Should Google be regulated?

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Oxbow_LeBach

It's a conspiracy. Google should be regulated in such a way that you're at the top of the results in every search category...

LOL... correction: Google should be regulated in such a way that I am at the top of the results in every search category... ;o)

[carol]

Originally Posted by minstrel

I think the world is becoming over-regulated and domnated by special interest groups and the politically correct.

Exactly - I couldn't agree with you more.

carol

[cbp]

Just catching up on things since being away ...

Questions for those arguing that Google should be regulated:
1) What will the regulation actually achieve?
2) In practicality, how would or could it actually work?

CBP

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by cbp

Questions for those arguing that Google should be regulated:
1) What will the regulation actually achieve?
2) In practicality, how would or could it actually work?

3) Why?

[ldyguique]

This is a followup and clarification post to my earlier one in this thread.

First of all, in reply to Dr. Tandem, I'd like to expand on the perceived popularity theme. What I was attempting to say is that Google is far more popular in the minds of high use internet denizens and web professionals than in the general public's mind. The perception of popularity cannot be based on what "we" like to use or even acknowledge as a major player in internet searching. "We" comprise the far smaller group versus the general internet public and it is "they" who we'd like to have reach our websites.

I've been on the phones in technical support for over five years with a large ISP. I've teched all versions of Windows (3.1 up through XP) and Macs (7.2.1 up through Panther). I've teched all connection types, email, browsing issues during that time. I moved over into Web Hosting Support about a year ago; however, I still am on the DSL support queue for overflow calls when I have available time. So, I'd consider myself an expert on the mind and experience level of the average internet user. And, while many of the callers for Web Hosting support are somewhat more knowledgable, I still deal with very basic questions such as "how to whois" to find out basic registrar information with even so-called webmasters. I've had callers who've owned websites for years who have never even typed a URL into the Address field of the browser, they simply typed it into whatever search field that was on their homepage. I regularly suggest that someone track down a particular error message or issue via Google and have to spell google.com to him/her.

Don't confuse popularity with strong co-branded or partnership agreements with various ISPs for inclusion onto those homepages. Yahoo has a much broader public awareness than Google -- I've only had to spell out yahoo twice in five years when doing a ping/traceroute for testing a connection.

Unless a caller has installed "our" software, which resets the homepage to our own portal, the remainder of the callers tend to still have either their OEMs website, default MSN, their previous ISP, or Yahoo as their homepage. They use whichever search engine that comes as default to their homepage and do not really realize that there are many other choices possible. I talk with callers who have had internet accounts for over 7 years who still do not know which email program that they use by name, let alone which search engine is default on their system. They just click on the search box and type.

So, I'd have to say that the vast majority are unaware of whether they are using google or not.

One of my tasks for Web Hosting customers is acquainting them with the use of Urchin Website Statistics and in the process of doing that I've noticed that AOL is always the majority search engine that was used to find their site(s) by at least a 2:1 factor. Google and Yahoo vie for the second and third position(s), and together rarely equal AOLs placement; although, I must admit I've not really focused on that particular anomoly.

Since I've learned that Yahoo uses Google as their default engine and that a) Yahoo is default to all SBC customers, and b) Google is default to many other ISPs, together they hold marketshare for a huge bubble of internet users--few of whom could tell you "which" search engine they use, especially since the genuine default search engine on a Windows XP box is actually MSN. When a site isn't found, the MSN search page comes up as few know the procedure for going into Search and altering that default.

Whether or not we like the current situation with Google, we have to accept that smaller search engines will remain unknown to the vast majority of internet users. Therefore, we must continuously adapt, change, and overcome the various obstacles for playing the SEO game with Google, Yahoo, MSN, and AOL. These ARE the major players in the game and we are the shills for them.

[DrTandem1]

In any event, Google should not be regulated. The Google enhanced search engines do not always come up with the same exact results. For that matter, Google itself has so many servers that they are not all in sync with one another.

Many have mentioned relevant results. I guess we all mean relevant to whatever site we want to index highly. The travel sites were mentioned. I had a client's site listed in the top 5 results for a popular search term. It then disappeared with the latest "dance". Travel directories and guides are now the only results be returned for that same search term. However, I don't think my client's traffic was harmed, as it is listed in most of the directories and guides.

This illustrates the fact that you should not put all of your marketing efforts (hopes?) into a search engine alone. Search engines are but a small part of a website's success. Amazon.com, arguably the best over-all site on the internet for e-commerce didn't return a profit until just recently. Do you think that their customers found them in Google? No. Amazon.com advertised heavily with radio spots in its beginning.

This also points to the other side of reciprocal linking to relevant sites that we, as webmasters, tend to forget. People actually use them. So, if someone goes to Google and finds site "xyz.com", they may end up at your site after finding a reciprocal link because "xyz.com" didn't have what they wanted.

I really tire of people complaining about monopolies. If someone has created a monopoly by unfair tactics, then they should be punished for the illegal tactic, not the fact that they are a monopoly. Many so-called monopolies simply were far superior to their competition.

Anyone who remembers the Bell System knows we had the best and cheapest phone system in the world. After it was broken up for being a "monopoly", we had thousands of crummy little companies competing and scamming the consumer. Interestingly, from the 7 original Baby Bells after the break up of Ma Bell, there are now only four and one of them looks to be about ready to be swallowed making only three. Why? Because it is the nature that the best will survive. Forcing (regulating) companies to do things has proven to result in two things: increase prices and diminish service.

Remember the how the cable companies were "regulated" during the Clinton years? The result was suppose to be lower bills. However rates were increased to an all-time high after the legislation was passed. Plus, you now have more channels that you don't want to watch.

Keep the government out of the internet. If people are being harmed, we already have laws to deal with fraud, robbery, porn, etc. Kind of like gun control. We already have laws saying that it's illegal to murder someone. Does gun control stop that? No. It just makes it difficult for the honest citizens to protect themselves. You don't like how Google works? Build a better search engine and Google will become irrelevant.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

This illustrates the fact that you should not put all of your marketing efforts (hopes?) into a search engine alone. Search engines are but a small part of a website's success. Amazon.com, arguably the best over-all site on the internet for e-commerce didn't return a profit until just recently. Do you think that their customers found them in Google? No. Amazon.com advertised heavily with radio spots in its beginning.

I really tire of people complaining about monopolies. If someone has created a monopoly by unfair tactics, then they should be punished for the illegal tactic, not the fact that they are a monopoly. Many so-called monopolies simply were far superior to their competition.

Keep the government out of the internet. If people are being harmed, we already have laws to deal with fraud, robbery, porn, etc. ... You don't like how Google works? Build a better search engine and Google will become irrelevant.

Amen to that...

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by simonm

Considering the increasing importance that is placed on Google for the dissemination of information and promotion of business, along with the recent serious inconsistencies in site placement on this search engine, perhaps it is time that Google was regulated?

Well, now I've heard everything. Of all the audacious hogwash about search engines, this thread takes the cake.

Regulate Google?... sheeesh... Monopoly? Balderdash!

They just have a superior product, that's all. If the market leans toward them, they've earned the right to sit at the top of the heap. Half of you self-styled search engine optimizers ought to be more optimistic! You of all people know there is certainly no monopoly--your literature keeps saying, "list with over 1500 search engines..."

Anyone who lost their ranking with the recent cleanup on Google probably lost it for good reason. Quit your belly-aching and get with the program. You're supposed to be the experts, act like it!

[cyanide]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Well, now I've heard everything. Of all the audacious hogwash about search engines, this thread takes the cake.

Regulate Google?... sheeesh... Monopoly? Balderdash!

They just have a superior product, that's all. If the market leans toward them, they've earned the right to sit at the top of the heap. Half of you self-styled search engine optimizers ought to be more optimistic! You of all people know there is certainly no monopoly--your literature keeps saying, "list with over 1500 search engines..."

Anyone who lost their ranking with the recent cleanup on Google probably lost it for good reason. Quit your belly-aching and get with the program. You're supposed to be the experts, act like it!

(smile) this is the best and funniest thing I've heard in a while. !!
and by the way, I agree, weegillis

well....
except for this line "list with over 1500 search engines..." No SEO expert should have anything like that in their profile.

Google has us all in the palm of their hands because we all flocked there.
Maybe it's time to flock off somewhere else, heh!

[janeth]

I agree 100% cyanide

If you want to do something about Google use someone else

[airlbj]

What does "regulating Google" actually mean? Folks are arguing for or against regulation without defining what the term means.

The idea of establishing guidelines or standards of quality and credibility for search engines appeals to me. SEs that adopt these guidelines could be certified by the government or someone else. To get certified, a search engine might have to list their major content sponsors and advertisers, clearly distinguish paid search results (paid inclusion or paid placement) from "pure" results, and provide users with basic explanations of the methods they use to rank and prioritize the Web pages in their results.

What else?

[sonnie]

Originally Posted by esiegel

Google is a business like any other...
They are not a govenment service. You do not have the 'right' to have your site listed by them.

Very true. We, as individuals are depending on Google and others to present our sites. Many of us have not paid for 'adwords' or other strategies in the past in order to get listed on the engines. It's pretty much been free advertising. However, if the search engines decide for any reason that a site should be dropped from their database, I believe a relevant explanation of what their 'criteria' for inclusion or exclusion from their database should be explained.

[Mel]

Regulate Google??

They are already regulated by the best and strongest regulatory group in the world - the market.

If Google fails to provide what the market wants the market will just go elsewhere, effectively regulating them out of existance just like happened to Alta-something-or-other.

What we don't need is a bunch of bureaurocrats who don't know how to turn off the lights writing thousand page books of rules about what search engines can and cannot do, which in turn gives rise to a new profession,
search engine lawyers

[airlbj]

The market can serve a regulatory function only if essential information is available and accessible. Google and other search engines don't provide all essential information. For example, we don't fully know what factors Google considers in how it includes or ranks Web sites on a results page. And, thus far, no competitor in the search engine market is stepping up to provide this info about themselves (I'm not holding my breath).

[jameskal]

Market regulation is based on displayed results and not algorithms. The market will go to whoever displays better results, irrespective of the superiority of their algorithms. As such there is no need to know exactly how the algorithm works.

[MarsAndBeyond]

Should not not be regulated ... BUT, it should be returned to the public.

YES, they should be accountable !

I think they should be returned to the Academia ...

... which used OUR tax dollars (some) towards it. This belongs to the nation. They are using public highways (backbones and stations along it) ... and so on.

Placing it back into university(ies') hands would be the right thing to do as we all have "equity" in it, per se.

We all would be richer for it ... maybe this is a national security issue ... in which case Patents etc... can be sequestered for "national interest" without any questions ?!

Maybe, it falls under RICOH ... if they are conspiring to use our taxed dollars, etc., etc., ... and not giving us the clear untampered, results, non-pay-non-place ranking and placing on RESEARCH type of inquiries?

All "research" is leaving such a bad taste in the mouth, as the results are not "true" anymore ... in their relevancy.

Academia is the RIGHT PLACE for this search engine if any of our tax dollars participated in it coming into being ... as far as such a research tool, additionally, was for a "PUBLIC" system, by intent ... AND, it will get better and better under such environment and custodianship ... At least the patents/copyrights should NOT protect it against ACADEMIA or NON-COMMERCIAL bodies developing or modifying it and coming up with alternative engines ...

OR am I wrong in thinking we have some tax equity in Google.com? I will stand corrected.

There ... food for thought, I think !

Ron,

[Mel]

Originally Posted by airlbj

The market can serve a regulatory function only if essential information is available and accessible. Google and other search engines don't provide all essential information. For example, we don't fully know what factors Google considers in how it includes or ranks Web sites on a results page. And, thus far, no competitor in the search engine market is stepping up to provide this info about themselves (I'm not holding my breath).

The market neither knows or cares about algorithms, it only cares about results. If I search for tennis shoes and get back ten out of ten results that give me exactly what I want and allow me to compare the various offerings then the results are perceived as good.

If the search results are good (or at least better than others you have experienced) the market will respond favorably and perhaps 10% of all users will recommend the engine to friends, BUT if the results are bad then perhaps 25% of the users will report this fact to their friends and the downward spiral begins.