I heard somewhere that the journalists covering the piece in the New York Times tried to reach Google representatives but were ask to take up the issue with Danny Sullivan. I wasn’t aware that Danny Sullivan was doing public relations for Google, inc. — and so that was a very fascinating piece of information.

I have no axe to grind.

Google basically has 2 audiences:

1. people who are too lazy to type domain names correctly

2. noobs

So since the results on any search engine follow the wisdom of the language [ http://news.english.net.in/wisdom-of-the-language ], websites can usually be found using google (audience #1) — for example: the top result for “amazon” has little / nothing to do with the Brasilian river / forest region, indeed almost all of the top 10 results have to do with amazon as a domain name.

Advertisers who try to reach noobs might want to sell steak knives, lottery tickets or subscriptions to get-rich-quick schemes. In the long run, reputable companies will not run ads in the National Enquirer or a spam-filled website.

Knowledgeable users have moved on.

Since there is no such thing as a free service, novice users may need to be protected from being fooled. Europe is a highly regulated area — there are many laws that regulate what is permissible and what isn’t. These laws are supposed to protect innocent consumers from dangers such as mad cow disease.

In the United States, there is more faith in “free markets”. The theory is that people will only make risky investments if they are sufficiently rewarded. However, many people have difficulty gauging how high the risks are. Therefore some companies will go bankrupt or lose a lot of money.

Google’s switch to profit maximization has been viewed by many investors as a good thing — but perhaps less so in China. Once people realize that the top result is the one that maximizes profit for Google, they may think twice before clicking on it… — and that will ultimately dampen Google’s growth prospects.

But then again I could be wrong… — right?

nmw

Microsoft started incorporating utilities and tools into Windows which 3rd party developers were previously making a living from. Next came the integration of Windows with Word, Excel and Powerpoint followed by the Office suite which was bundled by Windows OEMs. The tight integration of Internet Explorer into Windows was Microsoft’s tipping point to real trouble.

There are definite parallels between Google and Microsoft which Google dismisses with the “it is free and people can switch at any time” arguments but it doesn’t really stand up to deep scrutiny.

The question is does this right get stripped when you have a leading market share? I don’t think so, specially because there is no cost for user to switch to another service (Google is free), and they allow data portability as well.

Also I don’t think any government body should decide what a search engine should or shouldn’t be, this whole concept of ‘blue link ranking’ could be disrupted rending all this ranking dispute meaningless.

Now, to my comment. Cutts writes: “(the) courts have agreed … that there’s no universally agreed-upon way to rank search results in response to a query. Therefore, web rankings (even if generated by an algorithm) are are an expression of that search engine’s particular philosophy.“

Open Cobra continues: “Of course, Google does this because they reward age. The older the website or article, the more it is rewarded in the search engine results.“

What these comments suggest to me is that Google needs to stop being a magic box, and start being a search engine. A search engine is something that allows a user to express his or her information need in as much detail as the user is able, and then fulfills that request.

My problem with Google is that it doesn’t allow the user to express his or her information need, but instead injects its own opinions onto that need. So when the commenter above, Open Cobra, writes that Google rewards age, what I find myself wanting is a way to express to the search engine the fact that I am looking for something newer for my query on pizza restaurants. But this isn’t just real time search. No, because I also want to be able to say that I want results that are older when it comes to trying to find (for example) a particular quote from Bill Clinton in 1998. I want a 1998 document in this latter case, and a 2010 document in the former case.

And Google gives me no way to express that information need, no way to add MY opinion to the mixture of search results. I only get Google’s opinion.

That has been, and continues to be, one of my biggest frustrations as a user.

If the EU doesn’t find that Google violated some law, another company, country, or state will try to attack them for something else.

I think the bigger question is how is Google going to compete with social media?

Chris Brogan just posted an excellent example of how effective social media is for finding information.

http://www.chrisbrogan.com/they-will-never-understand

People want referrals from trusted sources, friends, family, business associates. Social media can provide that information quick.

Google, in many cases, gives you results that were created years ago. If I want to know what the best pizza is in NY, I don’t want to read an article that was written in 2005.

Of course, Google does this because they reward age. The older the website or article, the more it is rewarded in the search engine results.

That’s the nature of SEO. It takes time to get to the top of search results and by the time something useful makes it to the few coveted spots where people actually click, it’s no longer relevant. Not in every case, of course, but many times.

Okay, I could continue but I’ve gone on long enough. Just my 4 cents.