HTML Logo by World Wide Web Consortium (www.w3.org). Click to learn more about our commitment to accessibility and standards.

Interesting article: Why Google is ditching search

Login / Search

 [ Join | More ]
 Add topic 
Posted
Rating:
#79272

Non-joined user

Basically, what I'm trying to say is:

Google has always shown us what they chose to show us.  

Nothing has really changed, except that we are more aware of what they are doing now.
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79273
Avatar

ocStaff (admin)

Not Sergey Brin said

As a web admin, we simply have to play the game - if Google is the biggest search provider, and is pushing Google+, we probably need to get on Google+!
I think the greater point here is that while Google+ may be pushed to searchers, the service is not as popular as Facebook, and therefore it's simply poor to give it a higher ranking.



Like ocPortal on Facebook:
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79274

Non-joined user

Robbie Goacher said

 I think the greater point here is that while Google+ may be pushed to searchers, the service is not as popular as Facebook, and therefore it's simply poor to give it a higher ranking.

Agreed it's not very balanced - but can you honestly say that you believe Google and all the other search engines have been ranking purely based on popularity up to this point?

(And is popular the best way to rank results?  How do you define 'popular' anyway?  I expect that www.goolge.com is one of the most popular sites on the web.  Does that make it a more valid result?)

It's a hugenormous can of worms, and I think a lot of people are getting caught up in the thinking that there's a 'right' way and a 'wrong' way to search, when in fact it is much more nuanced than that.  People look at it with rose tinted glasses, like Google is some sort benevolent, impartial entity, with some sort of duty of care.  They should look at them like used car dealers - the best cars are always the ones they're selling, which is why you need to visit a few!

I don't like how Google are pushing Google+ either, but to be suddenly surprised and angered by it now seems rather naive to me.

We just have to get on with it.  If we don't like it, we vote with our feet.  I wonder how many of the people writing angry articles have switched to Bing?
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79283
Avatar

Community saint

Not Sergey Brin-

I had discussed the MS/FB tie-up along with most your other points and even noted that I was please the ocPortal was providing better tools for interacting with social platforms since this is the obvious way that things are headed. And, if it were my business, I would likely consider making the same choices that Google has.

My point is that Google has built a reputation around the relevance of their SERPs. While this was never really true (as you say, results were always skewed for all the search engines), many people find the current move as breaking a trust with their users.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Because of Google's dominance of the search market, this move will get attention from both the FTC and the EC and may prove to be problematic because of that. On the other hand, Google should not be disadvantaged relative to the MS/FB hook-up which I am sure is doing something similar.

I also agree with you that, as webmasters, we must do the bidding of the search engine overlords or whither. It's not right but it's the way things are.

I was presenting these articles only to point out the significant changes that search is currently undergoing. And I still feel it is ridiculous that my search results would change based on being logged into a site (in this case, Google). As intrusive as it might be, it would be better (though probably illegal) to track cookies from other sites to determine relevance.

Bob
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79289

Non-joined user

BobS said

I was presenting these articles only to point out the significant changes that search is currently undergoing. And I still feel it is ridiculous that my search results would change based on being logged into a site (in this case, Google). As intrusive as it might be, it would be better (though probably illegal) to track cookies from other sites to determine relevance.

I agree, the changes are significant, and it looks like, for the time being at least, we'll have to just go along with them.

There's a certain irony that the laws that prevented Google from tracking us everywhere we go on the internet have probably forced Google to try and contain everything (search, social, email, etc.) within their own walled garden, thereby allowing them to track us even more closely.  Furthermore, it may also lead Google straight back into the arms of the FTC and EU for abusing a monopoly.  Stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79292
Avatar

Community saint

Not Sergey Brin said

I agree, the changes are significant, and it looks like, for the time being at least, we'll have to just go along with them.

There's a certain irony that the laws that prevented Google from tracking us everywhere we go on the internet have probably forced Google to try and contain everything (search, social, email, etc.) within their own walled garden, thereby allowing them to track us even more closely.  Furthermore, it may also lead Google straight back into the arms of the FTC and EU for abusing a monopoly.  Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We are in full agreement here and I had meant to mention the irony of how disallowing the global cookie tracking has led to this point. Who knows how it's going to play out.

I could just use Chrome instead of Safari since it provides buttons to choose whether you get personalized results. This might even be enough (once implemented in other browsers) to prevent much trouble with the FTC. Not so sure about the EC as they seem to take these issues much more seriously.

I've enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for joining in.

Bob
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79296
Avatar

Community saint

Um are you implying that FB and Google do not know every site you've visited that has their social integration built in? rofl!
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79297
Avatar

Community saint

Duck said

Um are you implying that FB and Google do not know every site you've visited that has their social integration built in? rofl!
I don't believe anyone suggested that - quite the contrary in fact and that id part of the concern with Google favoring their own social platform in their personalized search.

Bob
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79298
Avatar

Community saint

Well, Google has finally formalized their data use policy that has been in effect for some time:

Google to Update Privacy Policy to Cover Wider Data Use - NYTimes.com

There is really nothing surprising here other than the fact that so many have been so naive about Google's use of data and the reason Google+ is such a big play for them.

I'm not sure people will be buying "Do no evel" much longer and will, instead, see Google for what it is: another big business doing what it needs to do to continue to grow its profits.

Bob
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79358
Avatar

Community saint





Take my advice. I'm not using it!

View my working ocPortal site (version 9.x.x) at Anglo-Indian Portal
Back to the top
 
Posted
Rating:
#79359
Avatar

Community saint

Quite funny, Fletch.

However, based on the numbers people are tossing about, people are not taking this advice.

Bob
Back to the top
 
There are too many online users to list.
Control functions:

Quick reply   Contract

Your name:
Your message: