Google is rigging its search algorithms for profit-earning purposes just as Enron and other companies rigged their earnings by cooking the books in the 1990s. Is this a violation of U.S. anti-trust laws or is it simply Google selling out to larger companies so it can afford to go public? Google now favors powerful companies with capital over small business for profit, thus, selling out for profit and likely alienating the very people and businesses who built the search engine.
Google changed its search algorithms to hurt my business, as well as other Realtors' and real estate brokers' businesses recently. It also hurts other small businesses, as well. I did wonder why my average of four to seven daily leads suddenly disappeared from my website, then I found out why in a recent Inman News article.…
Article comments
26 - John Mudd
That's a good point, and a good thing Google has done.
You also get free health care coverage in England. I have to choose between diabetic care supplies and paying for my marketing, so my marketing budget is limited. If I buy diabetic care supplies I get to live, so I buy them instead of buying Google per-click ads.
Although, if Google paid for my diabetic care supplies, I would be happy to buy per-click ads. I don't foresee that happening, though.
Cheers.
27 - BB
John you mentioned the word "monopoly" but you didn't take it to next level. Like most I am completely dependent on Google and couldn't imagine the net without it. BUT, I am concerned with any organization that has such a good product that there are no real competitors. We don't need another Microsoft and perhaps that is why Billy Boy is interested in acquiring it? Nevertheless, now that Google is contemplating going public, for that very reason I too am apprehensive. And if Google is indeed diddling with its algorithms in favor of big business I have to agree that it is hurting the very people that helped build its enterprise. That might not necessarily be illegal but its ethics is certainly questionable. But then again when it comes to big business in the real world ethics generally takes a back seat to the almighty dollar. However, if a manufacturer or service provider does indeed have a monopoly it is incumbent upon it to make every precaution that its product is provided on a level playing field (notwithstanding group rates, etc.) With respect to Nick's comment "you cannot trademark, copyright, or otherwise protect a name", the short answer is - yes you can and its called McDonald's, albeit it is agreeably very difficult to do so.
28 - Mac Diva
According to this month's Wired, Amazon's new algorithms, particularly its search every word in a book function, raises the ante among portals and major sites in the opposite way -- it makes small sales count because they become large in aggregate, a plus for small businesses, particularly publishers. That makes me wonder if Google has an ancillary plan that may create the same kind of less is more result. That could actually favor small businesses. Alternatively, it seems to me some kind of grouping together could offset the higher priority of large advertisers. For example, a city's trial lawyers association could buy the ad instead of its members.
29 - John Mudd
Thanks for the insight, MD. It's great, as usual.
Cheers.
30 - Phillip Winn
Jadester, money paid by companies does not in any way influence the rankings at Google. Adwords are commercial, the regular rankings are not. That has been clear since the beginning, and is one of the several reasons that Google is #1 with a bullet.
John, you ranking continues to rise because every time you post a new post you end up with about three links tying your name to your site. while the comments here are linked to your email address, I note that your more recent comments are also linked to your site. Those things help. In fact, I suggest streamlining things so that your URL is updated in Blogcritics to point directly to your root domain, not the subpage.
Google is not profiting from your name. They are profiting from the name of Mudd Jeans, or really from the fact that a random web surfer typed 'Mudd' into a search engine.
When I type 'Mudd' into Goodle, what are the odds I, the average web surfer, am looking for your real estate site? Infinitesimal. I'm looking for the shoes or the jeans or maybe the band.
You are confusing so many issues here it would take a while to straighten you out even if you listened carefully. 'Fair Use' it a legal term that is not directly related to what you think is fair. A search engine is not in the public domain by any stretch of the imagination. And Google will not be regulated by Congress.
Listen to yourself! You sound hysterical! And inconsistent, at that. If the big companies truly are favored over the little guys now, do you really think that Congress would care? Are you little guys giving more money to election campaigns than the big companies? Ha!
I also typed in 'tampa bay real estate' and got very good results, exactly what I would hope for as a random web surfer. No problems here, Google is still working.
31 - John Mudd
All very good points.
I did actually notice that during the months I post more on real estate items here at Blogcritics I do get more leads for buyers from my website.
The algorithm change appears to have affected blatant Google bombers more than anyone else, hence my recent post.
You may also be looking for Puddle of Mudd, or Mudvayne, which also pulls my blog up.
Congress probably won't care. Their members are usually the #1 search ranking in Google regardless of an algorithm change, anyway. Plus, Google has plenty of cool free things they can use to get their way with Washingtonians.
I don't sound hysterical. I sound like someone who's trying to stimulate public debate for the sake of increasing my ranking and Blogcritics' ranking in Google. ;)
Cheers.
32 - James
This is a load of nonsense. Does he not realize that in order to gain the top spot, the number of links is the main deciding factor..... Its not MSN's fault that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other sites link to it.