Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Google Preys On Webmasters -- How To Stop Them

unethical businee practices google how to suceed in ecommerce neutralize google stop google

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:41 PM

How Can We Stop Google From Preying On Hardworking, Honest Website Owners?

 

Here are some -- very establishment -- ideas --

 

1) Start a 501(c )(4) Political Action Committee for Webmasters and
SEO's.  I believe there are a lot of people that would be happy to pay
an annual fee for this.  I would do it, but I'm pointed in another
direction just now.  But, this could pull a huge following and lots of
attention, done right.

 

2) Start a campaign to promote Bing.  How could you lose, everyone hates g#####.

 

3) Create and market a widget and/or app  that promotes Bing and
market it.  It could feed articles on the latest oversteps of g##### or
somethng like that.

 

4) I'll think of more...I'm a creative type.


g##### preys on us because everyone rolls over and lets them do it. 
They know that.  I was listening to matt cutts 7 spam videos and he said
their efforts only really affect sites that are creating auto-generated gibberish,

cloaking, scraping, or are churn and burn type throw-away domains and not

honest, hard working business people. 

 

That should make it easy for g##### to provide customer service to the rest of

us, i.e., establish a penalty resolution group that you can call (and they will answer)

and get help to recover you're site.  Is g##### interested in getting people to do

it their way or in making examples/victims out of webmasters? 

 

The latter is unethical.
 

The bottom line is --> we'll break g##### when all the webmasters
and SEO's band together against them and inform the public.  g##### is
playing a divide an conquer game which, in this case, is an easy
strategy for them to implement.


Edited by chuckfinley, 30 August 2013 - 01:43 PM.


#2 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 4457 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 02:43 PM

Webdevs have no need to band together, they can individually simply stop focussing on Google. What built Google (and every other online behemoth) was the fact that web users shifted their focus from elsewhere to them. The fact that you - and so many others - who are dissatisfied seem unable to simply shift your focus away from Google makes the problem starkly clear: your inability to change, not Google's, is the problem.

Denial: a common primitive defence mechanism for protecting the ego from that which it can not cope.
Note: it often takes as much energy to support as does the change one can not seem to face.

Speaking as one who has focussed elsewhere than Google for years to steadily increasing effect it is possible to wean one's self from the 'Google is my universe' addiction. One step at a time. Occasionally a sidestep, sometimes a back step, but without taking that first and each subsequent step one will never leave nor ever arrive elsewhere.

And as a bonus when sufficient individual shifts occur behemoths notice, adapt, or die. However, having already moved on such will be of minor consequence.



#3 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:04 PM

Speaking as one who has focussed elsewhere than Google for years to steadily increasing effect it is possible to wean one's self from the 'Google is my universe' addiction.

And as a bonus when sufficient individual shifts occur behemoths notice, adapt, or die. However, having already moved on such will be of minor consequence.

 

I agree with you with one exception that you keep leaving out in your analyses.

 

If I want to succeed, I can't ignore the competition.

 

Let me tell a story to explain.  Let's say we live in the g##### bizarro world.  In the g-bizzaro world, there are only 3 sources of traffic -- g organic, g PPC and the non - g advertising network.

 

I decide g is unethical and I'm not going to be party to helping them expand their business and I don't want to take the risk that they will turn on me one day.  I place all of my advertising with the non - g advertising network.

 

My competitor decides that he'll find other strategies to avoid being penalized by g##### and continues to take advantage of free organic.  Just to make the example simple, he incurred no costs for outside services to manage SEO.  My competitor uses g organic, g ppc, and the non - g advertising network and but spends 30% less than I do because organic more than makes up for the reduced traffic on ad spend.  We'll assume no cannibalization to, once again, keep it simple -- in this case he manages cannibalization and cuts his spend to 30% less than mine because he can get it free from organic and advertising would just convert free clicks to paid clicks.  We'll assume that our traffic is identical after I change my ad mix.

 

As a result of our choices, my competitor's cost of advertising is 30% less than mine.  He uses that additional revenue to improve customer service in areas where I'm week.  He also develops free apps and can afford to hire a copywriter to provide information that visitors really find helpful.

 

As a result of his efforts, word of mouth, comments on review sites and comments on social media sites, my competitor's traffic grows.  As a result, g organic gives him a ranking bump that helps traffic grow even more and g PPC increases his quality scores so his cost of advertising is further reduced.

 

Meanwhile at the ranch, I think that I'm sitting fat and happy because I got rid of g and it will just be a matter of time before everyone else sees the light and g will change or go out of business.

 

Cash flow problems begin to develop -- very slowly at first, very fast as I near the end of my ability to pay my bills.  By then it's too late to take strategic action to affect revenue, so I cut costs.  Where?  Let staff go, it's the only variable I have immediate control over and I have to pay vendor bills or the vendors will take legal action and I'll incur even more costs in legal and related fees, penalties, lost credit rating, etc.

 

So where do I cut staff?  I have to fill orders and manage the warehouse or revenue stops altogether.  At the hint of problems with filling orders, my customers will quickly leave and go to my competitor because they hear my competitor is doing some really cool things to take care of customers. 

 

As a results, I cut where I can -- customer service goes which causes even more customers to leave.

 

Somewhere along the line my competitor leaks to the industry news sources that I'm having trouble and traffic has dropped off dramatically according to Compete.com.  Customers run so fast it makes my head spin.  There's no time to do anything all day long except answer calls from irate vendors and try to keep them in the game.

 

The whole thing spirals out of control and my business fails.  The only thing I need to manage at that point is to make sure I have enough money to pay the bankruptcy attorney.

 

Another variation of this story would be that I work for a Fortune 1000 company and my boss fires me because of under-performing channels.

 

Either result doesn't work for me.

 

This is exactly the strategy I help my clients execute and point at their competition.  It's not about getting traffic -- it's about strategically acquiring traffic that will put the competition out of business.  A 2'fer.  Increase revenue and put your competition out of business which will further increase traffic.

 

If I'm retired and not dependent on the income from the site, then no problem.  Except, I gave away a lot of revenue for no good reason that I could pass on to the grand kids.

 

Bottom line -- g##### needs to change their unethical business practices.  The general public needs to know about their unethical business practices -- I've tested this, the public will change search providers if they know about it.

 

So, back to the question asked in this thread --  How Can We Stop Google From Preying On Hardworking, Honest Website Owners?


Edited by chuckfinley, 30 August 2013 - 06:25 PM.


#4 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1932 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:14 PM

How could you lose, everyone hates g#####.

 

I disagree with both opinions above. Not everyone hates the big G. People love em. Only a small minority (SEOs) hate them.

To deny G and focus somewhere else is a dream (for now) even though it is the solution that will not happen (for now).

user agent googlebot

disallow *

 

The parts I agree on is to promote something else which will be hard.

 

g##### needs to change their unethical business practices

Why? Their practices are working for them. Who ever said ethics ever had anything to do with business. Let's ask the grand daddy of them all as far as success. Goldman Sachs.


Edited by bobbb, 30 August 2013 - 06:23 PM.


#5 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 3711 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:27 PM

My opinion: Unless we would be able to fairly evenly distribute search among at least 3 search engines, the result will end up the same. If everyone moves to Bing, Bing will become Google. If everyone moves to Duck Duck Go, then Duck Duck Go will become Google. It's inevitable. SEOs will game the reigning search king, and that king will have no choice but to become the nightmare of SEOs. Granted, it may take a few years for a new reigning king to shore up its defenses, but it eventually will. And it may be worse than Google. Perhaps, we're better off with the king we know than the one we don't know.



#6 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:31 PM

I disagree with both opinions above. Not everyone hates the big G. People love em. Only a small minority (SEOs) hate them.

To deny G and focus somewhere else is a dream (for now) even though it is the solution that will not happen (for now).

user agent googlebot

disallow *

 

The parts I agree on is to promote something else which will be hard.

 

Why? Their practices are working for them. Who ever said ethics ever had anything to do with business. Let's ask the grand daddy of them all as far as success. Goldman Sachs.

 

As a practical matter, based on the complacency of many people in the online space, nothing will happen.

 

Having said that, g##### won't care about unethical practices, until the public knows about it.  I wouldn't be surprised if Mark Penn doesn't pursue this avenue.  I believe people will consider changing search engines if they know about the unethical practices.  Someone has to do the heavy lifting to deliver the message to them, though.


Edited by chuckfinley, 30 August 2013 - 06:37 PM.


#7 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:39 PM

My opinion: Unless we would be able to fairly evenly distribute search among at least 3 search engines, the result will end up the same.

 

You are absolutely right about that.  I don't think it would swing like that though and along with the competition would flow better business practices.



#8 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:42 PM

Hey bobbb,

 

Read that article on Marissa Mayer --> http://www.cre8asite...ized-biography/

 

It really gives us a lot of the inside plays.  Extremely interesting.  Not exactly like we were thinking but, maybe, close.



#9 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 4457 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:00 PM

There is no requirement for a business to be ethical; indeed in some instances it may be illegal - given shareholder responsibility - to be such. A business, as with a person needs only not be caught out by the laws of the jurisdiction(s) in which they reside/operate. The foregoing is the reality. Might the world be a better place if ethics education were required? Might the world be a better place if ethics were practiced by most/all? Utopia is somewhere over the rainbow.

 

Organising works when most/all are in the same boat. Trade Unions were able to organise because all workers were similarly mistreated. Women remain paid on average 70% of men for comparable work because only half the workforce is so mistreated. For every webdev who gets shot down by Google (or elsewhere) another gets boosted - there is no similarly (mis)treated majority sufficient for organisation to work, especially as the vast majority are silent and far far away from webdev/SEO fora or similar discussions.

 

There are only two outside senior Google stakeholder groups: the users and the advertisers. Thirdparty webdevs aren't even at the table, there are always more where they came from...

 

That aside your story in post #3 about (not) ignoring the competition is a strawman. Just because one decides to focus elsewhere does not mean that one disappears or even falls from Google - unless you block them. I'm one person. I have a number of sites in a number of niches. I market to and through a number of traffic sources only one of which is search. I really pay very little attention to my competitors, a glance now and again to see if someone is suddenly inventive (rare). I simply don't have the time. And my search traffic, including from Google continues to increase YoY.

 

Google is, by many measures, the leading SE for many countries. In North America Bing and Yahoo are still strong referers - for me, and with a combined 30% marketshare, for others as well. And with my new Chinese adventure Baidu is coming on strong. That I'm getting great treatment from 3 (or 4, depending on criteria) major SEs says that NOT doing so is a webdev marketing failure NOT a SE market penetration failure. Stop looking at Google for answers and look in the mirror. If I can do it anyone can. Really.



#10 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 02:10 AM

There is no requirement for a business to be ethical; indeed in some instances it may be illegal - given shareholder responsibility - to be such.

 

Unethical behavior may affect customer loyalty (and reduce sales) which will affect the Company Officers' fiduciary responsibilty to the shareholders to generate profit.  I would worry more about the public finding out about the unethical behavior and sales dropping as a result.  That would likely result in some termnnations.  I doubt the company would want to waste legal fees trying to recover as these types of decisions are a judgement call -- the Company would have to prove gross negligence which is a heavy burden.  Note - an officer's fiduciary responsibility isn't dictated by criminal law so related actions cannot be illegal.  Rather, when an officer fails to meet their fiduciary responsiblity to the shareholders it is a civil matter, an action in tort.

 

Who would pass a law making it illegal to be ethical?  There are no laws in the US or Canada that make it illegal, for obvious reasons.  You may be wiser to stick to your experience base and stay away from giving financial and legal advice -- my world.

 

 

That aside your story in post #3 about (not) ignoring the competition is a strawman.

 

iamlost, you're just plain wrong here.  In business, your strategic plan should focus directly on the competition.  It's hard to differentiate yourself from the competition when you don't have any idea what they are up to.  Your lack of business acumen shows -- once again, my world.

 

 

There are only two outside senior Google stakeholder groups: the users and the advertisers. Thirdparty webdevs aren't even at the table, there are always more where they came from...

 

I agree, that's who g##### thinks their customers are.  If we point out to their users how they get those search results, I suspect g#####'s view will change.  Market research indicates that to be true.

 

 

Stop looking at Google for answers and look in the mirror. If I can do it anyone can. Really.

 

Your comments here suggest you should be earning more.  I question how much money you're leaving on the table.

 

Once again, the topic of this thread is --> How Can We Stop Google From Preying On Hardworking, Honest Website Owners?

 

You may be commenting on the wrong thread.


Edited by chuckfinley, 31 August 2013 - 02:17 AM.


#11 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 4457 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 10:36 AM

We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

#12 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1932 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 12:45 PM

Ah two moderator going at it. I think we all agree that there is something wrong.
 
Do we think that it would be possible to "convince the public" that G is being unethical? I don't. Should not the focus be shifted to the advertisers since they are more inclined to understand. Advertisers can be made to see that better search results can be to their benefit too. Users click and will continue to click. Advertisers pay the bill.

This is not some company having things made by exploited people in some dilapidated building. The public can associate to that.

Is there any indication that advertisers are actually receptive or could be receptive to that?

Could G be made to see that website owners are their "clients" also and not just suppliers?



#13 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 4457 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:11 PM

Is there any indication that advertisers are actually receptive or could be receptive to that?
Could G be made to see that website owners are their "clients" also and not just suppliers?

No.

#14 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2334 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 01:48 PM

I just no longer put Google at the centre of my online busineses success. My white is your black and i am sure your reasons are just as convincing. I therefore don't attend to to ethical considerations that much. :)

#15 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 03:40 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

 

Fair enough. :)



#16 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 04:54 PM

Could G be made to see that website owners are their "clients" also and not just suppliers?

 

It's funny, in most businesses you want to take care of your vendors -- not everyone gets the same offers or the same terms.  In some industries the vendors can control you.

 

Not here, though.  There are too many vendors, too many of them are not aware of what's going on, and there are no leaders.  Result -- mass chaos.

 

In regard to your question above -- as a practical matter, as of today, no.

 

Also, It would be hard to infuence advertisers.  Advertisers would respond once the public responds.  If the public's not happy and stops going to that search engine, they won't be able to click on their ads either.  That will cause advertisers to put pressure on the search engine.  The other problem is that the advertisers are very diverse and there are so many of them, many of them are the same webmasters I'm talking about providing leadership to.  They'll be easy to get on board, but g###### will ignore them too, except the very large ones -- back to the first point in this paragraph.

 

It all goes back to the end user which, as you previously pointed out, are happy and probably have no idea there are any alternatives or don't care because they find what they want when they go online.

 

It's about education -- the public doesn't know there's a problem.  Someone needs to show them there is a problem and offer them an alternative.

 

I'm hoping Mark Penn will take care of that for me.  I wouldn't be surprised if he does.  I'm going to try to give him a call.  I just bought his book, Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes , which talks about what the "grass roots" are thinking out there.  Should be interesting.

 

That notwithstanding, I think my 501(c )(4) idea is a good one.  Considering the state of affairs, it would be easy to fund.  I bet I could pull down $250K a year to run it.  It just doesn't support what I'm trying to do long-term.  It's a great business idea for someone.

 

Also, Donna found a good link about what Microsoft is actually up to.  They pulled off a major "coup de gras" by cornering the educational market.  What's more, they have teachers and parents singing their praises to all the parents of the kids in the schools so that Bing will buy them tablets.

 

As part of the Bing campaign, school districts whose students use the Microsoft search

engine win points, which they can redeem for Surface tablets.

Henderson-Rosser said she will try to rally parents to use Bing to help win Surface
tablets for schools that cannot afford the technology.

"I'm seeing it as a community effort to fill in the gaps," she said. "What school is going to

turn down tablets for our students?"

 

End of Quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a great vehicle to educate the population.  Whether they want to characterize g##### as a sweat shop that abuses webmasters and SEO's here is another story.

 

If I were going to tell the story of webmasters and SEO's I would probably go to people that are very tech savvy, such as the millenials -- they would eat it up and they would change overnight.  They're very quick to react.  Obama's approval rating dropped 20 points with millenials overnight because of the NSA scandal.  They won't like this either.  They're a very powerful block reaching "age" right now.  Mark Penn may like this idea, we'll see.  If he doesn't take my call, I'll write him and follow up until he does.


Edited by chuckfinley, 31 August 2013 - 05:54 PM.
sp, gr


#17 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 06:27 PM

Help me out guys and ladies:

 

Some very good thoughts and ideas have come up here.

 

On the other hand, we did spend a lot of time talking about why it could never work.  The point of this thread wasn't to find 20 reasons why it couldn't be done, rather, the other way around.

 

I was hoping we could think "outside the box" and find 20 possibilities.  There are some very creative and interesting minds in this group.  Let's get every idea out, it doesn't have to be a good one, just a possibility.  Could it be done if the moon, stars, and sun all align, the wind is at our back; it's all downhill, it's a bright sunny day, and we're all invincible. ;)

 

You'd be surprised where really great ideas come from.  Often the person that came up with it didn't think it was great, but they only had part of the puzzle.  Someone with more information may be able to take it and run with it.

 

For those that have been considering the "why nots" can you help me turn it around to ideas as to "why & how".  Questions --

 

1) Who in the online space might be more inclined to be interested and care about this?

2) Why would they care?

3) How can an online message be delivered to them with no budget?

4) How can an online message be delivered to them if a budget is available?

5) What organizations might see this as consistent with their goals?

6) What other alliances might make sense?

7) Is there anybody already doing this or something like it?

8) What age groups would be particularly interested in this if they had the right information?

9) What is the right information to persuade?  Is it different for different groups?  If so, what would the message be for the different groups?

9) What demographics/psychographics would be more likely to deliver interested advocates?

10) How can evangelists be recruited?  Where would they come from?

11) Is there a viral aspect to this?

12) What online publications would accept an article related to this?

13) What Hyper-Local publications would accept an article related to this?

14) If you were going to use Social Media, which channels and why?

15) Would video work?  How could we get video produced with no budget?  With a budget?

15) Who would fund this? Would KickStarter work?

16) How would you advertise memberships to webmasters and SEO's.

17) Could PR help here?  Would HARO work?

17) And on, and on, and on.......

 

--> --> --> Your Idea Goes Here <-- <-- <--

 

:)


Edited by chuckfinley, 31 August 2013 - 06:29 PM.


#18 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 07:11 PM

Why? Their practices are working for them. Who ever said ethics ever had anything to do with business. Let's ask the grand daddy of them all as far as success. Goldman Sachs.

Although I understand what you're saying here and it is right to a large degree -- it's not hurting Goldman Sachs because they don't interface with the general public and the people they deal with don't buy that or don't care, maybe both, I don't know.

However, it's hurting the Republican party in a big way. That's exactly how the Democratic party has cut the legs out from under the Republicans. You can be sure the "Big Evil Corporation" mantra resonates with at least 50% of the public here in the US. I think there too, no?

#19 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1932 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 11:36 PM

I'm not sure about that now. I seem to see more and more documentaries now that just about come short of saying they are crooks. Libel? Agreed people don't deal with that bank so they don't know or don't care. But exposure of the kind I am seeing opens my eyes. They did that. geez whiz. If what I am hearing/seeing is correct (who knows) they cost you trillions. Well not you personally.

 

I think this is what you are talking about. A campaign that discloses the inner workings of a goldman sachs type. Maybe that is too strong an analogy.

 

"Big Evil Corporation" resonate the same everywhere I think. I'm sure they have "hedge funds" and bet on both parties. :)

 

6 and 7 above is microsoft of course. Ah those darlings. Maybe they should recruit a Marissa Meyer from G. There is surely some other disenchanted people at G. MS have the equipment and the power but are just not there. Bing is really not that good even though I use it more often for simple things.

 

You would need solid proof of anything alleged and also why it matters because google is free.

 

8 is the younger crowd in which I am sure there are google haters. They are probably the offsprings of the then younger crowd that became the google lovers and MS haters.

 

Would a campaign that "competition is good" work? ... and it is because it forces you to be better.

I always come back to MS-DOS 3.2. It was stagnant until DR-DOS came along then we saw improvements and new versions. Luckily this is not slashdot.That statement would get tons of flame. I didn't say that :P


Edited by bobbb, 31 August 2013 - 11:56 PM.


#20 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:40 AM

I believe you're right, the average person knows that Goldman Sach fleeced them. That might be a good way to go about it.

How's this -->

g##### is a large corporation that can't be trusted because they are willing to take advantage of average, hard working, middle-class business owners in order to create a profit for their uber wealthy shareholders and investors, many as rich and powerful as Goldman Sachs. And, of course, those profits fed executive bonuses in the $100's of millions for g##### executives -- actually I don't know if that figure is true, Id have to check. I suspect it's good, though. (They know Goldman Sachs fleeced them so to paint the executives and investors in g##### as more of the same may be effective. That's a good idea.)

I think all you would have to do is explain that g##### puts people out of business and won't tell them why. That they decided to put 1,000's of hard working online businesses and their employees out of work during the most devastating financial catastrophe since the great depression. g##### is prosecutor, judge and jury. The business owner isn't offered due process or representation. And, all the while, g##### was racking up record profits (http://beta.dawn.com...lion-profits-up) of $10.74 billion. Why did they do that? Because they were too greedy to spend less than 1% of those profits to administer a system that would be fair to all parties. Instead, they took the profits these businesses helped them earn and put them out of business through unfair and questionable manipulations of their search algorithm.

Of course, the above is my opinion and the events that occurred may be interpreted differently by others, like Goldman Sachs, for example. ;)

Edited by chuckfinley, 01 September 2013 - 01:16 AM.


#21 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1932 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:15 AM

The last part of that post will need to be explained along with the fact that some of the players that were taken out were gaming the system. Punishing everyone was not the solution for someone that started as an underdog, to AltaVista (digital research), with the motto "do no evil".

 

Record profit is not evil in itself. The goldman sachs example is more about how they did it.

 

Have not been to slashdot for many years but if there is anti G sentiment there, it could be exploited.



#22 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:31 AM

Would a campaign that "competition is good" work? ... and it is because it forces you to be better.
I always come back to MS-DOS 3.2. It was stagnant until DR-DOS came along then we saw improvements and new versions. Luckily this is not slashdot.That statement would get tons of flame. I didn't say that :P

When I hear that it reminds me of Gordon Gecko saying, "Greed is good," in the first Wall Street movie.



Not sure that would play. It's true that competition is good for the consumer (and business isn't about sharing), but hard to explain.

Edited by chuckfinley, 01 September 2013 - 01:33 AM.


#23 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 3711 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 05:18 PM

How about contributing to the competition? https://dukgo.com/

 

You can help with either the community or the search engine itself. Instead of focusing on bringing G down, focus on helping an alternative take the lead.

 

dukgo.png


Edited by DonnaFontenot, 04 September 2013 - 05:20 PM.


#24 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1932 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:30 PM

I had given them a shot in the past. They say their data is basically Bing and they mention Yandex and Yahoo but Yahoo=Bing. So what you got is a different ranking algo.

 

I'll give it a try and see. Something tells me that if they get too good the Duck will get bought by .....



#25 DonnaFontenot

DonnaFontenot

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 3711 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:48 PM

Where does Duckduckgo get its results from?

 

DuckDuckGo gets its results from over one hundred sources, including DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites (like Wikipedia, which are stored in our own index), Yahoo! (through BOSS), Yandex, WolframAlpha, and Bing. For any given search, there is usually a vertical search engine out there that does a better job at answering it than a general search engine. Our long-term goal is to get you information from that best source, ideally in instant answer form.

You will notice that the results of our sources and our results are often very different. That's because we have an intelligence layer on top that attempts to improve upon results provided by external sources. Not only do we try to pick the best source and use it in the best manner, but we also do other things like remove spam, re-rank, provide instant answers and add official sites on top, among other things.

While our indexes are getting  bigger, we do not expect to be wholly independent from third-parties. Bing and Google each spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year crawling and indexing the deep Web. It costs so much that even big companies like Yahoo and Ask are giving up general crawling and indexing. Therefore, it seems silly to compete on crawling and, besides, we do not have the money to do so. Instead, we've focused on building a better search engine by concentrating on what we think are long-term value-adds -- having way more instant answers, way less spam, real privacy and a better overall search experience.

 

https://dukgo.com/he...results/sources



#26 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 13 October 2013 - 06:15 PM

This might be a good way to stop g#####, The 100% Google Cure -->  The 100% method to recover from any Google penalty (penguin, panda, and all to come)





RSS Feed


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: unethical businee practices, google, how to suceed in ecommerce, neutralize google, stop google

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users