." Morality is not, in fact, decided by a majority vote.
Especially, I am very pleased that Google is ignoring the calls for censorship from the Germans. If you don't want to read those pages on sabotage, then don't read them. I'ma have to go look those pages up. Sounds like interesting reading.
In general, you're just scattering buckshot of hatred in this whole piece. You're mad at Google cause they won't hand-manipulate their rankings to personally favor you, so you just start looking for every unrelated kind of random shit to fling at them.
And you REALLY need to gets some perspective from writing silly stuff like this: "Google is perhaps the most evil, dishonest, and out of touch company under the sun." Are you out of your tree?
well now Mr Mudd...
for all that you believe my statement is "stupid"..allow me to point out..in a purely capatilistic sense...Google owes you shit...
fi and when Google approaches the government about anything, it is as any other business or lobbying faction does
what any particular congressperson does about that SHOULD be based on the well being of it's constituency as a whole
my position is that it is FAR more valuable for Google to be a "dewey decimal" system for the INternet....allowing users to find what they want...
than it is to be manipulated and "juiced" by business interests whose only concern are their own profits and not in promoting the organization and categorization of INformation available via the web
you seem to want to treat it as a free advertisement, and then become petulant when your Trickery doesn't work to manipulate the "librarian" into shoving your "book" out first
somebody call the waAAAaaAAAaaaaaahmbulance...this guy needs more cheese with his whine
nuff said?
Excelsior!
Mr. R. When I type my more uncommon name in I get 1.3 million hits all of which reference me. Try typing your name in quotes - "john mudd" that will winnow out the chaff of mudds and johns who are not you. It brings up 36,000 hits, and all but one of the first page of them refer to you.
And guys, give Mr. R a break - getting hits through google is vitally important for a business and not a bad thing for a blog either. He's gone a bit off the deep end here, but you can get pretty paranoid if you lie or die by your website.
Dave
Al, I think my blog got penalized, I don't think it had anything to do with PageRank. I think it was smart of Google to not censor themselves in Germany, as several members of Congress said they appeared to be out of touch and evil when they censored themselves in Communist China. I tend to agree with those Members.
Now to respond to Gonzo...
what any particular congressperson does about that SHOULD be based on the well being of it's constituency as a whole
Yes, and how many constituents do you think are Realtors and small business folks? They are both large in number, I can assure you, and both do more in their communities than just make profits, I can assure you. Google, on the other hand, has done nothing in most communities, but try to profit from AdSense using their names as keywords.
my position is that it is FAR more valuable for Google to be a "dewey decimal" system for the INternet....allowing users to find what they want...
Yes, but who is to decide what users want, the users or Google? Users do not get to vote on what content they want to find, Google feeds that content to them based on algorithms. I'm not saying that's bad, necessarily, but if Google penalizes a site that has what users want to find, and Google doesn't tell that site owner, "Hey, do this or we're going to have to penalize you," then that's not good for users.
than it is to be manipulated and "juiced" by business interests whose only concern are their own profits and not in promoting the organization and categorization of INformation available via the web
Right so it's fair for Google to "juice" its profits by changing its algorithm to benefit its AdSense ads and it's fair for Google to use blogs to SPAM itself with in order to make a profit from its AdSense ads, but to hell with everyone else. Right? Everyone else can lose millions of dollars and starve! Google is God! Hail Google! I don't think so.
I'm really not out of line here. Google does all the time what it penalizes others for doing, but no one penalizes Google. Someone needs to have oversight over it, whether its Congress or the FCC. No one should have that much power and not be regulated.
I don't have that much power as one Realtor and I'm even regulated.
Oh, and let me put in my two cents on AdSense. I've been using it for almost 2 years. We gain roughly $1 in gross profit for each hit it sends us. The hits cost around a dime each. You do the math.
Now, our listings are super fine tuned. I've been working on the campaigns constantly since we've used the service. We've weeded out lookyloos as much as possible and made sure there's a high relevance factor and a good clickthru ratio for most of them. I think there are a fair number of bogus clickthroughs, but the service still pays for itself.
Dave
This isn't the first time I've had problems with Google. After I informed Google that my old PR blog (http://muddpr.blogspot.com) was defunct, and after I put in a "do not index, do not follow" tag, Google left it in its index for about a year.
Now that's relevance in search, leaving a defunct blog in your search index after someone's informed you of it 5 or 6 times. Leaving it to algorithms may not actually produce the best content for the user. This is a good example of that.
yer missing the point entirely, Mr Mudd...
Google has the same right to run their business as you do
can we agree on that?
what you seem to be upset with is Google making money for Google and not for you
you don't like it...make your own search engine
it really is that simple
it totally bloggles my mind when some capitalist gets their panties in a wad because they can't get something for free from another capitalist
either pay for what you want, or quit yer bitching
nuff said?
Excelsior!
I am just reading this article, and perhaps it is late to comment but:
1 I believe Google could do everything they want to optimize their algorithm. Perhaps some sites (perhaps those using wrong ranking techniques) are penalized, but in any case the space is not left void, if someone is penalized others will fill the space... so it is not wise assuming they are doing that just to affect other people business.
2 Regarding KinderStart.com, it is a LOW QUALITY site, just a clone of some DMOZ.org categories, full of spam (just search "site:kinderstart.com p o k e r",without the spaces), and even more, it FRAMES all the sites that are in the directory. I do not see any value added to have a high pagerank. Additionally it was filled with p o r n links (although recently removed), just search for "site:kinderstart.com p o r n", removing the spaces, and take a look at the cached pages.
Gonzo wrote:
Google has the same right to run their business as you do
can we agree on that?
We can, but I have to deal honestly and fairly with the public, so I can't go behind someone's back and penalize them because they didn't use me as their Realtor, whereas Google appears to have gone behind my back and penalized me for God only knows why. I would have lost my licnese if I had acted in the same manner as Google. That was one of my points. Just as I have to justify my actions to the powers that be who oversee my industry, so should Google have to justify its actions to some sort of oversight entity, especially if it is going to cost American businesses millions and millions of dollars through actions that benefit only it. Google has no care for anyone but itself. It proved that when it censored itself to do business in China, a Communist nation with a history of horrible human rights abuses. Do no evil? Yeah, right.
/sigh
but you charge for your service...and Google indexes for free
are you honestly that myopic that you can't see that bitching about something you don't get charged for is ludicrous?
you missed your calling, you shoudl have been a lawyer
Excelsior!
I hope google indexes this page and lists it number one under the search term 'bitch'.
Also, the Realtors do have a powerful lobby, mostly to cover for the rampant corruption and illegal price fixing within the industry. The DOJ lawsuits and the power of the internet are about to bring that down though. Can anyone say "Google real estate"?
Guys:
Beware, he's got friends in Congress!
Do you sue Amazon every time your Alexa rating drops? Does NBC sue Nielson when they change their rating techniques?
The idea that Google should come anywhere close to disclosing their algorithms is insane. Do you know quickly Yahoo or Ask.com would pick them up? You've got to be out of your mind.
The ultimate irony, however, is that your horrible article is complimented by a nice big block of Adsense.
lmgdao....
i knew i could count on someone like you, Red
thanks for the Laugh and the affirmation
Excelsior!
Funny, when I search for your name, three of the top four results are about you.
Entertaining reading.
BTW, you are confusing AdSense and AdWords. You do not pay for AdSense. Google pays you for AdSense.
Er, John, I just went to your front page and saw a Google PageRank of 6. Either this article has worked wonders or you over-reacted! Although you could have used the time answering my email instead ;-)
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think your page rank is higher than the site deserves given the way it is designed.
As you probably know, Google gives higher ranking to sites that are useful to the theoretical observer, by which they mean containing useful information rather than simply being a shop window. People search for info not real estate agencies is the line of thinking.
I think a re-design of your site with a greater emphasis on information about Tampa would enhance its usability and possibly raise your PageRank even higher than its current excellent level.
Gonzo wrote:
but you charge for your service...and Google indexes for free
That's a common misconception about Buyer's Agency. Sellers typically pay a buyer agent's commission, so the reality is that I do not charge a buyer for my services unless they buy a FSBO, or if they're buying commercial real estate, where buyers are more often institutional in nature, and therefore willing to pay a buyer agent's commission. I only charge sellers, typically, but you get mostly buyers from a website. You get sellers typically through networking locally or cold calling.
are you honestly that myopic that you can't see that bitching about something you don't get charged for is ludicrous?
My Mars is in Virgo, what can I say?
you missed your calling, you shoudl have been a lawyer
Interestingly enough, I have missed taking the LSAT three times in order to service my clients.
RedTard wrote:
Also, the Realtors do have a powerful lobby, mostly to cover for the rampant corruption and illegal price fixing within the industry. The DOJ lawsuits and the power of the internet are about to bring that down though. Can anyone say "Google real estate"?
Anyone who knows anything about what's going on with the DOJ thing know that the banks are trying to use the DOJ lawsuit against NAR as a back door to get into the real estate industry. DOJ is begging to get $0 funded by Congress the longer they drag it out. They're working on a resolution at the moment. IMHO, if banks can sell real estate, I can provide my clients banking services. Banks don't like that, though. Funny how that is. Tell me, how do Realtors fix prices? That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard. I negotiate my commission for every listing I get. Commissions in my local MLS range from $200 to 1.5% to 2% to 2.5% to 3% to 4% to 5% to 6% to 8% - a Realtor and a seller agreed to that commission, as was negotiated by those two parties. How is that price fixing? The government fixes prices for my taxes and DOJ is wasting my tax dollars right now. Congress should $0 fund them if they're going to waste my money, which is exactly what they're doing.
ryan wrote:
Beware, he's got friends in Congress!
Do you sue Amazon every time your Alexa rating drops? Does NBC sue Nielson when they change their rating techniques?
The idea that Google should come anywhere close to disclosing their algorithms is insane. Do you know quickly Yahoo or Ask.com would pick them up? You've got to be out of your mind.
The ultimate irony, however, is that your horrible article is complimented by a nice big block of Adsense.
ryan, I never said I was going to sue anyone. Read the article, man. I simply cited some lawsuits against Google for some of its tactics. I then disclosed how my blog suffered as a result of one of Google's tactics. I then called that poor customer service, which it is, in my opinion, and yes, they could have notified me that they were going to penalize before doing so. No, ryan, the ultimate irony is that all these comments are boosting both my blog and my site's PageRank. ;)
Hee hee.
FYI wrote:
BTW, you are confusing AdSense and AdWords. You do not pay for AdSense. Google pays you for AdSense.
Thanks for the clarification!
Christopher Rose wrote:
Er, John, I just went to your front page and saw a Google PageRank of 6. Either this article has worked wonders or you over-reacted! Although you could have used the time answering my email instead ;-)
Probably a little bit of both. Either this article got their attention, or the rampant activity boosted my PageRank one point. Either way, I'm not complaining. I will get to your e-mail. Unfortunately I have over 300 in my inbox. I may have to hire an assistant just to answer my e-mails. It's getting nuts.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think your page rank is higher than the site deserves given the way it is designed.
As you probably know, Google gives higher ranking to sites that are useful to the theoretical observer, by which they mean containing useful information rather than simply being a shop window. People search for info not real estate agencies is the line of thinking.
I think a re-design of your site with a greater emphasis on information about Tampa would enhance its usability and possibly raise your PageRank even higher than its current excellent level.
My site is not suffering. My blog is the one that went from page 1 to page 42. I think it got penalized when an SEO person recommended I SPAM certain keywords on each post entry. I've since removed that SPAM from each post and am trying to restore the ranking of my blog. My website always comes up in Google's top 10, although I am looking at different ways to make the content on it more valuable to visitors (i.e., adding local information about Tampa and surrounding areas, etc.).
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. You've all been great! =)
Sam Jack wrote:
Funny, when I search for your name, three of the top four results are about you.
Yes, and that being the case, my blog should be on page 1, not page 42, because most of those sites link to my blog, as well as my site, and my blog is more often updated than many of the sites on page 1 for my name in Google. I have around 3,000 or so links to me on the Web. MarketingSherpa informed me of that when they did a case study on my blog and my site in 2005. They are now selling the case study.
Your assumption that anybody disagreeing with you here must work for Google tells me all I need to know about your nonexistent grasp of reality.
Victor, I believe the topic of discussion is the nature of Google, not Mr Mudd.
My particular beef with Google is that their level of customer support is generally totally inadequate and that Blogger is so patheticly inadequate and behind the times as a blogging system.
I think the company's rapid growth is taking away some of their original outsider perspective and they certainly can't see the forest anymore.
Christopher, thanks for letting me know which side the bread is buttered on. Guess I'm leaving now.
Your assumption that anybody disagreeing with you here must work for Google tells me all I need to know about your nonexistent grasp of reality.
OMG! You mean the sky really isn't pink???? ;)
We all work for Google, we just don't know it.
Hmm, I think that was a stab at me but, much like the United Nations, I have grown accustomed to being "shot by both sides", to quote Howard Devoto. Ouch!
There's no question of bread being buttered, Victor, unless you're referring to the lovely toast I had for breakfast this morning. The issue is, as you full well know, the house guidelines.
They say that you can rip apart John Mudd's views - or subject them to reasoned analysis and debate as some like to think of it - as much as you like. To take that further, into the supremely subjective terrain of personal characterisation is seldom helpful or welcome. Unless it's really funny of course!
You're welcome to make me laugh all day long...
Christopher Rose wrote:
My particular beef with Google is that their level of customer support is generally totally inadequate and that Blogger is so patheticly inadequate and behind the times as a blogging system.
I think the company's rapid growth is taking away some of their original outsider perspective and they certainly can't see the forest anymore.
Yes! That was exactly my point! Ah, finally, a voice of reason!
The forest for Google, unfortunately has become their monetary value, not their quality of service. Their focus is on making money, not meaning. When they focus on making meaning again, we will see better quality of service again.
Even if Google buys Sun, they will still be pathetic as a service provider, unless they put their focus back on the customers. This is a challenge, considering that their stock is as overvalued as some real estate I've seen on the market. But just as prices have been adjusting for real estate, so is the price of Google stock.
If Google were smart enough to make deals with the publishing industry, or other industries or even individuals it alienates, it would not suffer the same kind of backlash it has received.
Competition begets more competition. Google can make it a race to beat Microsoft, or whomever, or it can make it a path to make more meaning. In the end, it's the meaning, or the user/customer experience, that creates and sustains the profits.
I made no personal attack here, Christopher. I strongly disagreed with assertions made, indicating I saw those assertions as out of touch with the reality of the situation at hand.
If that's going to be misconstrued as a personal attack, I have little reason to continue in this particular discussion.
Dave Nalle wrote:
Google has customer support?
For what little bit it has, it does certainly seem non-existent.
The future does not belong to companies who do not listen to customers, so I find it interesting that Google has not made customer/user support a strong focus. The future belongs to businesses that are able to create a superior customer experience. Everyone has text ads now. Everyone has blogs now. Google has no unique services and it is very lacking in providing superior service, in addition to stepping on other industries' and even some users' toes. Microsoft, oddly enough, provides better customer support than Google, and their share price is much less. Apple provides superior quality service, in addition to new and unique items. If I were buying stock today, and I'm not, I would choose Apple of the three, simply because their practices are better suited for the customer-controlled future. GM is going down the tubes for having poor customer service and for not having a unique, quality product. Google has a strong brand, but so does Yahoo! and MSN, Google's two top competitors.
Yahoo's customer support is virtually non-existent too. eBay has customer support, but it's arcane and mostly designed to march you around in a little circle getting nowhere. This is how these companies keep their overhead down. Apple's customer support is better, but can often be frustrating and involve talking with someone in India. If you want good support, go to a small company.
I have to admit that I have issues with Google's stock price as well. Issuing their stock at such an inflated price seems nonsensical to me. Very few stocks are kept at that kind of high price as a matter of course. It tends to discourage investment, especially by small investors. Very market-unfriendly.
Dave
I made no personal attack here, Christopher. I strongly disagreed with assertions made, indicating I saw those assertions as out of touch with the reality of the situation at hand.
If that's going to be misconstrued as a personal attack, I have little reason to continue in this particular discussion.
Victor, I'm not bothered by your attack, if it helps. I've heard much, much worse before the "Personal attacks are not allowed" item was added to the comments policy (and I've even had worse with the policy in place), and some were from folks who did not even have the cojones to put their name beside their attack, or a link to their site showing their name. You know, kind of like how Google "customer service" responds to your e-mail, without a person's name, only they use an automated machine to send it out. Although, one time I got a response from a girl named "Jen" - no signature with contact info. on it or anything, just that name. She offered to customize my AdSense ads if I would put them back on my blog (I put them back on for a short time, then took them off, seeing as how they took away from my original business staple, and therefore my brand). That is unfortunately one of the realities at Google that I find disturbing. Lazy customer service. That's just simply a bad reality right there.
Dave Nalle wrote:
Yahoo's customer support is virtually non-existent too. eBay has customer support, but it's arcane and mostly designed to march you around in a little circle getting nowhere. This is how these companies keep their overhead down. Apple's customer support is better, but can often be frustrating and involve talking with someone in India. If you want good support, go to a small company.
I find that interesting that small companies tend to have better customer support. It's understandable that large companies would want to eliminate their overhead, but it would be interesting to see how many sales and/or customers they lose by minimizing customer service or not providing it.
I have to admit that I have issues with Google's stock price as well. Issuing their stock at such an inflated price seems nonsensical to me. Very few stocks are kept at that kind of high price as a matter of course. It tends to discourage investment, especially by small investors. Very market-unfriendly.
It's like buying rental investment property on the beach as a first-time investment property buyer. It's not worth the purchase because it doesn't cash flow out without a large downpayment. I had the opportunity to buy the initial Google stock. I did not buy it because I felt it was overvalued. I think it's still overvalued. Hype is what made Google a success, but hype can only get you so far as a company, and given that its stock price has been down for quite some time and that it is rated as a "sell" stock by quite a few firms, I would say Google will need to do something very impressive to maintain its current value, and it will need to stop stepping on toes of industries.
I agree with Victor on this one...Christopher was out of line on that comment.
Dear Mr. Real Estate,
look at your business website. That page contains no information, it's terrible on the eye. It's full of self-referentials, and it almost looks like a tutorial page from the "Google Hacks" department. The only intention of that "business" I can see is to cheat on Google and use whatever trick there is to get hold of their algorithm. And you, Mr. Real Estate, are accusing Google to be evil?
Your site's PageRank should be significantly lowered, considering your aggressive and obvious ways of fooling around with them. I rather hope they don't have to bother with would-be cheaters and keep doing a great job.
I see the point that business is becoming more and more centered around search tech on the web - and control freaks getting hysterical about something they cannot buy or influence.
But the most terrible thing is that there are all those people who try to cure you from your misconceptions and your bad thinking: Mr.Real Estate Man, they are trying to help you, and you are probably getting off, thinking you're the smart guy. That shows you are not evil after all, but a "lost soul", as people described your state of mind in the Middle Ages.
Take care,
Tom Colfax
Your assumption that anybody disagreeing with you here must work for Google tells me all I need to know about your nonexistent grasp of reality.
So, Andy, you agree with Victor then that my "grasp of reality" is "nonexistent" as Victor stated. You know, we can do adhominem attacks, straw man attacks, or any other attack you like, but they're all a violation of the comments policy.
The topic is what I wrote about Google, not my "nonexistent grasp of reality," as Victor put it.
You may want to read the comments policy before telling an editor he's wrong, because in this case, he is not. The comments policy is not amendable to fit a commentors whims. If an editor is wrong in citing comments policy, I am sure that he will be corrected by Blocgritics' publisher, or one of its owners or editors. I can assure you, though, that my "nonexistent grasp of reality" as Victor put it, has nothing to do with anything I wrote about Google, and I never said Victor worked for Google, therefore the statement Victor made about my "nonexistent grasp of reality" really is an attack. Of course, I really could care less, as I have had much, much, much worse attacks committed against me here before I moaned and whined about there not being a comments policy that is actually enforced.
See some of my older posts for details, circa 2002 to 2006.
I have been hearing complaints from big to small companies regarding the displacement of the page ranking and then, just completely disappearing from google all together. I have seen small companies being plundered of their budgets because of the pay per click advertising, I have seen invalid traffic sent from google to their subscribers and most of all, their responses are vague or you just do not get a response at all. When google purchases or partners with a company, any competing company will drop in the rankings or just disappear for awhile with no explanation. But the underlying question is in all of this is, does the consumer have a right to expect to be listed and ranked? Or, is it truly up to google as to whether or not they rank or list you. There is nothing written regarding this issue. They change their algorythyms constantly. That is a given. The interesting thing is, they are playing on the psychie of the user. If you are on page one, drop to page 10, people panic, up their pay per click budgets and away they go again. What people forget is, the conversion rate for google is last, just over 2% and AOL direct is above 6%. But evidently, the status of google is so important to people, that they are willing to throw money at google and for what? More traffic and less conversions. Doesn't make sense to me but until the industry is regulated in some way, google will be able to do whatever they wish and the small businesses that relied on google 2 years ago will no longer be found.
Dear Mr. Real Estate,
look at your business website. That page contains no information, it's terrible on the eye. It's full of self-referentials, and it almost looks like a tutorial page from the "Google Hacks" department. The only intention of that "business" I can see is to cheat on Google and use whatever trick there is to get hold of their algorithm. And you, Mr. Real Estate, are accusing Google to be evil?
Your site's PageRank should be significantly lowered, considering your aggressive and obvious ways of fooling around with them. I rather hope they don't have to bother with would-be cheaters and keep doing a great job.
Editors, adhominem attack on me and my business. Please enforce or ban the attacker. Thank you =)
pvc wrote:
I have been hearing complaints from big to small companies regarding the displacement of the page ranking and then, just completely disappearing from google all together. I have seen small companies being plundered of their budgets because of the pay per click advertising, I have seen invalid traffic sent from google to their subscribers and most of all, their responses are vague or you just do not get a response at all. When google purchases or partners with a company, any competing company will drop in the rankings or just disappear for awhile with no explanation.
This is exactly what my blog experienced. Fellow Realtors have informed me that they have experienced what you speak of with their websites in search results, as well as with Pay Per Click ads sold to them by Google. There are other business that have been affected, as well. Yet, no one has had similar things happen in MSN or Yahoo! search.
But the underlying question is in all of this is, does the consumer have a right to expect to be listed and ranked? Or, is it truly up to google as to whether or not they rank or list you. There is nothing written regarding this issue. They change their algorythyms constantly. That is a given. The interesting thing is, they are playing on the psychie of the user. If you are on page one, drop to page 10, people panic, up their pay per click budgets and away they go again. What people forget is, the conversion rate for google is last, just over 2% and AOL direct is above 6%. But evidently, the status of google is so important to people, that they are willing to throw money at google and for what? More traffic and less conversions. Doesn't make sense to me but until the industry is regulated in some way, google will be able to do whatever they wish and the small businesses that relied on google 2 years ago will no longer be found.
I don't buy Google ads because of their poor conversion and high click fraud rate. The Google brand is strong, but it does not guarantee conversion. There are a lot of people out there who are fed up with its unethical practices of using its algorithms to benefit itself while hurting other businesses in the process. I lost money when my blog's PageRank dropped without notice from Google. Why should Google have the right to harm my business like that, or any business for that matter? Would it allow the same harm to come to it? No, of course not.
Small businesses currently do not have any recourse against Google, even though its tactics are hurting these small businesses who have depended on it for years. What should they do? Accept the losses? Write Google off completely? Complain to their government officials? File a class action suit against Google? All of the above? None of the above? What can affected users/consumers do to have recourse? Google, do you have a solution? We want to know.
In all honesty, until google's revenue begins to decline, and it appears that the only way that will happen is if people refuse to continue buying into the pay per click and adsense seeings how that is a big source of their revenue, then there will be no changes because the demand is so strong. MSN and yahoo have been very consistent. Rarely do I hear complaints regarding listings. There was an interesting comment made by a journalist back in October of 2005 that said if google decided to sell underwear with holes, people would buy. Until the honeymoon wears off, the demand is still there and google will continue on. Ask.com is breaking into the market share and that is another one to watch for consistency. The internet market place is constantly evolving and the users are becoming more educated. The change is occurring but slowly and when we all catch up, then the industry will again change to meet demand.
That makes sense. I guess the smartest thing for a business to do, then, for now, is not put all of their eggs in the search engine basket that is Google, text ad or otherwise.
I just did a search using Google Base for treasure island waterfront for sale listings. Nothing came up in Treasure Island, Florida. What came up were listings in Boca Raton, Vero Beach and other locations located five hours or more from Treasure Island. Here's a link.
The search engine says it is sorting these listings by "Relevance" - if I'm trying to find listings in Treasure Island, Florida, how are listings in Boca Raton relevant?
The Google brand may be relevant, but they are clearly no longer the most relevant in search, as far as accuracy is concerned.
Mr. RE, I'm beginning to wonder if the problem is your googling skills. While it's true that most real estate websites use every trick in the book to show up on any search even halfway relevant, finding listings for treasure island is easy.
Search for: "treasure island" "real estate" listings
This brings up mostly realtors who are either in Treasure Island or have property listed there. Each of these sites then has a search feature of its own or a breakdown by location, and you can go from the main page to the treasure island page fairly easily.
Dave
Thanks for the tip. I didn't use quotes when I searched earlier.
Now the Google Real Estate search box doesn't come up in a regular Google search. It would be smart for them to keep it out of the regular Google search, as it would make their Realtor and broker text ad clients lose sales, and thus money to a FSBO or a listing agent for the property found in the Google Real Estate search. When I searched before I used the Google Real Estate Beta version, which they had integrated with the main Google search, but they appear to have removed it from the main Google search. Good thing. I was about to issue a statement to the media on why agents and brokers need to boycott Google. Google really should get feedback from Realtors and brokers before moving forward with Google Real Estate. It all goes back to communication. Sure, bold ideas can be good, but they can also make a 1-million strong industry work to shut you down - if you don't take their needs into consideration when creating a new product.
You have an Alexa Rating only slightly below the 1 million mark and you were going to issue a statement to the media?
Google makes more revenue in an hour than you will your entire life, more traffic in a day than your website will ever see, and has one of the highest brand awareness levels in the Fortune 500.
You really are delusional with self-importance. YOU'RE A FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO POSTS ON A BLOG SYNDICATOR! Accept reality and quiet down.
Your press releases won't be read, your letters to Google will go unanswered, and your "friends in congress" have little influence. Please for the love of God, get a clue.
ryan, you obviously don't have a clue about who I am or what my influence is, and that is fine, but it's obvious you're trying to find out from your research about me, which I find a little bit odd.
I have influence and I use it when necessary. If Google is anti-real estate, it will find that the real estate industry can quickly become anti-Google. If Google Real Estate causes Realtors and brokers who have bought Google text ads to lose money due to the inefficient execution of Google Real Estate, I would say that gives them good reason to boycott Google. Google Real Estate needs to work in unison with Realtors and real estate brokers, not against them, and if it does work against them, it will risk having a 1 million member strong trade group being against it.
Again -- Google needs to consider all of its stakeholders, which include Realtors and brokers who buy the text ads, when implementing the Google Real Estate system. As I saw it earlier today, integrated into the Google search engine, it appeared that Google Real Estate listings, whether FSBOs or those listed with a Realtor, would take business from the Realtors and brokers who had text ads appearing on the same search page as the real estate listings that appeared. It would have also presented the option to use Google Real Estate instead of clicking on an agent's or broker's website. This works against Realtors and real estate brokers, and NAR should warn the industry of this, and we as an industry should act on it.
I will not quiet down if there is a need to speak, and the First Amendment does allow me to do that. Google needs to consider all potential stakeholders who are affected by its future plans. Anything less than that is simply careless, and careless practices do not always create the best results. A best practices approach would be wiser for Google, in my opinion. Best practices create a system of implementation that work so smoothly that no one suffers any negative side effects, and all parties effected benefit.
Search is good. Taking business from your Realtor and broker clients who you're making a profit from is not, and further, it is unethical, even if Google is the one doing it, and it was when I tried Google Real Estate Beta for the first time this afternoon.
Google needs to do focus groups with Realtors and brokers to see how Google Real Estate affects them before implementing stuff like this. Google depends on Realtors and brokers for ad dollars, therefore they are stakeholders, and Google Real Estate could be created to create a benefit to the searcher and the stakeholders.
Right now Google Real Estate appears to be designed to put Realtor.com and Realtors and real estate brokers out of business, while it's taking their money for text ads simultaneously. Innovation is great, but stupid implementation is just stupid implementation, and Google does a lot of stupid implementation. New ideas are great; they're better when their repercussions are fully explored before they're implemented.
You really are delusional with self-importance. YOU'RE A FLORIDA REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO POSTS ON A BLOG SYNDICATOR! Accept reality and quiet down.
Editors, please note this personal attack against me from someone who has admitted to profitting from Google.
Yawn. When are y'all gonna get tired of this meaningless dance?
You know, Microsoft was big and powerful in the 1990s, until some little unknown search engine company run by two college students came out of nowhere to top them at their own game. If you think another company can't come out of nowhere to top Google after Google has alienated everyone, I would say there's a good chance that you could be wrong. If Google keeps making people angry and doing whatever it wants without thinking of how it effects others, there's a good chance that those people will turn elsewhere, and someone will come out with something better than Google.
They don't keep making people angry, they keep making you angry. And rightfully so, by angering the people who abuse the system they are pleasing the one's who actually use it.
Do you do this all the time? First make a crying post and then cry to the editors when people disagree?
I'm sorry I don't know who you are or fully understand your importance Mr. A-list celebrity.
You might as well throw in the towel as far as the internet goes anyway, as the internet is making the real estate agent go the way of the stock broker. You can kiss you 2-5% commission goodbye my friend and look forward to flat-fees a la $7 dollar trades.
Take note editors, I profitted from Google---To bad the editors profit from Google too, with Adsense paying the hosting fees for this entire site.
Yawn. There he goes again...
Say, ryan, why don't you write a book on how you made millions in profit because of Google and their missteps. You could call it...
"Profitting From Google's Missteps With AdSense" and sell the e-book on your blog, and write a review of it for Blogcritics with a link to Amazon.
Then someone else can write a book...
"How I Made Millions From Selling My Google Stock Before Their 599th Lawsuit In Two Years, Then Took A Job With Microsoft"
If Google is making everyone mad except for AdSense folks, there's not going to be anyone left to sell text ads to, which hurts AdSense customers, in addition to the buyers and prospective buyers of ads Google burned by being overly bold and poor in communication to them.
Business is about creating trust and creating and maintaining that trust and mutually beneficial relationships. The more you have, the more successful you are as a business. If you burn several groups of people along the way, there's always another you waiting to take your place, regardless of how big you are as a company. Google needs to wake up and realize that before they burn too many people/industries. Hopefully this article did it.
'night.
And you--the world's greatest real estate agent--are just the man to do it?
Or do you just like talking in hyperbole and pretend not to see when people call you on it?
Out of respect for the USA's strong commitment to freedom of speech plus the fact that Mr Mudd has defended himself, I have decided not to edit out this personal debate but from this point on it's on topic or out of here.
Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, for your understanding.
And you--the world's greatest real estate agent--are just the man to do it?
Or do you just like talking in hyperbole and pretend not to see when people call you on it?
The post raises some very important points about Google's practices, and they are practices that have been voiced as concerns from a large number of people, including stock analysts who have rated Google stock as a "sell" and entire industries who have filed lawsuits against Google for Google abusing its influence in an attempt to circumvent copyright law and people's and publishers' intellectual property.
One may note that the people who think I'm wrong in giving a voice to these views do profit from Google's AdSense ads, for the most part, which I feel presents an inherent conflict of interest.
However, I do want to thank everyone for attacking me. As always you've done wonders for my PageRank.
Oh, and I want to comment on one more thing that ryan wrote:
You might as well throw in the towel as far as the internet goes anyway, as the internet is making the real estate agent go the way of the stock broker. You can kiss you 2-5% commission goodbye my friend and look forward to flat-fees a la $7 dollar trades.
Flat fee brokers generally charge $3995 or so and they charge more on properties that are $300,000 or more, and there are some flat fee brokers out there. Professionals of any field who provide top quality service do not get discounted, though, typically, whether they're stock brokers, real estate brokers or attorneys. The bottom line is you get what you pay for, and those seeking excellent service do pay and will continue to pay for top quality real estate services, primarily because they would not get the same experience and advising from Google Real Estate or a discount broker as you do from a full service Realtor or broker. Sellers who are okay with losing 11% or so to "save" by not paying a Realtor commission aren't ever going to pay a Realtor 4%, 5% or 6% (or a variable commission rate, which is what I typically use), but folks who want to gain that 11% or so in profit, well, that's a different story (and there are NAR studies that show FSBO sellers usually make less from the sale than those represented by a Realtor), but they have to actually run the numbers to see the value. Commission haters are going to be commission haters, regardless of the value full service real estate brokerage services bring them. This has nothing to do with Google or Google Real Estate. It's as old as real estate and real estate brokerage services.
Everyone thought Zillow was the end of real estate (primarily because Zillow didn't communicate to the real estate industry what it was going to be; communication is very important). I link to it on my website. Its property values are not accurate, but it's fun for some folks to use and they can always contact me if they want an expert's opinion, as it opens in frames on my site, so my contact link is right beside the Zillow map. I thought it was a good co-branding strategy, and the people who run Zillow are very cool people. My feeling with Google is that it is trying to take over the real estate industry, and I won't support Google Real Estate until they show me they're amiable toward not cutting Realtors and brokers, including but not limited to their text ad clients, out of the real estate brokerage process.
I'm doing seminars on real estate blogging for a fee these days and I'm telling everyone to watchout for Google. Text ads are the worst investment for a broker or Realtor if you're just going to lose business to a FSBO or other broker who has placed their property in Google Base, a la Google Real Estate search integrated into the main Google search (really dumb idea, Google; screwing your text ad clients to be the "best in search" - but this does present a misuse of the data and conflict of interest on Google's part, because it hurts Google's own text ad clients). Google should have seen this coming, but they have shortsight and lack farsight, and they're experiencing the result of that in many, many forms.
Hopefully Google will get a clue before it hurts anyone else or any other industries.
Ryan, stop feeding this debate and it will wither.
Hey all,
Not to refuel the flames, but I carry AdSense ads on my Blogger Blog and did have a PR5. It also dropped to PR2 on the last update.
It has more to do with content and keywords than it does whether Google likes you or not (they don't know you).
If you don't update your Blog on a daily basis, it is very easy to lose page rank to someone who does. There are Millions of sites writing posts on the same subject as you, (it doesn't matter what subject it is).
Google 101
Joe
Thanks for the tip!
I guess it's fair to say that PageRank will become more variable, then, in the future as more and more blogs are created and added to Google. My PR 6 was there for two years, then they changed the algorithm and it dropped to a steady 5 for a while, then one day I noticed it at a 2. On the same day it went back up to a 5, though.
I guess you just have to find a way to continuously update it to maintain the PageRank I have.
That is true... Speaking of which, I have to get back to work myself. Gotta build that ole pagerank back to 5.
Joe
WOW!
If you don't want your site to turn up in Google's results pages add a robots.txt file to your website.
Here's the link to create a robots.txt file:
Care to expand on that? From spitting bullets to pals in three days? What happened?
follow the money
Mr.Real Estate get real, okay one day DOJ and Congress may step on Google - , but I will be mad, and might cry, just because these guys keep all our searches 37 years, what's so bad about that, why shouldn't they know all our personal stuff, they are too cool and like we are using their search engine. Have some love.
And so what if we all know there *really* is no page rank alog- and it is really "Larry" PageRank, look they are employing lots of folks (in India) to like pull the switches and stuff, and India is really cool and like that is foreign trade and stuff and we all know Larry Page is cool, so chill!
So, what if they kind of deleted *the truth* in China, don't worry, they will never do that here:)
Dude, you just don't understand-
BTW, one fella was looking for porn links, said they could lower page rank said he found some on the site suing google, he wrong man, like really wrong.
Hey Google is better that some small dinky site, dude, I just found 145 Million Responses to the query "Porn" on Google, the the first one was a link to Free Porn Pictures, maybe he can use that link. lol
BTW, you can find porn with lots of other words, but you probably don't know that because you don't even know how to use Google, do you?
And I saw lots of Porn Ads,so Google Rocks when it comes to porn, they have more porn that anyone!
Like I hate porn myself, but like I love Google and I don't like guys who trash google and you and that other dude are big time google trashers.
And now I see you see the light, Google is the most highest, coolest and now you see, soon we will all be one with Google.
Christopher Rose wrote:
Care to expand on that? From spitting bullets to pals in three days? What happened?
My PageRank is still high, and my blog is steadily rising to higher pages than 42. I think all these comments might have something to do with that. =)
I'm also in talks to write exclusively for a real estate blog (not my own), so I'm pretty happy right now.
Mr.Real Estate get real, okay one day DOJ and Congress may step on Google - , but I will be mad, and might cry, just because these guys keep all our searches 37 years, what's so bad about that, why shouldn't they know all our personal stuff, they are too cool and like we are using their search engine. Have some love.
And so what if we all know there *really* is no page rank alog- and it is really "Larry" PageRank, look they are employing lots of folks (in India) to like pull the switches and stuff, and India is really cool and like that is foreign trade and stuff and we all know Larry Page is cool, so chill!
So, what if they kind of deleted *the truth* in China, don't worry, they will never do that here:)
Google is perhaps just as hypocritical as Microsoft, and if that's not evil, I don't know what is. I will give Google credit for genereous bonuses to their employees (i.e., $50,000 bonuses based on things I won't mention here).
I know people at Google and I have complained to them before, and I know I'm not the nicest complainer, and so do they. Google has many positive attributes, but they're not perfect, and if they cause me to lose business, as far as I'm concerned, their stock can drop $200 per share. It is well documented that I get most of my business from the Web. I don't buy Google ads because there is a high fraud rate, and that is also well documented. I do spend money on other lead generators, though, but none have worked as well as my own. People pay me to talk about my success, and the reason is my formula works. Google could learn from me if it wanted to, rather than penalizing my blog or my website.
Eric Schmidt does have points about doing business in China, but Google will lose Hill influence by firmly agreeing with China's overly regulatory ways. Hey China: Get modern. Communism is for cowards, and so are overly strict regulatory systems, whether government or corporate. Without freedom, China would starve, because it is free trade that has allowed them to sell their products in massive numbers here in the US, and those hypocrites won't trade fairly with us, because they are cowards.
China: Wake up and join the rest of the world.
Google: Get a clue. Washington will not support your desires if your actions contradict your words, like they do in the case of your doing business in China, bowing to China's overly regulatory pressures.
Dude, you just don't understand-
BTW, one fella was looking for porn links, said they could lower page rank said he found some on the site suing google, he wrong man, like really wrong.
Hey Google is better that some small dinky site, dude, I just found 145 Million Responses to the query "Porn" on Google, the the first one was a link to Free Porn Pictures, maybe he can use that link. lol
BTW, you can find porn with lots of other words, but you probably don't know that because you don't even know how to use Google, do you?
And I saw lots of Porn Ads,so Google Rocks when it comes to porn, they have more porn that anyone!
Like I hate porn myself, but like I love Google and I don't like guys who trash google and you and that other dude are big time google trashers.
And now I see you see the light, Google is the most highest, coolest and now you see, soon we will all be one with Google.
There are porn links in my articles about porn star Mary Carey. Big deal. I understand that if Google is going to embrace a closed country and a communist government, while hurting American businesses, it's sending a very strong signal, and the signal is not pro-American.
Google operates like China. It's there way or they highway; or, there way or lose your ranking and your business. Maybe the US should regulate Google's sites if they're going to bend and bow to the dictates of the Communist China government. If we banned China's goods, all of their people would starve. We invented the Internet, so why are we letting China regulate it?
Okay, Mr Real- I was being a bit sarcasitic in the last post, just in effect asking some questions. I think you make excellent points, really!
Okay, Mr Real- I was being a bit sarcasitic in the last post, just in effect asking some questions. I think you make excellent points, really!
That's why I get paid the big blogging bucks.
Cheers.
Google should be regulated by congress? Are you kidding? Yes lets give the government ALL of our private information! Your pagerank should be -1.
Google should be regulated by congress? Are you kidding? Yes lets give the government ALL of our private information! Your pagerank should be -1.
Well, I figure if Google is going to let Communist China regulate our information via their search engine and other services, we may as well let Congress regulate them to prevent damage to businesses. After all, isn't that China's argument for regulating Google? Keep their people safe. My PageRank should be a 10 24/7 366 days a year and Google should applaud me on top of that for being so openly endorsing of them over the years, until they took my blog out of Google, and started contradicting thmselves. Google needs to stop contradicting itself. It's okay to let China regulate them, but not anyone else. C'mon. That's the stupidest business policy I've ever heard. Even Microsoft is less contradictory than that. It's okay for communists to regulate Google, but it's bad for the U.S. government to regulate Google to ensure Google does not abuse their monopoly on search to have a negative effect on U.S. businesses.
The bottom line is Google openly allowed itself to be regulated by Communist China, and the result, my friends, will be a Congress that reminds Google of that fact in the future, regardless of what Eric Schmidt or anyone else says.
Oh, and by the way, your personal attack against me regarding my PageRank is a violation of comments policy, and it was a violation of my trust when Google removed my blog without giving me notice in advance, and full disclosure of any rules that were violated (which there were none on my part, so why the SEO idiot that got me removed still has high ranking is beyond me).
Google needs to automate less and communicate with its stakeholders more, and if it doesn't want ot be regulated, it needs to get out of China, or refuse to be regulated by China's government. Why? Because Google by its own precedent has given other governments to regulate it by bending over backwards to please the Communist china government.
That's reality, like it or not.
Google's Webmaster Guidelines is a great place to find out what you should and shouldn't be doing with your site.
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
If you follow those guidelines, you'll do fine. What you need to work on, is earning high-quality inbound links from reputable websites. Right now, you're not doing so well in that respect.
I'm ashamed to be associated with a site that would publish an article like this one. Please refrain from writing articles like this in the future. Stick to topics you understand.
In reference to your comment about Google being worse than Microsoft, I find the comparison utterly ridiculous, espeicially when Microsoft is constantly buying, up and coming companies, to keep competition at bay. In addition to this, I believe that there are much more important things that need regulating than a company such as Google. Take the oil companies that keep inflating gas prices and have some of the highest profits ever?? Hmm.. but then there are maybe too many in Congress that would lose out financially if that were to happen, so god forbid. Lastly, there is no other area that is in desperate need of regulation than the real estate industry!!! Corruption and greed and dishonesty has prevailed in this industry which only caters to the Agent and brokers. NAR (national association of relators) is a good example of this when they manipulate a buyers opportunites for seeing potential houses, as well as, using boycotting tactics to make selling difficult for those agents, or for sale by owners, that try to provide minimal costs in real estate transactions.
Mr. Real Estate.. I would presume to say that what you are really upset about is that your profits from this blog are not as high as you wish and that, that is the real reason that Google is the target of your irritations :)!
Great post, Mr. Real Estate. The sooner Congress steps in, the better.
I'm going to write an article demanding that the government come pull the weeds in my lawn, since they are clearly a conspiracy that only government can deal with.
Dave
I'm glad Mr Real Estate has stepped up to say what many, many, many disgruntled Goggle-affiliates have been scared to - because of the PageRank gun held to their heads. Way to go, Mr Real Estate.
You make great points! A company making billions off others' content ought to share much more of its wealth. And it certainly is turning into far worse than any other "evil empire" previously seen - I won't say who.
I certainly believe it's only a matter of time before the DOJ steps in. I can't wait.
Kari2065 wrote:
In reference to your comment about Google being worse than Microsoft, I find the comparison utterly ridiculous, espeicially when Microsoft is constantly buying, up and coming companies, to keep competition at bay. In addition to this, I believe that there are much more important things that need regulating than a company such as Google. Take the oil companies that keep inflating gas prices and have some of the highest profits ever?? Hmm.. but then there are maybe too many in Congress that would lose out financially if that were to happen, so god forbid. Lastly, there is no other area that is in desperate need of regulation than the real estate industry!!! Corruption and greed and dishonesty has prevailed in this industry which only caters to the Agent and brokers. NAR (national association of relators) is a good example of this when they manipulate a buyers opportunites for seeing potential houses, as well as, using boycotting tactics to make selling difficult for those agents, or for sale by owners, that try to provide minimal costs in real estate transactions.
(1) The real estate industry is one of the most regulated insutries in the U.S. It is reguated at the Federal level (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) and state levels. There are also laws against price fixing, and anti-trust laws. You may want to note that all real estate commissions are negotiable. You may also want to further research the topic, as your assertions are false.
(2) The reason that fixed commodity goods, such as oil, gold and real estate are high is due to the fact that the dollar's value is extraordinarily low, showing a lack of faith in U.S. currency, making equities appear to be poor investments and fixed investments appearing to be better choices, however, you may notice that amateur flippers are less in number in the current market, and you may also have noticed that prices have levelled off. They won't drop, unless there's an unforeseen catastrophe of some sort. The 1970s created a similar situation, where gas prices and real estate were both high. What occurred in the 1980s was a more stable housing market and lower gasoline prices. Markets can only take so much heat, and both real estate and gasoline, as well as oil, are dependent upon the free market. All of these commodities are regulated.
Supply and demand tends to regulate commodity markets well. When one understand how these markets work, and how easily available capital is, it makes it easier for one to capitalize on those markets.
Speaking of markets, Google stock was rated a sell, and one can see why, as it has yet to click-fraud proof its ads and it has yet to prove its true value is worth its current share price. Google is the only company I know of that creates new products without creating a profit strategy. How that is good for shareholders is beyong my understanding.
Google's Webmaster Guidelines is a great place to find out what you should and shouldn't be doing with your site.
Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
If you follow those guidelines, you'll do fine. What you need to work on, is earning high-quality inbound links from reputable websites. Right now, you're not doing so well in that respect.
Thanks for the tip.
That is of no concern to me. If Google does not want to receive criticism it can learn to make its stakeholders, including opinion leaders, happy. Google is the only company I know of that does business using autoresponders, unless I contact someone I know who works there. Great way to build those relationships its going to need to maintain its overvalued share price. I'm being sarcastic, of course.
Google slips up from time to time. When they do I write about it. When Google took Blogcritics out of Google news, who do you think connected the publisher to them to get it straightened out? Take a wild guess.
Again, if Google is going to accept regulation from China as a cost of doing business, why should they not accept regulation from the U.S. government as a cost of doing business? I could write an entire essay on that one, but I won't as long as Google doesn't step out of line.
I am not the only person in t
Your page is nothing but a listing of real estate you've sold, where do you get off expecting a stellar page rank?
Last time I checked, Google can change their algorithms any time they want. You using them is like suing the government for changing the path of a freeway that resulted in fewer drive-by customers. Hell, it's more like seeing the cable company for switching the channels again, after you had them all figured out.
--------------
You would think that a company seeking to influence members of Congress would quickly respond to someone who has friends in Congress and friends who work for Members on the Hill, especially when I have said previously that perhaps Google should be regulated by Congress.
--------------
Yes, I'm sure Google made a huge mistake crossing Mr. Real Estate. Drop the ego and get in touch with reality my friend.
I'm sure they sent Eric Schmidt down to Florida to beg you to use his Adsense program. Are you insane? It probably has nothing to do with Adsense .
People own stock in Google because it's made them millions of dollars. I doubled my money in less than a year. It has nothing to do with their "do no evil" motto.
Go ahead and sue, I'd love to see you get laughed out of court.