Author Topic: Google Stabs You in the Back... (Read 10553 times)

Renegade · « **on:** June 03, 2012, 10:45 AM »

Can you feel it? Can you feel the knife slip inside of you as it twists?

Google is stabbing you in the back. They told you that they wouldn't do any evil, and time and time again, they do it. How is this any different this time? Does the knife hurt any less now? They are LYING to you. They ARE evil.

http://drudgegae.iav...ed-00144feabdc0.html

Google to start charging companies for listings

Google is to start charging companies for listing their products in a core part of its search service, the first time it has converted a free section of its giant online index into a purely commercial venture.

The change to Google Product Search will mean that many merchants that have relied on the search engine to lure potential customers online will face higher costs, according to analysts.

The move also raises the prospect that Google will eventually replace other parts of its free listings with adverts, said Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Land. “It represents an attitude that they’re no longer going to go out and gather stuff up for free,” he said.

Google said it was making the switch to enable it to show users higher quality results when they are looking for products online. It also said the service would be relabelled as a “sponsored” venture to show it was now based on advertising.

More rationalization and BS.

They're going to force the corporate c**k down your throat.

Yeah, maybe my take on this should be in Soap Box, but this is simply too important and RELEVANT to hide it away.

I want a better world. A free world. A world where information isn't propaganda.

Information needs to be unbiased, and money is the ultimate bias.

Google has been slowly sliding towards the dark side. I stopped advertising with them simply because they suck (and yes -- I have been advertising with them for many years and spent many, many thousands of dollars with them). I would encourage others to do the same. Drop Google.

I don't know what else to say.

Mods, feel free to move this to Soap Box if you feel it is needed.

40hz · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2012, 02:00 PM »

They told you that they wouldn't do any evil, and time and time again, they do it.
-Renegade (June 03, 2012, 10:45 AM)

Da Purple Mage sez: Such is the way of some people...

The Scorpion and the Frog

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

$:-\$

-----

And on that "happy" note - break-time's over for 40hz! Time to get off the web and get back to getting stuff done. Ciao for now!

mahesh2k · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2012, 03:27 PM »

I hate their monopoly stuff and when their fanboys cover it up with some dumb defense.

ramaya.na movie is not accessible on any other browser than chrome.

http://www.ramaya.na/

So they're going to force people to use google laptops, google storage and now google browser only. I am sure apple and google fanboys will defend this with yet another excuse.

zridling · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2012, 05:17 PM »

And here's today's reaction:
Marketers React To News Of Google Shopping Changing To Paid Inclusion With Hope & Concern
http://searchenginel...e-and-concern-123294

“Replacing Google Product Search with PLA [Product Listing Ads] allows us the opportunity to compete against the large players in categories that we believe we provide a better assortment or experience in, and back off on the ones that we don’t through adjusting our bidding strategies.”

I want a better world. A free world. A world where information isn't propaganda. Information needs to be unbiased, and money is the ultimate bias.
-Renegade (June 03, 2012, 10:45 AM)

I so agree. But much of the current world is based on extraction and destruction (of the environment, creative arts, wealth, jobs, the future, hope, etc.).

Google has been slowly sliding towards the dark side. I stopped advertising with them simply because they suck (and yes -- I have been advertising with them for many years and spent many, many thousands of dollars with them). I would encourage others to do the same. Drop Google.
-Renegade (June 03, 2012, 10:45 AM)

I think this is true only if you think Google is the center of the universe. Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft will gladly offer their counterarguments.

I hate their monopoly stuff and when their fanboys cover it up with some dumb defense. (ramaya.na movie is not accessible on any other browser than chrome.) So they're going to force people to use google laptops, google storage and now google browser only. I am sure apple and google fanboys will defend this with yet another excuse.
-mahesh2k (June 03, 2012, 03:27 PM)

I'm completely against any forced browser limits by anyone. But google doesn't make laptops. Hey, but "information wants to be free" until some country asks Google to censor their search for them!

<-- Corporations will do everything we let them do, but now that they own governments, it's too late. (The next ACTA, CISPA, SOPA will arrive sooner than you expect, trust me.)

daddydave · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2012, 05:36 AM »

I am going to take a minority opinion here and state that Google has every right to make Froogle into a search engine for ads: after all, some of the sites I depend on are basically that: pricewatch.com and dealnews.com. However those are a little more narrowly focused on tech products, and that's probably why I find them useful.

That said, I don't think I will be using the new Google products search site for general not-necessarily-tech items. For now I am using PriceGrabber (which also accepts advertising) instead. Any other suggestions for alternative sites? Seems like they all accept advertising, are there any that show unadvertised items as well?

Renegade · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:19 AM »

I am going to take a minority opinion here and state that Google has every right to make Froogle into a search engine for ads: after all, some of the sites I depend on are basically that: pricewatch.com and dealnews.com. However those are a little more narrowly focused on tech products, and that's probably why I find them useful.
-daddydave (August 21, 2012, 05:36 AM)

The big problem that I see is based on obsolete concepts that are no longer used or relevant today:

Honest
Accountability
Trust

Google previously stated that it would only base search results based on relevance. Going with paid placement now makes them liars. That's a violation of trust and dishonest. They have failed to be accountable to their customers by violating that trust.

I suppose that it's ok for corporations to lie to customers. So, in a way, yeah... they have a right to lie, cheat, and deceive just like any other corporation. (Scorpion and frog again.

+1 for 40hz there.)

It's too bad that when people lie it's fraud. It would be nice to have a level playing field.

That said, I don't think I will be using the new Google products search site for general not-necessarily-tech items. For now I am using PriceGrabber (which also accepts advertising) instead. Any other suggestions for alternative sites? Seems like they all accept advertising, are there any that show unadvertised items as well?
-daddydave (August 21, 2012, 05:36 AM)

There are some really good price comparison sites out there. I generally go for local ones though as I like to buy in stores rather than online unless I can get a significantly better price online, e.g. I won't fuss over the difference for $100 in a store and $95 online. Shipping usually ends up costing more anyways, and I have to wait. I oh so wish that I could download hardware and groceries...

daddydave · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:38 AM »

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

When did they say this exactly?

wraith808 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:45 AM »

So they're going to force people to use google laptops, google storage and now google browser only. I am sure apple and google fanboys will defend this with yet another excuse.
-mahesh2k (June 03, 2012, 03:27 PM)

...? Where did Apple come into this?

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

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...

daddydave · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2012, 06:59 AM »

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.
-wraith808 (August 21, 2012, 06:45 AM)

I agree with your general point, I think, but are you literally seeing a tab like that on the Google Products web site, or do you mean generally for that type of web site? If I search for Vizio Costar, I get 5 results, none of which is a Vizio Costar. If I click on "Why these products?", I get the blurb:

Products and offers that match your query. Google is compensated by some of these merchants. Payment is one of several factors used to rank these results

.

It says "some" of these merchants, but it looks like the old metasearch results are gone completely, otherwise it would have found something.

And you can still sort by Relevance, so they kept their "promise," lol.

app103 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:17 AM »

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)

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.

wraith808 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:31 AM »

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)

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)

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 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:40 AM »

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 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:47 AM »

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

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

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)

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)

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 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2012, 07:51 AM »

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)

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 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:17 AM »

...ramaya.na movie is not accessible on any other browser than chrome.
-mahesh2k (June 03, 2012, 03:27 PM)

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.

wraith808 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:18 AM »

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)

I just don't see the point, currently. They haven't done anything wrong- there's just the fear that they will. If they start charging for standard search, the quality of their searches will go down b/c they'll be missing great parts of the internet. And they will go down in flaming ball of fire. As they charge for their shopping searches, I'll look elsewhere? Why? Because they won't have the index of all of the places possible. If people see that the quality of what they're doing declines as their greed increases, they'll quickly lose share.

Renegade · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:05 AM »

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)

I just don't see the point, currently. They haven't done anything wrong- there's just the fear that they will. If they start charging for standard search, the quality of their searches will go down b/c they'll be missing great parts of the internet. And they will go down in flaming ball of fire. As they charge for their shopping searches, I'll look elsewhere? Why? Because they won't have the index of all of the places possible. If people see that the quality of what they're doing declines as their greed increases, they'll quickly lose share.
-wraith808 (August 21, 2012, 08:18 AM)

I certainly hope that you're right.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:10 AM »

...? Where did Apple come into this?

Read:Google+ Apple fanboys, People who like their way of thinking are restricting content for users on other browsers than chrome. Not even midori was supported for the site mentioned earlier.

Well, yes and no.

It works under chrome. I tried it. It doesn't work on midori which is webkit based. They are likely to be detecting the browser and then showing the snap page.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2012, 09:55 AM »

Side stepping for a moment, what's the strategy behind a "company based in Nambia with a server in the US"? In the context of the US's content rules, vs the tax law ones, is some $4 of ad revenue a nice living in Nambia!?

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2012, 12:35 PM »

Google to start charging companies for listings

Google is to start charging companies for listing their products in a core part of its search service,
...
The move also raises the prospect that Google will eventually replace other parts of its free listings with adverts, ...
-Renegade (June 03, 2012, 10:45 AM)

What a horrible article. This isn't designed to provide us with information, it's designed only to inflame -- and it sure looks like it's achieved its goal!

The first quoted line is crap. Froogle is not a core part of its search service. The second quoted line is nothing but FUD -- Google said nothing of the kind, somebody's just floating this suggestion to be sensational and instill fear.

Google's whole raison d'etre is for people to find them to be the simplest and most authoritative place to find information on everything. Do you really think they're going to destroy their core web search business by eliminating content from it that people are using?

There are plenty of examples of Google shutting down services that proved unpopular/unprofitable. What's wrong with them identifying one of these as being popular despite being unprofitable, and trying to find a way to continue providing the service without losing money? Is it wrong to expect the merchants that are benefiting from the service to <gasp> carry some of their own weight?

IainB · « **Reply #20 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:14 PM »

I thought I would nudge an update into this discussion thread with an interesting, potentially very useful and informative post at Cnet.com:
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)

Bring back Amazon results to Google Shopping
With browser extension Shopping Enhancer, you can make Amazon and Google play nice when comparison shopping.
Matt Elliott
by Matt Elliott
April 8, 2013 10:16 AM PDT

Attention all shoppers. With the browser extension Shopping Enhancer, you can get Amazon listings back among your Google Shopping results.

You may not have noticed, but Amazon prices no longer show up in Google Shopping searches. According to the New York Times, last fall Google started requiring retailers to pay to be included in Google Shopping results, and Amazon opted not to pony up. As a result, to see pricing information for a product from the two e-commerce giants requires two separate searches. Unless you install Shopping Enhancer, that is.
(Credit: Screenshot by Matt Elliott/CNET)

Available for Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, Shopping Enhancer delivers Amazon results to Google Shopping. After installing the extension, simply conduct a search via Google Shopping and if Amazon carries the product, you'll see it listed among the results.

They have the add-in for Chrome, Firefox and Safari.
I installed Shopping Enhancer in Firefox, and it seems to work a treat.