slaves to Google?

[seiretto]

Is it becoming a monopoly?

This article asks if Google is your friend or foe:
DWalker.co.uk :: View topic - Google friend or foe, as a monopoly its no good to anyone!
and argues that either way its no good as a monopoly

What do others think?

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by seiretto

Is it becoming a monopoly?

No. A true monopoly has exclusive control. Google does not have that. Period.

While Yahoo, MSN, Ask and a slew of other search engines don't have anywhere near the market share of Google, they do provide an alternative if I or you, as consumers, are not happy with Google's results.

Personally, I think Google does a better job than the other search engines at providing relevant results; that's why I use Google for my personal search needs. But I have a choice, and there are times when I do turn to Yahoo or Ask for help in a search ...

Choice is the key.

Cheers, MJ

[rumblepup]

Choice is the key.

Completely agree!

I would agree if the only search technology I was allowed to use was Google's, but I can search the web in any form I want.

The article describes dangers. What? Google is a company, now for profit (has been for the past few years) why do we have to pounce on them? They are upfront. They don't lie (technically) and they are upfront in their business model. They are not a governing body, they don't make the laws, and they don't force you to use them. They are allowed to buy any technology they want, and they are allowed by law to buy any company they want.

Now, if suddenly they where to buy every single SE out there, then BLAMMO, monopoly.

Slavery, and Google Hating are a bit to far.

[Dubbya]

If you can't beat 'em...

Learn to work with 'em.

[seiretto]

If you take monopoly - Definitions from Dictionary.com
then Google does not have a monopoly as it currenlty fails to have
"exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market," which we all appear to agree.

However, it does have "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices." and this is increasing.

[ganguly21]

Hi all
to start with as MJ said google can't do monopoly, after all it's our wish whose service we want to take. If Yahoo is providing better results then Google then we will be using Yahoo..
It's totaly service industry and they have to serve better results.
major part of www searches comes from google that's true. but at the same time in some country google is not much widely open. some of the country use MSN & ayhoo very much.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by seiretto

If you take monopoly - Definitions from Dictionary.com
then Google does not have a monopoly as it currenlty fails to have
"exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market," which we all appear to agree.

However, it does have "a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices." and this is increasing.

What prices are you talking about? Adwords are controlled by the bidders ... so what do you mean?

Since we are in a free market without a monopoly, I can't see where G can manipulate prices.

[seiretto]

OK, OK. Its not a monopoly then - maybe more a giant we pamper to?

No one has challenged that we are "slaves" - so that means we are under its dominance...

[mjtaylor]

Well, I am certainly more interested in how my sites rank in Google than in Yahoo, and more interested in how they rank in Y than MSN ... and so on. I don't feel enslaved or resentful. I get to choose every day.

[khushwant]

Last month I got 10, 000+ Visitors from google and 530 from yahoo and 49 from msn People aren't able to find mein yahoo, and msn. They are missing many vaulabe sites (even if I exclude mine I can give lot of examples, but I think you can find out just try your site) so how can they provide best results then google. People are depend on Google so am I.

[Dubbya]

Originally Posted by seiretto

OK, OK. Its not a monopoly then - maybe more a giant we pamper to?

No one has challenged that we are "slaves" - so that means we are under its dominance...

I challenge you sir!! (SLAP!)

The common definitions of "slave" are:

• a person who is owned by someone
• someone who works as hard as a slave
• work very hard, like a slave
• someone entirely dominated by some influence or person; "a slave to fashion"; "a slave to cocaine"; "his mother was his abject slave"
• slave(a): held in servitude; "he was born of slave parents"

No webmaster, site manager or marketing professional is "owned" or "dominated" by Google and none of us is under any obligation to use their services. You're free to opimize for the other SE's and place the following meta tag in every one of your pages.

<meta name="Googlebot" content="noindex,nofollow">

You can't optimize solely for Google with the expectation that you'll receive great results from Yahoo!, MSN, Ask, and the myriad of other search engines and any professional SEO specialist will tell you the same thing, it's all about achieving balance.

If you're relying on natural, organic search engine results and finding it difficult to compete with sites that rank more highly in the other SE's for similar search phrases, then it would appear that perhaps you've over-optimized for Google, that you need to rethink your advertising methodology and/or rework your site.

[wige]

Frankly, I welcome my Googley overlords. What other potential overlords could be referred to with such a cuddly name, after all?

As much as I see complaints and problems when one company or group dominates a certain market sector - marketing and information collection issues in the Internet sector, security issues in the PC sector, etc., as a business, you have to target your customers. That means making sure your products work with the appliances the consumer is most likely to have, and it means making sure your product can be found where the customer is looking. Does it mean catering to the dominant force in that sector? To a certain extent, yes, but I think it is more that we are catering to our customers, and Google is merely the tool to accomplish that. At least Google is not overtly evil about it, like a certain other company with a dominant market position...

In order to cater to Google for the best results, you do not have to do anything that hurts you with Google's competition. That is quite different from a few years ago when everyone was building web sites to cater to a certain web browser. In order for your site to perform best on the browser most consumers used, you had to do things that would cause the site to break in any other browser. You almost had to choose between catering to the dominant force and to the competitors of that force. That is the real threat of a monopoly, or a group with monopolistic power. So far, I have not seen a similar situation with Google, where I have to choose between ranking well in Google and ranking well everywhere else. What helps with one search engine does not hurt with another, it just might not help as much. At least in my limited experience.

[Dubbya]

Originally Posted by wige

That means making sure your products work with the appliances the consumer is most likely to have, and it means making sure your product can be found where the customer is looking. Does it mean catering to the dominant force in that sector? To a certain extent, yes, but I think it is more that we are catering to our customers, and Google is merely the tool to accomplish that. At least Google is not overtly evil about it, like a certain other company with a dominant market position...

In order to cater to Google for the best results, you do not have to do anything that hurts you with Google's competition.

Thanks Wige! My sentiments exactly.

Well said!

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by Dubbya

I challenge you sir!! (SLAP!)

The common definitions of "slave" are:

• a person who is owned by someone
• someone who works as hard as a slave
• work very hard, like a slave
• someone entirely dominated by some influence or person; "a slave to fashion"; "a slave to cocaine"; "his mother was his abject slave"

I have to say, to be fair to the original poster, that when I read that last definition, I related. I may not be quite a slave to Google, but I certainly am more a slave to G than to any other search engine ... so, I am trying to say, I see seiretto's point.

And, that said, like Dubbya, I am with wige's comments above. It's all goog. I mean, good.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

In order to cater to Google for the best results, you do not have to do anything that hurts you with Google's competition.

Doesn't Yahoo and MSN support "nofollow"?

Googles recent paid links fiasco requires "nofollow" being added to advertisements. Does catering to Google on this matter not affect ones pricing ability when it comes to selling advertising since you are forced to prevent both Yahoo and MSN from following a link as well?



Dave

[wige]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Doesn't Yahoo and MSN support "nofollow"?

Googles recent paid links fiasco requires "nofollow" being added to advertisements. Does catering to Google on this matter not affect ones pricing ability when it comes to selling advertising since you are forced to prevent both Yahoo and MSN from following a link as well?



Dave

What purpose does the sale of direct links serve? As far as I know, the only thing you can achieve from buying a direct link is manipulating the search engines - these links serve no other purpose. In fact, the concept of paying for a direct link was created specifically to manipulate Google's algorithm.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

What purpose does the sale of direct links serve? As far as I know, the only thing you can achieve from buying a direct link is manipulating the search engines - these links serve no other purpose. In fact, the concept of paying for a direct link was created specifically to manipulate Google's algorithm.

Doesn't matter what the purpose is.

Is Google not forcing people to prevent both Yahoo and MSN from following a link in order to be compliant with the Google guidelines?

Both of them have their own ways of dealing with links and to the best of my knowledge, neither "require" any link to be tagged "nofollow".

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Doesn't matter what the purpose is.

Is Google not forcing people to prevent both Yahoo and MSN from following a link in order to be compliant with the Google guidelines?

Both of them have their own ways of dealing with links and to the best of my knowledge, neither "require" any link to be tagged "nofollow".

Dave

Well, there is valid point here, but the fact that they chose to support the attribute does suggest they are in agreement.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

Well, there is valid point here, but the fact that they chose to support the attribute does suggest they are in agreement.

I'll have to disagree with this MJ.

Supporting the "nofollow" tag for what is was originally designed for, blog spam, in no way suggests they agree or disagree with Googles decision to "require" it on particular links that Google wants tagged. To the best of my knowledge, neither Yahoo and MSN has come out and said using the tag is "okee-dokee" for internal links as Google has.

This "edict" from Google is new. It has nothing at all to with what Yahoo and MSN decided to support, and neither "require" that it be used to be in "compliance" with anything to the best of my knowledge.

Both of them are perfectly able to interpret the data they collect just fine without anyone being "required" to alter it for their sake. Google is the only one who has said they cannot.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I'll have to disagree with this MJ.

Supporting the "nofollow" tag for what is was originally designed for, blog spam, in no way suggests they agree or disagree with Googles decision to "require" it on particular links that Google wants tagged.

I already use Microformats on my sites where applicable. Lets hope that Google will support them for at least voting links, if they do not do already:

rev="vote-for"
rev="vote-against"
rev="vote-abstain"

Further reading: Microformats

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I'll have to disagree with this MJ.

Supporting the "nofollow" tag for what is was originally designed for, blog spam, in no way suggests they agree or disagree with Googles decision to "require" it on particular links that Google wants tagged. To the best of my knowledge, neither Yahoo and MSN has come out and said using the tag is "okee-dokee" for internal links as Google has.

This "edict" from Google is new. It has nothing at all to with what Yahoo and MSN decided to support, and neither "require" that it be used to be in "compliance" with anything to the best of my knowledge.

Both of them are perfectly able to interpret the data they collect just fine without anyone being "required" to alter it for their sake. Google is the only one who has said they cannot.

Dave

You're right ... I wasn't thinking about the no-follow in the way it was originally intended. M'bad.

[wige]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Doesn't matter what the purpose is.

Is Google not forcing people to prevent both Yahoo and MSN from following a link in order to be compliant with the Google guidelines?

Both of them have their own ways of dealing with links and to the best of my knowledge, neither "require" any link to be tagged "nofollow".

Dave

Actually, neither Yahoo or MSN support this attribute as far as I know. Regardless, nofollow is simply one way of doing what is required by federal law in the United States. And the United Kingdom. And Australia. And the European Union. And, well, almost everywhere else. Hardly a "Google edict." Just ask the Federal Trade Commission, or your nation's variant thereof, what the laws are regarding disclosure of paid advertising. Most countries have a much stricter requirement than Google, typically a text along the lines of Sponsored Link: and an interstitial page. Google is trying to push for a machine readable variant of this, and there are three common, known (and two widely supported) methods.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by wige

Actually, neither Yahoo or MSN support this attribute as far as I know.

I have never known you to be wrong, wige, this would be a first. But I do believe Yahoo and MSN do support the no-follow attribute (see: Google, Yahoo, MSN Unite On Support For Nofollow Attribute For Links [SearchEngineWatch] and from Yahoo itself: Yahoo! Search Blog: A Defense Against Comment Spam ) in its original intention to control link spam in blogs. Perhaps you meant as it applies to *paid* links ...

[wige]

Actually, neither Yahoo or MSN support this attribute as far as I know.

See, you have found one of those things that happens when I break my "coffee then WPW" rule. Don't really know what I was thinking there...

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

Regardless, nofollow is simply one way of doing what is required by federal law in the United States. And the United Kingdom. And Australia. And the European Union. And, well, almost everywhere else.

You might want to double check this wige.

The "nofollow" is not "required" by anyone except Google.

Also, "nofollow" will not satisfy any FTC requirement or any disclosure related laws in any country.

Dave

[mjtaylor]

Not being an attorney, I didn't really want to go there, but the whole question of whether the FTC has any jurisdiction over websites is an interesting one ...

And, you are right, CD, the no-follow does nothing to let consumers know there is a paid ad/link in front of them, since they don' t look at code.

Again, not being an attorney, this is a terrible can of worms to open, but I am not sure buying a link for PR is the same as advertising. Buying a link for traffic is advertising, and should be disclosed *if* indeed, the laws of any or all given countries actually apply. But buying a link for PR is buying a commodity and is not a direct form of marketing.

Just thinking out loud here ...

[crankydave]

It has nothing to about "disclosure" when it comes to Google.

It is about their "machines" and their "algorithm" passing "value" for links.

The Washington Post had clearly identified their "advertisements" so that anyone visiting the page knew exactly what they were. "Adverisements" and/or "Sponsors".

They suffered a TBPR loss because those links were not tagged "nofollow". They have since added the tag to their links.

Google went their site, easily saw clearly marked "advertisements" and "sponsor links", reduced their TBPR, and "threatened" to harm the rankings if those links were not tagged "nofollow".

What's wrong with that picture?

Dave

[wige]

IANAL, but as far as I know, the FTC has regulatory jurisdiction over businesses and marketing practices within the United States, and there are similar regulatory groups in most countries. These groups have prosecuted/brought suit against companies for failing to disclose in an obvious manner that links are paid for (Google is a good example. They have been sued/threated in several countries for not making ads on SERPs obvious enough). The FTC goes as far as to publish guidelines for small businesses to use to mark ads vs editorial content (stealing the terminology from Google because I can't think of a better way to phrase it). Google counters or adds to this argument by saying that machines read websites also, and there needs to be a way for a machine to tell the difference between an ad and editorial content just as there needs to be a way for human viewers to do so.

Regarding jurisdiction:

Originally Posted by http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.shtm

Although the FTC has jurisdiction over ads for most products and services, Congress has given other government agencies the authority to investigate advertising by airlines, banks, insurance companies, common carriers, and companies that sell securities and commodities.

Information on required language for advertisements can be found here
The jury is still out on pure links, but supposedly a new document is in the works regarding disclosure of paid links. My (limited) understanding is that links are viewed as testimonials/endorsements. When you link to a site, you are endorsing that site to visitors. If you fail to disclose you are being paid to endorse the other site, that falls into the "deceptive advertising" category. Google's argument is that machines browse the web also, and work on the same concept of endorsement to prevent spam and gauge the quality of a web site, so failing to disclose that an endorsement is paid is an unfair business practice. As other search engines increase their reliance on external links in their algorithms, they will likely begin encouraging sites to mark paid links as well.

[crankydave]

Wige... There's a HUGE diference from disclosing paid "advertisements" or "sponsors" and having to do so that a "machine" or and "algorithm" works the way the company who owns them and makes huge somes of money with them will work the way they want it to. HUGE difference.

As far as Googles counter... Name one other SE that has such a requirement. Their machines "read" the same pages without issue. Googles problem is their own.

Dave

[wige]

What other SE (or system for that matter) uses the quantity of links for any type of decision making process? The other search engines have only recently started on this, and they never say much of anything to the web development/optimization community. How do you know that the "quality" for lack of a better word of your outbound links has no effect on your rankings, the way it does now with Google?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

What other SE (or system for that matter) uses the quantity of links for any type of decision making process?

Precisely. If there's a "problem" with doing this, it with the business model of the SE.

Originally Posted by wige

The other search engines have only recently started on this, and they never say much of anything to the web development/optimization community.

Perhaps that's because their "system" of utilizing them is not so fragile. Perhaps its a better system.

Originally Posted by wige

How do you know that the "quality" for lack of a better word of your outbound links has no effect on your rankings, the way it does now with Google?

I don't.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Also, "nofollow" will not satisfy any FTC requirement or any disclosure related laws in any country.

Dave

Lets say I am a customer that needs an SEO, and I hire an SEO company, and what they do they buy links for my web site, then Google picks them up and I lose my PR and my ranking are affected negatively. Won't this issue satisfy any FTC requirement or any disclosure related laws in any country?

What about Google's advise?

If you feel that you were deceived by an SEO in some way, you may want to report it. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) handles complaints about deceptive or unfair business practices. To file a complaint, visit: Federal Trade Commission - Home and click on "File a Complaint Online," call 1-877-FTC-HELP, or write to:

Federal Trade Commission
CRC-240
Washington, D.C. 20580

If your complaint is against a company in another country, please file it at econsumer.gov - international Internet consumer fraud complaints.

Source: What's an SEO? Does Google recommend working with companies that offer to make my site Google-friendly?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Lets say I am a customer that needs an SEO, and I hire an SEO company, and what they do they buy links for my web site, then Google picks them up and I lose my PR and my ranking are affected negatively. Won't this issue satisfy any FTC requirement or any disclosure related laws in any country?

What about Google's advise?

Your question doesn't make any sense to me John.

If an SEO company buys links for you and you lose PR and rankings, it has zero to do with the FTC.

If the FTC or any other country is relying on Google PR for their laws and enforcement... the apocolypse is near.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Your question doesn't make any sense to me John.

If an SEO company buys links for you and you lose PR and rankings, it has zero to do with the FTC.

If they do not warn me about the risk, isn't that is a legal issue?

Originally Posted by crankydave

If the FTC or any other country is relying on Google PR for their laws and enforcement... the apocolypse is near.

Google PR is a part of their service. FTC does not rely on any particular service or product of someone individually.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If they do not warn me about the risk, isn't that is a legal issue?


Google PR is a part of their service. FTC does not rely on any particular service or product of someone individually.

So getting (or losing) Google PR and rankings is a legal issue? In what country?

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

So getting (or losing) Google PR and rankings is a legal issue? In what country?

Dave

I never thought that the legal department of Google could suck so bad.

They claim on their page I linked above:

What are some other things to look out for?
There are a few warning signs that you may be dealing with a rogue SEO. It's far from a comprehensive list, so if you have any doubts, you should trust your instincts. By all means, feel free to walk away if the SEO:

• owns shadow domains
• puts links to their other clients on doorway pages
• offers to sell keywords in the address bar
• doesn't distinguish between actual search results and ads that appear in search results
• guarantees ranking, but only on obscure, long keyword phrases you would get anyway
• operates with multiple aliases or falsified WHOIS info
• gets traffic from "fake" search engines, spyware, or scumware
• has had domains removed from Google's index or is not itself listed in Google

If you feel that you were deceived by an SEO in some way, you may want to report it.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) handles complaints about deceptive or unfair business practices. To file a complaint, visit: http://www.ftc.gov/ and click on "File a Complaint Online," call 1-877-FTC-HELP, or write to:

Federal Trade Commission
CRC-240
Washington, D.C. 20580

If your complaint is against a company in another country, please file it at econsumer.gov - international Internet consumer fraud complaints.

[wige]

As I mentioned before, from browsing the FTC web site, it seems to me that the FTC considers links from one web site to another to be testimonials/endorsements (they seem to use the terms almost interchangeably, although I think free means testimonial, paid is endorsement, but I am not sure). If someone accessing the web site can not easily and reasonably identify a paid endorsement as being paid (ie, the paid links at the top of Google's results page about five years ago), that is a violation of the law, especially if that deception may impact a buying decision (might a reasonable consumer be misled to purchase from a store because of the placement of a link at the top of the SERPs, for example). Google says that their bot follows the same process to rank web sites as consumers use to decide what links to follow, using the placement or existence of links in combination with the quality or reputation of the linking page to make judgments about the quality or the legitimacy of the link target, and by not being able to determine in a machine readable way what links are paid, they are being deceived in violation of the same laws.

Before Google came on to the scene, virtually all paid links were identified in a machine readable way. Once it came to light that Google's algorithm could be manipulated by removing the machine readable disclosure, these links went away, and were replaced by unmarked links. Could Google potentially bring suit against companies that fail to disclose payment for links? Probably. Will they? Probably not. Would they succeed? As far as I know, the FTC is taking the issue under advisement, but there is a possibility they may issue a recommendation for machine readable disclosures, especially as assistive technologies mature, and then all it will take is one complaint from a customer advocacy group ("my client was decieved into buying a product from Company A by an undisclosed paid endorsement (link) on Company B's site, your honor! The link was not marked in a machine readable way!")

And you do realize my initial point before this whole sidetrack was that they don't actually require you to do anything that harms you in the eyes of their competitors? If adding nofollow harmed you for other search engines, the other SEs wouldn't also support the standard.

[Webnauts]

I just invited Matt Cutts to visit this thread. I hope he will have the time to express Googles point of view.

[Peter (IMC)]

There is no way that Google can become a monopoly. They don't have anything that they can use to block competition. It's not like you have to use Google because you don't have any alternatives.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

And you do realize my initial point before this whole sidetrack was that they don't actually require you to do anything that harms you in the eyes of their competitors? If adding nofollow harmed you for other search engines, the other SEs wouldn't also support the standard.

This is part of my issue wige. The other SE's have not come out and supported the issue as far as paid links are concerned. They aren't so heavily linked base that it causes them a problem.

Google can tell advertising in the very same way any visitor to a page can. All they have to do is look. And in the case of The Washington Post, they did. They looked, they saw clearly marked advertising, and punished them.

I have nothing against disclosure. Advertisements need to be clearly disclosed by law and rightly so.

Links that are clearly labeled "Advertisements" or "Sponsored" deceive noone. If an automated process can not tell, if a machine cannot tell, fix them. Fix the problem.

Dave

[wige]

Why should an automated process not have just as clear an indication that link is paid as a visual browser? What about users who are blind, for example, and using text-to-speech? There is a big difference between hearing "blah-blah-blah-sponsored links-blah-blah-blah-abc corp (link)" and hearing "blah-blah-blah-sponsored links-blah-blah-blah-abc corp (link tagged nofollow)". Which is a reasonable consumer going to have the easier time identifying as a paid link?

I am not saying that either the law or the technology are at this point yet, but the move seems to be going in that direction. As the web evolves to a more dynamic infrastructure, there will be a push to pack as much information into a link tag as possible so that automated processors of all types can glean the best possible data for the end user.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

Why should an automated process not have just as clear an indication that link is paid as a visual browser?

Are you suggesting that if someone creates an automated process that places "value" on something solely of the creators choosing, that automated process has the "right" to be given "disclosure" in the the way the creators want it disclosed so their process works?

How about placing no value on links at all instead of requiring anything. Problem solved.

Dave

[wige]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Are you suggesting that if someone creates an automated process that places "value" on something solely of the creators choosing, that automated process has the "right" to be given "disclosure" in the the way the creators want it disclosed so their process works?

How about placing no value on links at all instead of requiring anything. Problem solved.

Dave

Well, first, that wouldn't solve the problem because automated processes that do nothing but report the links to the end user still will have no indication that the link is paid for.

And who says that you have to use nofollow as your disclosure method? All Google has said is you must disclose the nature of the links in a machine readable way, and then give a list of three or four different methods that are known and understood by all major search engines. Nofollow is just the new method. If you used any of the other methods, you would not risk or encounter a penalty either.

Every search engine has always said, design for the user, not the search engine. (Google does say design for the user, code for the engine, but that's just splitting hairs) Direct paid links are designed for the search engines only. That is what they were created for. That violates the terms of EVERY major search engine, does it not?

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by wige

Well, first, that wouldn't solve the problem because automated processes that do nothing but report the links to the end user still will have no indication that the link is paid for.

And who says that you have to use nofollow as your disclosure method? All Google has said is you must disclose the nature of the links in a machine readable way, and then give a list of three or four different methods that are known and understood by all major search engines. Nofollow is just the new method. If you used any of the other methods, you would not risk or encounter a penalty either.

Every search engine has always said, design for the user, not the search engine. (Google does say design for the user, code for the engine, but that's just splitting hairs) Direct paid links are designed for the search engines only. That is what they were created for. That violates the terms of EVERY major search engine, does it not?

First off, Googles entire argument is that the affect their results. No value, no effect.

Second, direct paid links are not automatically designed only for the SE's. That's a really broad brush, broad assumption, and simply not true. That is NOT what they were created for since the existed long before Google ever came along. Direct links were created to direct someone from one page to another.

ETA... As far as the various methods are concerned really doesn't matter. You're being required to block all SE's to be compliant with one.

Dave

[wige]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Second, direct paid links are not automatically designed only for the SE's. That's a really broad brush, broad assumption, and simply not true. That is NOT what they were created for since the existed long before Google ever came along. Direct links were created to direct someone from one page to another.

That is not entirely accurate. Before Google came along, when you purchased a link on a site, the link passed through a redirector script that recorded information about the person clicking on the link. This page would use a 302 redirect to send the clicker on to the target page. The linkee's site would then record traffic coming from the redirect. This allowed both parties to evaluate the effectiveness of the paid link. Editorial links, however, were direct links. This method was recommended by AltaVista, and then Yahoo, the major engines at the time, as the preferred method of implementing paid links. It was also used and supported by most of the marketing firms of the time. When Google developed their pagerank algorithm, they took this into account, instructing their spiders not to count links that passed through a 302 redirect (as did/do all major search engines). Many hosting companies at the time even published marketing newsletters that frequently included detailed instructions on setting up and using these redirector scripts.

Once people found out that SEs were starting to count links and use that information as a ranking factor, sites that did not use redirectors began to appear, charging higher prices for the links, and eventually (ok, pretty quickly) the redirect scripts fell out of use. Now it seems the only sites that use them are the search engines themselves.

[Feydakin]

That's not entirely accurate either.. When I was building websites we didn't use redirects of any sort.. Just a database call that filled in the url and anchor text and echo'd the html to the page.. It wasn't until people started writing click tracking in to their tools that the redirects started happening..

[crankydave]

LOL wige. Please let me say that it always a pleasure to discuss debate topics with you.

Let's see... The early 90's and direct paid links were already being sold. Wasn't it Inktomi that first started using links as a ranking mechanism. So, they couldn't have been designed only for SE's, especially Google, since the heavily links based ranking system did not exist. But granted, it did not take long for the idea to catch on.

And your point taken that the the redirection of links, for the most part, is only used by the SE's.

Dave

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

A true monopoly has exclusive control.

Exclusive control is unnecessary for an entity to possess monopolistic power. From Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia we read :

"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition."

Thus, as it might be argued that Google has achieved, or is close to achieving, de facto sufficient control of said nature, then, Google may indeed be a hold a monopoly even thought there may be nominal competitors. In fact, such concern has led to several acquisitions and joint ventures being either modified or foregone owing to such concerns.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by rumblepup

I would agree if the only search technology I was allowed to use was Google's, but I can search the web in any form I want.

Google is not simply & merely an SE; rather, it is a media firm which offers a search engine along with a myriad other services.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

What prices are you talking about? Adwords are controlled by the bidders ...

AdWords is an open free market, with Google being an at-arms-length disinterested auctioneer?

Fact : Until fairly recently, Google set explicit minimum bids; which were not the same for all bidders.

Fact : Even now Google manipulates both an AdWords listing's position and the actual CPC paid based on Quality Score.

Fact : Google allows trademarks/servicemarks to be bid on by parties other than the lawful holder of those marks where such 3rd party offers no good or service that is related gainful to the holder of such marks, where the sole motive is to capture traffic that might otherwise accrue to said mark holder.