Cranky Dave and mjtaylor: The point that I was trying to make is that I cannot think of any other industry where it is so easy to injure, harm or destroy another businesses reputation.

That is not my cup of tea. I am all about building a better internet.

The problem is that other people do not share that idealistic point of view.

When the top player in the game (Google) is not called on the carpet for the serious flaws in its methodology I see it as a major problem for all of us. (Calling Matt Cutts, please start talking out both sides of your blowhole!)

Re: Google Bowling,
Can you name another industry where damaging someone else is so easy?

Like I said, I am not about hurting people....if the system was even remotely civilized it would be pretty difficult to damage to your brand or business. You interpret my communication with mjtaylor as a threat to do harm. I was trying to communicate it as a vulnerability that Google refuses or is incapable of fixing! That is what creates the fear. We all instinctively recognize the vulnerability but we do not wish to anger the gods.

God I hope that doesn't piss Google off.

In the computer industry, software developers originally would promote how their latest software was SECURE. White Hat hackers would prove them to be liars and would equally suffer under the attack of well financed public relations departments. I think that is a perfect analogy to what Google is doing today.

Today computer security has evolved to a point that companies actually hire hackers before they launch to try and make sure that their platforms are in fact as secure as possible. White hat hackers were maligned for showing how vulnerable the universe is when you marry a vulnerable computer with a vulnerable telephone. Giant software manufacturers would always spin the Public Relations battle as if they had been harmed every time they were hacked.

Who would you suggest that I contact? Indiana Jones?

Let's make a very important distinction here.
Our disagreements (yours and mine) and our differences in perspectives do not cause each other economic hardship.

Secondly, we are also providing each other with a basis for the judgments we are making. Like them or not.

Furthermore we are giving each other an opportunity to respond and clarify.

I would consider that to be rather civilized.

On the other hand, the search engines do not provide any of us for a basis for their judgments.
Nor do they give us an opportunity to respond.
Nor do they give us an opportunity to understand and clarify.

I would consider that rather uncivilized.
They make judgments and execute them in a nano-second.

If the Search Engines were powerless nobody would care.
But the problem is that they have become very powerful and their judgments do have huge economic consequences.

Wouldn't it be great if businesses could protect the quality of the hard work they put into their
search engine campaigns?

Search does not make the search engines any money. Unless you look at it as a lead generator for their advertising platform. 95% of their income is derived from advertising. They change their advertising algorithm much more often than their search algorithm.

I have seen garbage sites with all kinds of flaws get top rankings.
I have seen top content sites suffer because they could not understand this crazy game.

I contend Google does a lot of cool things. Unfortunately, search is not one of them.

CrankyDave, you claim that I see things as black and white yet I cannot see anything more black and white than a search engine ranking. It is either black or it is either white.

I'm more than willing to let you rise in my rankings by continuing a civilized discourse.
Is it asking too much that a search engine that made $15 billion last year do the same?