Google deserves to die!

Thanks for the link, Webmistress.

Obviously we're all entititled to our own opinion, and we will often disagree with one another. That said, I'm not sure I really see what your issue is here. I read the article (but not the comments) and have no really issue with what they're doing. It all seems very logical to me.

You obviously don't have an affiliate income!

My main gripe is that Google seems to enjoy playing god and determining what's good & bad - IMO a search engine should crawl the net and then rank sites, using whatever method, but that the ranking/crawling should not be determined by what sites do or don't link to it.

Google is the major player and most people use Google for all their searches, therefore as far as I see it they have a responsibility and should not take it upon themselves to decide the affiliate websites are bad.

They started the whole linking revolution and now it's biting us in the @rse.

Yes, Google was much too slow to react to rampant linking abuse which forced honest webmasters to begin using black hat methods to survive. But now that they are correcting this it is interesting to watch the reaction.

Calling for their demise is not going to make it happen, though I would be happy to see their competition do better just to improve competition. Ironically (with regard to the title of this thread) Big Daddy will improve their search results and their market share. IMHO

But since BigDaddy their search results are rubbish on the whole, with dead sites/pages coming up within the top 5 spots and irrelevant content being thrown in! One webmaster has reported that a site he owned is now showing up in results 2 years after he completely closed it down and no one has rebought the domain, explain how that's a good result!?

Yes I am pissed off because this has affected some of our personal sites, but what is wrong with affiliate selling? Our sites are relevant, non-spammy sites and at the end of the day the visitors get what they want to buy, what do they care that we make a profit from it? It's not like they are paying more than if they went direct to the end company.

I don't want Google to die, I'm being dramatic - competition is good. What I object to is them deciding what is good or bad when they know they hold the major share of the market and peoples lives are in their hands.

Quote: But since BigDaddy their search results are rubbish on the whole...

I don't have enough first hand knowledge here to know if this is true, my own Google searches have been effective and compare well with the others. But if it is true Google will see their market share decline and the ask.com offline campaign will have been very well timed.

Google has been uncaring in the past by not considering the consequenses to commerce they encouraged, whether intentional or not. They are now providing more warning and communication for webmasters. But it is more a problem of their having to deal with the ire of those they have wronged and not really a moral issue. Their responsibility is to the searching public first and then to their stock holders. Webmasters come in a poor third in that race.

I think google sometimes relates keywords to other (what they think are) relevant keywords to try and bring up more comprehensive results... but as you say this is not working very well... Our site features artists whos surnames are "Christian"... so google thinks that our site is religion related (though we make no reference to religion), and thus we have hits for people searching for "Religious Art" ect... I think they are trying to be clever....

Google is still screwed up as today ALL our results are back to what they were Tuesday and it's as if yesterday never happened!

Have you all seen the Dilbert Comics?

That's about right! LOL

As someone who has seen her share of injustice dealt out by Google and has angrily lashed out at them directly (see comments in September by "Andi" here: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/reinclusion-request-howto/ ) I certainly can sympathize.

Life isn't fair, Google is not "not evil" and bad things happen to good people. It also appears that Google is here to stay and as much as we'd like their competition to gain market share it is better to accept that you'll have to deal with Google for some time to come if you want to survive.

Best of luck.

Andi

andilinks wrote: Their responsibility is to the searching public first and then to their stock holders.

I'd beg to differ on this one! They're a company, their sole responsibility is to their stock holders. What is the aim of a business? To make profit! It just so happens providing search results gets them money.

Personally I'd like to see competition, Microsoft are going to beat Google in the upcoming battle. If they pull-off the same trick with MSN Search as they did IE - bundling it with their OS and forcing people into using it - it's a little strange to suggest that a search engine could be bundled with an OS but hear me out.

Google are on to a loser in the same way Netscape were a few years ago, Microsoft have the power of their OS to back them up. They could even integrate MSN Search into some form of desktop widget in Vista, have better integration with office, ship IE with MSN Search as the default homepage (think it is already) and put some pressure on PC manufacturers to not change it. The possibilities for Microsoft are boundless, especially since Firefox will lose to IE7.

What about this new suite of tools Microsoft are creating for Web Designers? They could even include an "MSN Search" box, similar to the Google search for web sites, but pickable within the program.

So don't worry Webmistress, Google's days are numbered IMO, especially if they carry on annoying everyone and returning weird results!

Quote: I'd beg to differ on this one! They're a company, their sole responsibility is to their stock holders.

Google understands that their responsibility to their first constituency--the searching public--is essential to their well being as a company and the best interests of their stockholders. When "Google" is replaced as a verb they're done. Not gonna happen soon. Though they may lose some market share which would be fine with me.

Quote: ...Google's days are numbered IMO...

I couldn't disagree more, but only time will tell--I know better than to try to change minds that are already made up.

The biggest difference between Google and MSN is you can make money with Google - people are greedy

Well no, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be rooting for Microsoft as the poor underdog, hell probably has frozen over...

Quote: I have cussed, and fussed about MSN for years, but lately I cant seem to remember why...

Let me refresh your memory. It was because they ruthlessly destroyed people and companies and stifled innovation. I don't think Google is stifling innovation and that's why the public will forgive them for bloodying up a few webmasters whose own actions may be viewed as dubious. Google reached the top because people liked them, not because they were forced to buy a default OS that was blatantly ripped from the innovator. And hoping people die in a fire won't endear you to many or elicit much sympathy either... Yes, my site was banned from Google for 54 days and it was a horrible, expensive experience. But they have corrected that problem from my point of view. That doesn't mean they may not make some more mistakes but putting their actions ahead of Microsoft's in the pantheon of evil-doers is a short-sighted mistake.

Google may slip a bit from its almighty perch, but I don't see it taking any huge tumbles soon.

andilinks wrote: Google may slip a bit from its almighty perch, but I don't see it taking any huge tumbles soon.

Good points, and good arguments! I'd take it a little further though, and say that they will be squashed by MSN. Most people don't understand that Microsoft have stifled creativity and stolen ideas because they haven't ever experienced anything else (on the desktop that is). So, most people just see two services and are willing to try either, Microsoft will win because of integration.

Although I make prophecies of destruction for Google (and all this is opinion, please don't sue Microsoft/Google) it might take years, but with the amount of money they have one can do anything, even get a guilty verdict whitewashed.

End result is MS are free to do what they want as usual, and that can and will include: "F*cking burying Google."

gogle's sitemap system is trying to give us more feedback, but is it too little too late?

Their PR ratings are almost completly unrelated to the serps. and they take years to include new sites.

But they have the most searchers, so fu*k us all. right? they're big enough to do what they like, and we can either get inline or get outa the way.

I can't wait until there's an msn search bar included in the next IE update. that'll fix google, the only way you can - by taking away their searchers.

JeevesBond wrote: Good points, and good arguments! I'd take it a little further though, and say that they will be squashed by MSN.

I certainly hope that's wrong. Although Microsoft has a history of squashing little companies, they are not always successful when they try to overtake a new area. Take MSN as an ISP, for example. It's still around, but loses tons of money. Microsoft initially tried to buy AOL, and when AOL refused, told them that they were going to drive them out of the market. Of course, this has not yet happened. In the ISP market, even localized ISP's flourish while Microsoft pours money into the pit that is MSN.

Quote: Although Microsoft has a history of squashing little companies, they are not always successful...

Indeed. Had Bill kept his eye on the OS ball, Vista might be a home run. As it stands there's a big opening for OS X or possibly someone else...

MSN is just one of many money pits, MS success itself would be non-existant without the momentum provided by the original DOS agreement with IBM. Everything flowed from that and what few (numerically) successes MS has acheived still stand on that original stroke of good luck. Gates *is* a genius, but without his good luck he'd be just like dozens of other struggling tech geniuses.

Actually, Microsoft's meager successes stemming from its dubious behaviors gives me renewed hope that the free market does not reward treachery in the long run.

This blog post at SEO Moz points out that the fastest growing population of internet users is in Asia-Pacific where Yahoo has the strongest foothold. So maybe they still have a place in the game too.

Personally, I hope nobody "wins". Competition is good - if they're all battling for better market share that only means better search functionality for users

They're not God, they're Google. People make them "God like" by relying on them so much. They can do what ever they want with their own site, as can us all.

People also seem to think that google owes them a good page rank or the best ranking and things like that. It's their algorithm, and like SearchBliss said, they can do whatever they want with it. By nature search results can't be exactly accurate all the time. And it's not like anyone is paying them or anything. They try new things and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's like blaming God if something bad happens to you. Is it God's fault? Well, maybe it's your fault, but it's probably just random.

I agree that there tends to be too much reliance on Google. It will be good if MSN and Yahoo improve their market shares (although from what I've read Google isn't actually as dominant as people make them out to be).

It's taken me awhile to get back to this thread...

I have to agree 100% with Megan and Busy. The whole point of Google is to deliver to web browsers information they're looking for. It's not to deliver to you more cash. Do I have anything against affiliate linking programs? Certainly not! I've used such programs in the past. But griping because Google is tweaking their algorithm in an attempt to better deliver relevant websites? Give me a break.