Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Google Stabs You in the Back...

<< < (3/5) > >>

wraith808:
Again, not taking sides... but how is this doing otherwise?  If their search results are still based on relevance, but they also have a shopping results tab, then it seems like its two different parts of the service.

I'm just not feeling the righteous indignation here...
-wraith808 (August 21, 2012, 06:45 AM)
--- End quote ---

Because the plan is that only merchants that pay will be listed. Payment won't guarantee that one will rank well for any particular search terms, but without payment, you won't be listed at all. Free placement is being phased out.

I am sure that I don't have to tell you that before Google came along, that's pretty much how most search engines used to work. What Google is doing is taking a step back in that direction with their Google Shopping service. I think what people fear most is them not stopping with just Google Shopping and going ahead with that same kind of "stone age days of the internet" paid inclusion model with their regular web search.
-app103 (August 21, 2012, 07:17 AM)
--- End quote ---

Ah... so it's the fear of collateral damage.  So there was a difference in interpretation of what 'search results' included- Google apparently looked at it as the standard web search, but others took it to mean all search products period.  So when they changed it for one, it breached trust; even though that might not be what they ever intended, it's the law of unintended consequences. And now with that trust breached- people fear that it might spillover.

A valid fear if they were not kept in check.  But they aren't unassailable, and Bing is a good alternative, as well as others, so I think that if they did make that change, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.  They're doing to a certain extent it seems what Microsoft has done to such good effect- and gotten 'slapped on the wrist' a few times for doing- leveraging the popularity of their platform to gain traction.  The difference is that they are now trying to turn that traction into actual dollars, and I don't think that Microsoft was ever as obvious about what they were doing when they made that transition.

kyrathaba:
The reason they can get away with this is complacency. If hundreds of thousands of people expressed their displeasure by no longer using Google Search, what would happen? But that won't occur, because the masses are ignorant.

Renegade:
Google previously stated that it would only base search results based on relevance.
-Renegade (August 21, 2012, 06:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

When did they say this exactly?
-daddydave (August 21, 2012, 06:38 AM)
--- End quote ---

Waaaaaayyyyy back in the stone age of the interwebs. 1990's sometime. It's the main reason that I started using Google.


Ah... so it's the fear of collateral damage.  
-wraith808 (August 21, 2012, 07:31 AM)
--- End quote ---


Is the fear well-founded? I suppose we'll find out at some point... Dunno.

But this is truly a watershed event. This is entirely about money. Where will you spend it? Google is taking it upon themselves to go back on their principle of search results based on relevance and moving entirely over to a paid model. If I'm looking for an "LG air conditioners" and they only show results for companies that have paid (and not LG), am I getting relevant results?

This is the main "front" - shopping. If they'll do it here, I'm willing to bet that they will "relax" their criteria for "relevance" elsewhere.

I hope I'm wrong.


A valid fear if they were not kept in check.  But they aren't unassailable, and Bing is a good alternative, as well as others, so I think that if they did make that change, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.  They're doing to a certain extent it seems what Microsoft has done to such good effect- and gotten 'slapped on the wrist' a few times for doing- leveraging the popularity of their platform to gain traction.  The difference is that they are now trying to turn that traction into actual dollars, and I don't think that Microsoft was ever as obvious about what they were doing when they made that transition.
-wraith808 (August 21, 2012, 07:31 AM)
--- End quote ---

My primary search engine now is DuckDuckGo, and I'm quite happy with it. It's certainly not Google, but it's darn good for the vast majority of searches that I do, and when I need, I simply use another search engine (usually Google).


I like to vote with my $$$ whenever possible. I like to buy from companies that are ethical and that genuinely have the interests of their customers as their top (or a very high) priority. I like to have faith in companies and to believe that I can trust them. However, they are few and far between now. I also dislike having to do so much research into companies to find out what they are like - it takes too much effort, but is often necessary.

Renegade:
The reason they can get away with this is complacency. If hundreds of thousands of people expressed their displeasure by no longer using Google Search, what would happen? But that won't occur, because the masses are ignorant.
-kyrathaba (August 21, 2012, 07:40 AM)
--- End quote ---

I hate to say it, but you're right. But I also think that more people are becoming more aware of issues like this.

Like I mentioned above, I've switched to DuckDuckGo and am quite pleased with it. Again... voting with $$$/actions. I'm just one person, but that goes for everyone - and the more people that act despite "just being one person", the better.

IainB:
...ramaya.na movie is not accessible on any other browser than chrome.
-mahesh2k (June 03, 2012, 03:27 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, yes and no.

* 1. Google Chrome and Chromium: I tried accessing that URL using these, and they both work the same: the site starts to load but then stops at roughly the halfway mark on the little red progress bar. No further progress seems to occur.
The flag and IP address details for the loading page are:



* 2. Firefox: The site starts to load, as above, but before the progress bar appears, the screen is replaced by the stupid "Aw, snap!" page. Presumably that happens when the server detects the browser type in your browser's HTTP header, and blocks it (maybe like some folk have been considering detecting and blocking obsolete IE browser versions...?).    ;)
The flag and IP address for the "Aw, snap!" page are:



* 3. Internet Explorer 9: Same as for Firefox. Not sure about the flag and IP address for the "Aw, snap!" page.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page