Should Google be regulated?

[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?

[globalpi]

Totally!!! They have cause dus no end of probelms. Considering that Yahoo use google search results and have charged us $US 299 to be listed every year (Yahoo), we now feel ripped off - Google should not be allowed to simply move the goal posts in this way.

[janeth]

I think that if Google is making changes to cause more people to pay for ads that is wrong and they should be regulated but if there just trying to make changes to better there results they have every right.

Just because we do not like the changes I think it is there business to do with as they like.

But what I would like to see is some good competition. We are no longer using Google to find information on the Web due to the searches that are coming back.

We are using http://www.webworldindex.com/ and http://www.altavista.com/
Even if Google changes back to the old system or fixes there current problem we will still use other forums to find information.

Do not misunderstand as soon as Google calms down we will begin working to get our top ranking back on Google and make what ever changes are needed to do so.
But will never use them again to do searches for information.
They have gotten to big.

[OneMoreBite]

Who would you propose to regulate them?

[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.

If it is important to you to be listed high on there site (for free)...play their game and figure out what it takes.

On the other hand...if they are not listing the best/most significant sites on their search...they will quickly lose their standing as the top search engine...much the way Yahoo did before them.

[vwebworld]

Oh my, regulation... a baaaaad thing.

Google got where they are because they provided
a good product. Like other businesses, if the
latest product "model" offered doesn't work...
people will end up not using it.

Unfortunately, Google is everywhere. So, how
do you deal with that? Like anythingelse, promote
the use of a different product/service. What
search engine would you recommend to use in Google's
place? Then tell everyone you know to use that one.

The one great think about the web... is "word of
mouth" spreads fast and far. So, if a bunch of
people/sites start spreaing the word... soon
soomething can happen.

~Roland

[simonm]

I fully agree that Google is a business, has every right to make money and return a profit. No problem with that. However, as with airlines, oil companies, food, the tobacco industry, telecoms and other utilities, there is a degree of regulation due to the importance that these organsiations represent to other businesses and the public.

I suggest that Google has reached that level of importance. It has been clearly seen over the last couple of weeks that it can make or break companies. It increasingly influences our access to information.

Google, by definition has established rules and processes which result in information being placed on its search lists. Though these rules are not published, they are implied.

As to who should regulate such as Google, I would rather it was done though some sort of agreed self regulation, perhaps a code of conduct?

[esiegel]

as with airlines, oil companies, food, the tobacco industry, telecoms and other utilities, there is a degree of regulation due to the importance that these organsiations represent to other businesses and the public.

I suggest that Google has reached that level of importance.

Maybe so...but there is a major difference. The Airlines, telecoms, ect. CHARGE the users for their service...and there is often little alternative if you choose not to use them. The use of Google is free to me as a searcher...and if I consistantly don't find value in the sites that the list...I go somewhere else. (along with their advertisers)

[cyanide]

The brains behind Google is sheer brilliance
What started out as an academic project has become a huge corporate dominance. And the fact they can be profitable without charging us a dime? -well, for being in their index atleast.

It's time for the other 'big boys', msn, yahoo, altavista, etc. to step up to the plate and offer a comparitive algorithym. That to me would be the ultimate regulation. Could very well be right around the corner

[carol]

I think we'd have a lot less innovation if brilliance was rewarded by regulation and therefore loss of control. As a business, Google should retain the ability to make its own decisions regarding whatever it takes to operate, including its rankings.

[sudhani]

The brains behind Google is sheer brilliance

Yes I do agree!!! At least my personal experience tells me I get more relevant results when I use google than any other SE.

Think Google is taking its steps back from the recent "Google Dance". Look at this post: Google's "Original" Results Are Back. (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=47741)

[curtis]

"If one can't ante up, don't play the game." In other words, if one doesn't like what search engines are doing and one can't keep up with the changes, perhaps one should consider a change of career.

[jephens]

Not for anything, but why won't anyone admit they can't always be the #1 (... Top 10, Top 30, etc...) ranking?

In any space there are going to be many players, and each site is going to be just as relevant as the next.

If I do a search on "airlines" and JetBlue comes up first, does it mean they're better or worse than "Ted" which comes up second?

How should Google determine that "Ted" is better then JetBlue? How could it possibly?

This to me is the largest problem with the ranking mess -- there's always going to be someone else just as relevant.

As far as regulation goes; I would call on MSN, etc. to build a better mousetrap. If you don't like the way Google works, don't use them, and tell everyone you know to do the same. Offer a compelling reason, and your friends might listen to you.

[grease]

Google gives anyone a chance, at any level, to recieve prime exposure for their business. There are many legitmate tactics to get to the top. Unfortunately there are also successful unethical means - of which Google supposedly regulates. Personally I love the system, but Google really needs to enforce it's own rules more strictly. I am tired of word spamming, and auto-forward sites with top rankings.

Grease

[JayDrake]

(Much like napster bad, beer good, only without the freaky Metallica-like cartoon characters.)

Simply put, I'm against regulation of Google. They are leaders in a very profitable industry, but they are not by a long ways the only search engine out there. The only case in which I would consider the possibility of regulation would be a point in time where there is no competition. I simply don't see this as ever happening, however. If anything, I expect the other search engines to look for ways to improve their own search results and come up with whatever features, benefits and incentives they might use to lure people away from Google. (Consider the power of a Google/iWon hybrid where you get the relevance of Google and the possibility of getting something for nothing like iWon.)

Personally I'm against regulation of business on the whole except where such things as safety and health are involved. Hmm... Isn't that the case with the regulation of the airline, tobbacco, food and oil industries? Show me how Google can cause negligent death or wanton destruction of the environment, cruelty to animals or some other major bit of unpleasantness and I might agree to the idea of regulation.

[jhbrandt51]

I find that searching Google is no longer effective. It is clogged with web sites that pay to be on top. they are not relevent. It is no longer a good search engine. It seems, that only the sites that pay, show up and they are not nessesarily the sites that I am looking for.

[janeth]

With those words of wisdom there is no way JayDrake is as young as his picture looks.
Again the search engines we are now using are http://www.webworldindex.com/ and http://www.altavista.com/ Of course there is no list complete with out http://www.scroogle.org/
I would like to see some good head to head competition with Google and all of http://www.altavista.com/ search results are just as good as the old Google and better then the new Google from what I have seen.

[greeneagle]

How can anyone think that the world's top search engine and the US government aren't already walking around hand-in-hand?
Google ranks http://www.google-watch.org with a 70% ranking.
But here is the clencher "SPOOKY GOOGLE" at a current 60% Google ranking: http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html
With their current dance and the volume of current criticism why would they continue to let a site defame them without legal action if the stories were not true? Why would they continue to rank the site with 60-70% relevancy rankings all the way through? Why do you suppose they are hiring ex NSA agents with TOP SECRET CLEARRANCES? Why are they trying to hire more employees with TOP SECRET clearances? Could it be because ALL PRIVACY ISSUES are subjugated in the interest of national security? Could it be that the Government is helping form the new alogrithms in the interest of National Security?

MAYBE THEY ARE BEING REGULATED ALREADY! - That's my guess!

[rlrouse]

Google is a far cry from a monopoly. There are many other search engines on the web, but Google is #1 and for good reason.

Every time the Government decides to punish success with regulation, innovation suffers. We'll all be better off if the regulators steer as clear of the internet as possible.

Besides, like any other business operating in a free market, Google is already "regulated". If you don't believe me, just ask AltaVista and Looksmart.

[mikmik]

I am only guessing, I am not at all knowledgeable about how critical marketting and exposure is for some sites/businesses much beyond the obvious, however:

Why would you want to regulate google. I don't know, but did people discuss this say, 6 months to a year ago? Or am I just to new to have that knowledge - I really don't know, but in the 4 month's I've started being aware of SEO and PPC and "Keyword Bidding?", it seems to have just now become such a hot topic.

Is that because, seems to me over about the last six months, it has become more and more of a 'contest' as google's list/ranking criterea has become more mysterious. So are people upset because they don't know the rules anymore, and thus can't manipulate them or find loopholes to exploit?
curtis says
"If one can't ante up, don't play the game." In other words, if one doesn't like what search engines are doing and one can't keep up with the changes, perhaps one should consider a change of career.

Seems to me that as recenlty as 6 months ago, when I was learning about how google etc. worked I (like many non-website workers/specialists), thought you just got a website and it 'showed up'. But I was 'told' ,by many articles and tutorials, that to get ranked entailed 'getting listed on DMOZ' and pumping your code with hidden keywords - keyword spamming - and that the only reason not to do this was because it was useless, if not detrimental, to use words like 'sex' and 'free' and 'mp3' just to get visitors to you site that has nothing to do with such.
jhbrandt51 says ;
I find that searching Google is no longer effective. It is clogged with web sites that pay to be on top. they are not relevent. It is no longer a good search engine. It seems, that only the sites that pay, show up and they are not nessesarily the sites that I am looking for.
I don't know about you (although you just told me!), but I seem to recall getting even less usefull results on google, or any other SE, because the first 5 pages of results were filled with irrelevant sites that had used keyword spamming - I began just automatically clicking to the 3rd and 4th pages of results. I began to develop skills at spotting the 'good' listings from the 'bad'.
Exactly this - along with what curtis says, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
It wouldn't surprice me if google wasn't even using any specific formula beyond what they reveal, it's just some random thing to give more sites a chance to get exposure, sort of a blending between what leads to established/veteran sites with virtually immovable status dominating, and some measure of opportunity for newer, unknown sites.
I am begining to snicker a little bit these days when I see the folks that are getting stressed and so bent out of shape over trying to 'figure out the magic formula'. I'm not thinking or even knowing of anyone in particular when I say this - I am not familiar with any of the pure marketting driven sites at all, I only see this happening 'here and there' with much more frequency these days. But the joke would certainly be on them, wouldn't it?
It is up to us to choose alternatives, and promote their usage, if we don't like something. We are the ones with the power, by voting with our dollars and promotional support(education) to decide the rules by choosing the companies that use the rules we like, and making them successful.
I agree 100%!! with grease and janeth, and I think that google is in the process of doing the 'weeding out' the exploitable and unfairly weighted 'algorythms', because they are very, very astute and seem to be, to me, progressive and ethical, as much as possible.
Those guys impress me, a lot. They know what's coming, biggies like microsoft et al. and maybe they are just using the best advice I've ever heard regarding SEO'ing a site :"Make it as helpful to your visitors as possible!!"

[felicity1127]

I would like to put my 2 cents worth in here. I think what Google is doing is wrong. I agree there are some people who are spamming and trying to trick the search engines, but the websites that don't do those things are being penalized too. I have a Cleaning Service website that ranked number 4 for house cleaning service since last year. Now when you put in house cleaning service you get irrelevent results. One site that comes up number 2 for that key phrase is a website that is so bad. It has a picture of 3 girls that look like they are in a bar drunk. Would you want someone like this cleaning your house? Patti www.felicitywebdesign.com

[amberstar702]

I had websites listed in #1 and #2 positions in both Google and Yahoo. Since they are no longer there, I find it difficult to think kindly of Google's business abilities. However, I have never depended solely upon them and am now refocussing on other search engines and niche directories for my sites.

As so many of you have said, if we go elsewhere we are making a statement and something will have to change.

And like the typical dictatorship, once the one in power is overthrown and another search engine fills the void, the new one will eventually build up to a dictatorship as well with new and probably bizarre requirements. (See "Bananas", the first movie by Woody Allen).

[binod]

Changes are important as the time changes. The thing that is right yesterday, may not be right as of today in todays circumstances. In any technology driven society, regulation in any forms will harm the society and will recess the growth in terms of business and knowledge in the long run. Google is also a part of technology driven society so, it shouldnt be regulated. If it does something wrong with the technology then the customers will react or some other folks will raise head to oust the google. The changes must be for the sake of good. and Google should understand this.

[Whit]

What I find surprising is that no one has asked, “Regulated in what way?”
Every business in the U.S. is already regulated in many ways. There are laws on the books to regulate everything from fair hiring practices to the sale of stock. The general consensus seems to be that Google is approaching a monopolistic share of the market and while there are several good arguments to be made here, the standard method of dealing with a monopoly is to regulate prices. Google’s basic service is free. Is the proposition that the government should regulate the cost of paid listings? Should the government regulate the way Google ranks free listings?
Personally, I don’t think anyone has any business regulating Google. While Google may have a monopolistic share of the market, it is a free decision made by the consumer that continues to give Google that share of the market. Monopoly laws were designed to prevent overwhelmingly larger companies from using an unfair market advantage to eradicate competitors. This is usually achieved by dropping prices so low that competitors simply can not operate at a profitable level. Once the competitor has been eliminated, the larger company is then free to raise prices to otherwise unthinkable levels. Consumers are simply left with no other options and must therefore pay unreasonable prices. I just don’t think this is the case with Google, especially now that Microsoft and Yahoo are gearing up to take a share of the market.
Another interesting thing to consider is what would happen if the government regulated the way Google returns results. I have been to enough government sites to know that they are, as a general rule, in no position to be telling other people how to make information easy to find.
Bottom line? Google is a U.S. business, and as such is regulated by U.S. laws. Unless Google is defined as a monopoly, there is no precedent for slapping them with any additional regulations.
Another question that should be asked is, “Do you want the government telling you how to operate your site?” If Google were to be regulated by the government, don’t you think it would shortly follow that SEO tactics would soon be outlawed? Surely Google would seek legislation designed to ease their burden. It would not be hard for them to argue that they were being given a set of operating conditions that made it impossible for them to perform what would now be a government mandated task. You might very well end up with a set of regulations for web design that operated similar to modern building codes. You might even end up with a state regulated “web design” license. Then of course there would be the necessary tax to fund all of these new agencies…

Just a thought.

[techblast]

What a joke internet marketing has become. Regulating GOOGLE is absolutely necessary. I believe they should be sued by the Feds for fraud, deception and misleading the public. They have never had any "fairness" in the way they determine Rankings. Forget good quality content that is useful to the public. With Google a 10 cent website built by a FRAUD with no information typically gets the top billing. What CRAP. I am directing my dollars towards up and coming SEARCH ENGINES. I also now use other search engines other than GOOGLE for my searches. What a JOKE. I have also greatly turned down my GOOGLE Pay per Click.

Total CRAP. If you rely on GOOGLE to get good information from the WEB then you are horribly misinformed and frustrated.

[techblast]

The worst part about Google is when you complain about obvious SPAMERS, nothing is done. I belive this is in part because Google is making money and like GM or FORD they figure it is cheaper to get sued then to drive away any revenue. Of course this in turn only invites more and more people to turn to unethical marketing methods in an effort to prevent loss of page rankings.

So to me it is useless to have rules if they won't be enforced and it is useless for GOOGLE to say one thing and fail to put muscle behind their own rules of usage. Googles failure to police its own usage policy frustrates the good webmasters who follow the rules and in my opinion only invites more SPAMMING and useless consumption of the public bandwidth.

Search Engine Technology needs a registration system where each webpage requires a Form to correctly categorize it. Nothing more crazy than entering a search term and getting results from left field. Even my own web has pages show up for Key Words that don't apply to it. Here I think now how can I get the right page to show up for the right Key word? I don't think there is a good answer.

[janeth]

Just food for thought.

I'm saying what a lot of other people have said I have no idea rather it is true or not but right now a lot of people are upset at Google.

I have herd people say it playing, but they have talked about, going threw and clicking on the paid banner ads to run up the clicks.

Like I said I have no idea rather it is true or not, but if I was going to put money in advertising right now it would not be with Google because there are to many people upset at them.

[Conficio]

Hi there,
Google needs no regulation, but a little better business sense. Yes so far google was the greatest! And it still is if your search terms do not fall into the filtered categories (I use google daily and have no issues so far) - assuming the theory with the post filters is correct.

But it might be really bad for business, as people can't rely on a consistent quality of service. If I hit "unfiltered" key words, my results are relevant, if I hit "filtered" key words my results are of obvious bad quality.

Part of the outrage is quite fair, as google always put forward a strait face, not mingeling advertisement with relvant search results. That way the user can decide how to use it. Other search engines have there a different view. This open policy has served google well and helped to make them #1. They should stick to it and value their good reputation.

I think the current filter techniques are flawed. they simply result in bad quality results for some search terms. I'd rather get the spammed results, than the filtered but irrelevant results. Sure I'd wish google finds an egenious way to avoid the spammers. But they clearly have not found it with this change.

It's especially bad business for google, as they entertain to sell part of the busienss to the public (IPO). Beeing at peace - or better friendly terms - with your customers (even if the users don't pay directly, but they make it compelling for the other customers to pay for the priveledge or the technology) is vital in such times. This will upset the numbers of searches (as users turn to alternatives). In due course the analysts on wall street will get cold feet. I'd think it is a smart move for google to not tinker too much with their core technology before the IPO.

I believe competition is the best cure for such missteps. And in my opinion the google technicians just try to fight back the abuse and hope to improve results in the interest of all users. It just didn't work this time. I believe they should roll it back and figure out a better way. I'm more than willing to give them a second chance. They just should be careful to not repeat it.

Happy searching
K<o>

[carol]

Whoa. So you want Google to publish their "rules" for ranking, and then you could maximize your page for these rules, and would that increase the number of sites that can be in the top 10? You think Google should be "sued by the Feds for fraud, deception and misleading the public"?? As I've tried to teach my children, life isn't fair, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and when you're thrown lemons, make lemonade. Where is it written that Google has to rank your site #1??? How can they differentiate between your site and the thousands just like it? Maybe we need to educate our SEO clients - what are we "guaranteeing" when we tell them we can put them in the top 2 - or top 10? There are MANY other search engines/indexes out there. If you think Google isn't providing the optimal search functionality, then guide yourself - and your clients - to the other entities. Don't use Google AdWords. But sour grapes is unbecoming to the professionalism we would like to project.

[mikmik]

Thanks, carol for
But sour grapes is unbecoming to the professionalism we would like to project.
I was just checking in and noticed some pretty heavy negativity going on here, so I was going to say something similar.

Ya know what? I think that a whole lot of businesses are doing thing's WRONG. I know people get frustrated, but who cares. Some one close to me just died, my business partner suddenly pulled out on me on Sunday, screwing all the plans I had been just about to put into action, the cat peed on the carpet, Acme Discount Diamonds make me wait to long in the checkout, blah blah-blah blah-blah. The one thing about your problems is, 95% of people don't care if you have 'em, and the other 5% are glad you do!

Do what janeth does, live with it! Find a SOLUTION! Go elsewhere try other approaches.

I'm pretty sure that if I made the rules, the world would be perfect! Guess what? Everybody else can say the same thing!

I do not care if Google is doing it the way you think they should, I do not care if you think that they have no business sense, they are worth an estimated 5 to 20 BILLION Dollars USD! How much are you worth?

If you have an exact incident in mind that directly shows how you are getting royally screwed, or that they are shysters - then PRAY TELL! Or make some lucid suggestions that show how to deal with the situation.

I'll tell you one thing, and that's Google owners didn't sit around complaining about what a raw deal they were getting when they were starting out, and I very seriously doubt that anyone else that is now successful did either. With attitude like that, you got lots worse problems than just Google!!

[minstrel]

Regulating GOOGLE is absolutely necessary. I believe they should be sued by the Feds for fraud, deception and misleading the public. They have never had any "fairness" in the way they determine Rankings. Forget good quality content that is useful to the public. With Google a 10 cent website built by a FRAUD with no information typically gets the top billing.
The current Google adjustments are exactly about rectifying the mess that has been created by a large group of website owners and unscrupulous SEO experts attempting to manipulate the system. If you want to sue anyone, sue the people who tried to exploit Google and in doing so exploited all of us...


I am directing my dollars towards up and coming SEARCH ENGINES. I also now use other search engines other than GOOGLE for my searches. What a JOKE. I have also greatly turned down my GOOGLE Pay per Click.
More power to you... that's called "freedom of choice".


If you rely on GOOGLE to get good information from the WEB then you are horribly misinformed and frustrated.
I don't think so... I still find the best information from Google searches, I don't believe I am misinformed as a result, and, unlike what I read in many posts on the subject, I think for the most part that the recent changes Google has made are improving the relevancy of their searches by weeding out the spammers and spoofers and outdated pages that are old news. I do see that some legitimate sites have been hurt in the process and I also see that Google recognizes that and for that reason is continuing to refine the changes it has made - it isn't over 'til it's over.

Feel free to search wherever you choose - that's what it's all about. But Google got to where they are because they did that better than anyone else and the current fuss, really, is about their attempts to protect the integrity of their searches. In the short run, some innocent people are suffering, but in the long run, they and all of us will benefit from these adjustments.

Given that there will always be people willing to do what they can to manipulate the system to jump to the head of the queue, to promote themselves by scurrilous means, I know that this will not be that last adjustment Google will need to make - it's very much like spam filters and antivirus definitions: we are always one step behind the Black Hats...

[jameskal]

Google is a business like any other. There is no reason why their activities should be regulated. It is always their choice, like the way we all do business, is our choice.

Google free search does not owe anyone of us anything. They haven't promised anything to us. The sites that meet "their" norms get up-ranked; others down-ranked. It is their choice to decide what algorithm they should use to present the results. If they feel that some sites are taking undue advantage of their algorithms by unethical means, it is their lookout to modify their algorithms to weed those sites out. If they make those changes, we have no room to complain.

This, I believe, will be a continuous process. If, in the process of making these changes, some sites' rankings are dropped, it cannot be Google's fault. When the pruning process continues, more changes in rankings are likely to occur.

Google is #1, agreed. But that does not mean that they can produce optimum results for everyone. Now that we have plenty of choices of search engines available, if Google does not give us the results we are looking for, we have to go elsewhere. There are no circumstances that force us to depend on Google alone. If they have an IPO coming up, it is their lookout to make sure they deliver; if they don't, they will bear the consequences.

Believe me, Google or no Google, we all have to continue with our businesses. We did not make our websites because Google was there; and we have to continue to keep them whatever happens to Google.

Just my 2 cents.

[pburton]

Nobody has mentioned http://www.gigablast.com/
Gigablast is quick to index our submissions and quickly finds search results.
I have not yet failed to find what I want although obviously Google has a larger index if you really want to browse through hundreds of pages of results.

[Tubby]

Hmm.. regulating a private company. that has thousands of competitors ???

I am suprised that this thread even exists.

[janeth]

To start with a lot of people start post just to see what everyone else thinks or get everyone else thinking.

Every one wants to talk about black hats and white hats. According to Google anything you do to get a higher ranking is a black hat.

That means if Google says he only rank sites with over 20 pages and you start adding pages you would be a black hat.

Google is just a game. Yes we get a lot of traffic from them, yes it makes you mad when the rules change in the middle of the game but when it is all said and done it is just a game.

We get as I said before a lot of traffic from Google but when I started loosing key words I started making changes in order to make up whatever traffic I was loosing in other methods. I then started working on figuring out what is going on with Google in order to get back in the game.

I want there to be more then one game in town so I will use and push other companies to help this happen.

But when everything looks bad remember life is just a test.

[techblast]

Carol said:

"How can they differentiate between your site and the thousands just like it?"

Answer "Content." A good website is relevant to the search term. A good web is more than just a "Sound Bite." It offers choice, content and answers. Carol I understand your point of view and appreciate the time you took to make your point.

For my particular field what is getting to the top of the heap are "Trick Pages" and pages from those who do nothing but duplicate the same information on different web IP's to block out meaningful content from others who have the type of businesses the public is trying to find. I am amazed just how manipulated page ranking are and how the "unscrupulous SEO" has totally created a condition where results are highly conjured.

I have complained to GOOGLE about duplications, about hidden words, about deceptive advertising and I am sure there are other techniques that would even baffle an honest SEO.

I have had numerous web customers who finally found me explain that they were appalled at what they had to wade through before they found my web - where they could get what they were looking for, where they could talk to another human being - where they got service and answers.

I am in real estate and many of my competitors are unscrupulous and offer little more than a scheme for them to get rich without providing the public the kind of service required by Real Estate Law, whereas my business is just the opposite.

So yes. It is frustrating to see garbage floating to the top in search rankings and it is even more frustrating to complain about obvious abuses to Google and never have any of it corrected.

For example if you search "Plano Apartments" in Google you won't find me. Yes I am somewhere in there and my page will come up for certain search terms. But look at what comes to the top in rankings. Look at what is offered to the public. Then go to www.apartments2go.com/plano-apartments.htm and see what is being offered. This is what I am talking about. I am nowhere to be found under this search term. Plano is one of my biggest markets, but I am not in the page rankings for the most popular terms. So what is Google doing and how do they determine I offer no value for these search term?

I don't want to be No. 1. It is NOT NECESSARY, but it would be nice to see a little better screening effort from the No.1 Search Engine. Otherwise it may be more cost effective and practical to place an add in the yellow pages.

[minstrel]

Every one wants to talk about black hats and white hats. According to Google anything you do to get a higher ranking is a black hat.
Not really... but anything you do to try to misrepresent your site or to exploit the things Google uses to rank your site in order to gain an unfair and/or underserved advantage over your competitors is "black hat".

[janeth]

Hi Minstrel,
Here is what Google says good SEO is

Many SEOs provide useful services for website owners, from writing copy to giving advice on site architecture and helping to find relevant directories to which a site can be submitted.

That alone will get you nothing

[eko]

Unfortunately,Google has Europe market too.I feel that they will be blamed for a monopoly case in a near future.

[coadster]

I think there is alot of fuss over the way google is now ranking their search engine.
The people that seem to complain the loudest are the ones that dont fully understand what the go is.
What we need to do is to see exactly how they do the new rankings before commenting on them. Like many great web designers/developers, try the old identify, compromise and overcome rule.
I for one hope that googles new ranking system will erradicate some of the crap websites that hog the top search engine listings done by the so called cowboy web masters.
Some web masters have become complacent when it comes to the seo of their websites and now demand they be number one - they are the ones that should pull their heads in and re evaluate their search engine stratagies.Look Im not trying to be nasty but I bet you abuse the police when they pull you over because you were speeding!!
Now what I purpose is that we all combine ideas and to fomulate a plan to overcome these recent developments of google and to adjust our websites acordinly instead of screaming blue murder like some people seem to do.
I for one have my websites listed in as many search engines as I can and do not rely on one particular search engine to do all my work for me. What google is doing has effected my websites to a certain degree in which i'm still assesing so that I too can overcome these problems as well but I still remain untouched on other search engines.
Anyway looking forward to replies and a speedy resolution into this matter

Cheers Codey Reinders

www.territorypictures.com

[janeth]

Hi coadster,

Since I think it is about 90% of all searches are done on Google it would take a lot of other search engines to over come that.

Google has said they where having some problems with bugs so this could be what is going on.

But whatever is going on it is only effecting some home pages for certain key words at this time so that is where all those other pages come into help.

I will give you an example lets look at search engines optimization
www.bruceclay.com was ranked number two his home page is now gone I could not find it anywhere but this page www.bruceclay.com/web_rank.htm took up the #4 place for the same key word so he did not loose anything.
I would work on the other pages on your site and not worry with the home page right now.

[KMHPaladin]

The speed with which some Americans call for government regulation constantly amazes me. Google exists in an incredibly cutthroat market. It's achieved supremacy by, very simply, offering the best product out there. Google's success is the very embodiment of accomplishment in a competitive market.

I sense that a large amount of the discord in this thread stems from people angry they're not at the top of Google's rankings for pertinent searches. Does Google have an obligation to put you at the top of its list? Does it have a requirement to publish the algorithms used to allow people to exploit them? Not in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, weaknesses notwithstanding, Google is an incredibly powerful and useful tool. I've definitely been annoyed at times when searching for products only to be bombarded with multiple pages of identical referral ecommerce sites. But that doesn't mean I blame the problem on Google.

Innovations like Google's searches for images, newsgroup postings, and indexed news articles prove that Google does not rest on its laurels. I further respect that they've chosen to avoid the "web portal" trend and keep their paid search results separate from real search results. To the best of my knowledge, paid sponsors are segregated into the "Sponsored Link" section.

That being said, there's a very simple bottom line. The volatility of the Internet means you're free to choose whatever search engine you want. If you don't like the search results, use another engine. If you don't like where your site comes up, either play the game or deal with it. You're not paying for Google, no one is forcing you to use it, and it certainly isn't irrevocably integrated into your operating system. Stop whining for Uncle Sam to fix a problem it absolutely doesn't have the qualification, justification, or reason to be involved with.

[DrTandem1]

Although, I am in favor of Google remaining independent and not just another electronic Yellow Pages, I am definitely against regulating it. What's next, regulating search engine optimization companies?

Google is not some social entitlement program. It's a business. If it becomes just another Walmart of the internet as search results go, another, more attuned search engine will take its place and Google will wither on the vine. Like McDonald's, it will become the place of last resort.

If you were to regulate it, how would you do it? Lobbyists? As soon as it becomes politically charged, it will become corrupted. If it's regulated, someone will have to pay for the process of such regulation. Do I hear tax? "Oh, so you have a Page Rank of 4? You owe $4,233 this year in internet tax."

Give me a break. You know, your site's placement in Google may equate to traffic, but it doesn't guarantee you sales. Build a better site and they will come. After all, no one found Google in another search engine. It was a great service and spread via word-of-mouth.

[ldyguique]

For example if you search "Plano Apartments" in Google you won't find me. Yes I am somewhere in there and my page will come up for certain search terms. But look at what comes to the top in rankings. Look at what is offered to the public. Then go to www.apartments2go.com/plano-apartments.htm and see what is being offered. This is what I am talking about. I am nowhere to be found under this search term. Plano is one of my biggest markets, but I am not in the page rankings for the most popular terms. So what is Google doing and how do they determine I offer no value for these search term?

First of all, a caveat: While I've been in technical support for years, I've never known much about the intricacies of website optimization aka placement, ranking, or rating(s). This is a relatively new topic of interest for me. I've been both surprised and fascinated by the dissatisfactions expressed by this forum as there does seem to be some basis for the dissatisfaction(s). I've dutifully worked through the thread and clicked on suggested links, etc. I took the challenge and did a careful search for "plano apartments" on google, scroogle, gigablast and on the clickable links at the bottom of that site for additional searches on: yahoo, alltheweb, alta vista, teoma, wisenut, and msn. The results were instructive:

1) There was virtually no difference that I could perceive between google and scroogle w/proxy -- apts2go did not show up within the first 100 listings, whereas aberrations such as bettysportraits.com and listings for apartments in Iowa and Illinos were all within the first 18. However, both Illinois and Iowa weren't actually farfetched as there is a Plano in both of those states, too. Doing a second revised search for "plano tx apartments" also did not find apts2go within the first 100 listings and a whole series of irrelevant ones;

2) On yahoo, apts2go didn't show up in the first 100 listings; however, most of the listings on page 1 appeared to have validity;

3) On alltheweb, apts2go showed up as listing #11;

4) On altavista, apts2go showed up on the 2nd page, within the first 20 listings overall;

5) On teoma, apts2go showed up on the 3rd page, listing #22;

6) On wisenut, apts2go showed up on the first page, listing #9.

7) And, finally, just to be fair, I did a search on msn, since this is the default search engine on all Windows XP systems or when using Internet Explorer 6.x. Apts2go showed up on the second page as listing #19. Since one of the earlier threads and concerns was over MSN buying google, it would seem to be a mistake on MSN's part. And, as a sidebar, there ARE genuine monopoly issues with regards to Microsoft making MSN the default search engine.

All this seems to prove is that both google and yahoo are useless as search engines unless one optimizes according to their rules and/or buys placement. And, the word monopoly raises its ugly head with regards to SBC Communications, a telco group that includes many of the "Baby Bells" or PacBell, SWBell, Ameritech, etc. According to their website: "SBC companies currently serve 55 million access lines nationwide. In addition, SBC companies own 60 percent of America's second-largest wireless company, Cingular Wireless, which serves more than 23 million wireless customers. Internationally, SBC companies have telecommunications investments in 26 countries." They are the largest single shareholder in Yahoo with approximately 16% of the stock.

However, the actual question was whether or not search engines should be regulated. Since various governments and government agencies have not been able to control spam, viruses, adware, and various other internet plagues, I have to agree with others on "who" would do the regulating? And, for what purpose? And, would it even be enforceable? It would seem to be a null issue and the answer would have to be "let the market regulate itself" through each and every "vote" of internet users.

However, the bigger issue that hasn't been addressed in the thread, yet, is the one of "how" does one educate a general public to eschew a popular search engine in favor of one that is unknown? It matters little to any of us if a search engine isn't satisfactory to our own searches, we have the skills to choose otherwise. The general public does not -- they will use the portal created by their ISP 90% of the time or the default search engine that comes with their system.

[Oxbow_LeBach]

I presume this isn't a joke. So your internet marketing scheme isn't going as well as you expected. If only your search engine results were better you'd be living the life of luxury. Google ignores you, those rats, even though you've placed the most popular search terms on every page of your site over one thousand times. 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...
But how do you plan to accomplish this goal? My website http://microtan.homestead.com/index.html has been ignored by Google for years. It probably deserves to be, since it's a scam, but not one who's goal is taking people's money, just intended as amusement. I think Google should be required to rank my page higher than all money-grubbing web marketeer's web sites. Maybe they should concentrate a bit more on getting a real job if they're failing at internet marketeering. I hate to burst bubbles, but sooner or later we all must face reality.

[janeth]

Hi Oxbow_LeBach,
Most of the people that are upset where people that have been number one for years and there sites got banned for no reason. Google will not give any reasons and no one knows what's going on.
There upset because it happened right before Christmas.
I do agree Google can do what ever they want and should not be regulated but I also feel like they owe it to the people that have used Google to give good search results if they do not do that people will go some where else.
That is what's happening now.

[DrTandem1]

ldyguique-

Your last statements in your posting ask how does one educate the public to use a search engine other than the most popular one. I assume that you are referring to Google as the popular one. Let me reword what I said in my previous post on this topic. It wasn't that long ago (1999?) that Google was virtually unknown and it was the likes of AOL that were the popular ones. Now, many of the other engines are incorporating Google into their own.

You do not need to educate the public. The public does quite well on finding and using what they like. My example of McDonald's is a good one. Everyone knows that their food tastes like crap, it isn't healthy and their service is some of the worst in the fast food industry. Their market share has fallen, although it is still a giant, but it's on a downward trend and they have not been able to reverse it. The dictionary has even added the word "McJob" to mean a low paying, unskilled, dead end job. Being number one at anything is only temporary.

Google is in flux. Currently, I have noticed some new links at the top of their result pages for products and they have also been advertising their "Froogle" directory/engine. I will say it again, you may get a lot of traffic from being high on their results, but that will not guarantee sales if your site sucks and/or your product/services suck as well. Build a good site, offering a good product and service, and they will come.

[minstrel]

First of all, a caveat: While I've been in technical support for years, I've never known much about the intricacies of website optimization aka placement, ranking, or rating(s). This is a relatively new topic of interest for me.

(snip)

However, the actual question was whether or not search engines should be regulated. Since various governments and government agencies have not been able to control spam, viruses, adware, and various other internet plagues, I have to agree with others on "who" would do the regulating? And, for what purpose? And, would it even be enforceable? It would seem to be a null issue and the answer would have to be "let the market regulate itself" through each and every "vote" of internet users.
Thank you for this well-researched and thoughtful post, ldyguique.

Welcome to WebProWorld - I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

[minstrel]

I for one hope that Google's new ranking system will eradicate some of the crap websites that hog the top search engine listings done by the so called cowboy web masters.
I believe that is the intention, coadster... let's hope it's successful when all is said and done...

Incidentally, welcome to WebProWorld... We don't call it arguing... we call it "conversation"... :-)

[minstrel]

The speed with which some Americans call for government regulation constantly amazes me. Google exists in an incredibly cutthroat market. It's achieved supremacy by, very simply, offering the best product out there. Google's success is the very embodiment of accomplishment in a competitive market.
Welcome to WebProWorld, KMHPaladin.

I agree with most of what you say in this post, except it's not only Americans, believe me... I think the world is becoming over-regulated and domnated by special interest groups and the politically correct. I think one of the things I admire about Google is they came out of nowhere, took on the established wisdom, and won. And now they are trying to protect the integrity of what they've accomplished.

[minstrel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.