Although I use and like many of Google's products, it certainly makes me uneasy how powerful Google has become and the panda update really brought that home, so I am not surprised that some companies are taking legal action against them!
I think this is a real shame for Google. It is a grossly unfair manipulation of the law in order for bent senators to get some backhanders from Bing and Facebook. Google needs our support - they ARE the internet.
I would write a hub about it but as I GET NO GOOGLE TRAFFIC AT ALL...
.. I won't bother.
I agree to an extent. However google's projects are so far spread, they would actually benefit by splitting into multiple companies, in my opinion.
They have their operating system (android), their search engine, maps, earth, gmail, omg the list is endless ;P
If you get no google traffic and yet you have a 96, with quality hubs, that is the fault of Google and not you.
Not necessarily. The 96 score means nothing at all to google, and rightly so.
Even quality hubs can be overshadowed by numerous other quality writings.
Even quality hubs will not get traffic if no one is looking for them OR if the keywords used are not what is being searched for.
Having said that, it seems very obvious that Google has made a major "mistake" in their algorithm in that many many hubs that were popular with searchers and received organic backlinks as a result are no longer rated highly. And that IS the fault of google.
Yes, I got virtually no traffic before Panda. I am rubbish at keywords but a bit better at fart jokes.
It is said that nature hates a void. If Google disappears, someone will raise to take their place. Google is not the internet God. It only feels that way.
I think our "grand poo bah" Paul E. made some very relevant points about this whole thing a few months ago on another website. How could it be legal for Google to weild such power, punish sites like this one, and give props to sites that it owns like youtube and blogger at the same time?
It may be that HP weren't actually punished but they had their support taken away - that extra love juice that hubs used to get. Puts a different spin on it.
This may be the new normal.
I'm trying new strategies. I'm focusing on building "authority" in the niche's that have seemed to do the best for me.
I'm not so certain that we'd be game for the fellow above's theory about breaking the beast into different parts - there's no way we could know how that would affect us.
As you are aware, just go hub hopping a few times. You will very quickly come to the conclusion that your post is most likely accurate.
Hopefully the work by HP moderators will provide some help here. I know they're working hard at it.
If you own a parts store, and you own a garage, should it be illegal for your parts store to refer people to your garage?
If one wants to make the larger argument that beyond a certain point, sector domination can reach an extent where it is a detriment to our society... and that in EXTREMELY RARE cases it might be needed to intervene for the mere sake of allowing competition within a field for the benefit of the business sector, the consumers, and society in general, then there might be validity.
As for the rest, though, I really doubt people want to live in a world where the government develops trillions of dollars of beurocracy simply to oversee it's stepping in every time someone does the common sense action of referring business to their brother up the road.
Frankly, by that same logic, it ought to be illegal for you to link to a website you own. It's no different... only in scale.
Frankly, I find it a bit shocking they're as fair as they are. Most people running a thing like that would've made it much tougher to find competition than they do. Google Bing or Yahoo... there it is. Fist hit. It's frankly amazing that they don't just give all their properties an automatic number one spot in every search.
I mean come on, honestly, who's NOT going to refer business to their brother's shop up the road? How is this even perceived as "illegal?"
From what I can tell about Panda, it really doesn't even seem to have been about pushing their properties at all... more like trying to react to an onslaught of spammers and crap-filled content farms that were skewing results horribly. Frankly, I've been wondering what the heck is WRONG with google the past few years as MOST of my hits are spammy crap. Better question might be what's taking them so long to take these and more measures. Maybe I'm missing something there, but that's certainly what it looks like.
Monopolies are the enemy of free and fair trade. If you aren't prepared to regulate against them, you might as well kiss goodbye to the capitalist system.
I completely agree.
True monopolies only happen BECAUSE of government regulation, however.
Google is nowhere near a true monopoly. My local gangster-owned trash collection outfit is... as per government regulation.
I'm no extremist.
I can see that in EXTREMELY RARE cases, even a fair playing field can become so skewed by a dominant competitor that it becomes necessary to step in.
This is an incredibly serious thing, however, and each time it is done creates a severe danger of government overstepping it's bounds. People seem to forget the enormous sums that are eaten up by govt. beruo-lawyers in these sorts of thing. They'd love nothing more than to make hundreds of millions going after one company then another. Those who study history realize that governments almost NEVER give up powers they absorb. Those who want to break things up in washington are not doing it for public good, but for personal profit.
That being said, there are cases where it is necessary.
I don't buy that. Many companies through history just became monopolies because they were successful. They have to be controlled at that point Google has too much power in search, plain and simple.
Yes, monopolies will occur naturally if the market is completely unregulated. Companies can then become so big they can beat new competitors by underhand tactics, such making products at a loss for a period of time in order to wipe out the opposition. Governments and state instituations are the only tool that can effectively prevent monopolies from forming, by breaking up larger companies, regulating business practices, and encouraging competition and innovation.
You're absolutely right, and google should be forced to split into multiple companies for the multitude of services. Just like microsoft was back in the day.
Everyone's facing legal actions, everyone's suing everyone right now. Apple's suing samsung for supposed copyright infringement... whats with that!? "Hey lets sue the people that make all the chips in every single one of our products! " lol
I've thought this would be coming. I did write a post on Techcrunch about competition and open publishing platforms. I have strong feelings that open publishing needs to be protected. I also feel that Google shouldn't be able to force people to use their platforms by punishing competitors. I'm hoping we get an opportunity to talk to the FTC.
Thanks Paul. I thought you did an outstanding job on Techcrunch. I only couldn't recall the name of the site!
I also agree that by punishing competitors - that that is exactly what is happening, encouraging, or forcing "us" to use their products and services instead of this site, or any other site similar to this one.
Of course I very much appreciate your efforts, and very much enjoy the platform that you've provided here.
Several years late but Google is way to big and needs to get broken up in teeny tiny little parts.
I think this could be reversed and be equally, if not more, true - those who create or attempt to create a monopoly are not doing it for public good, but for personal profit.
ESPN? It basically has no competitors.
Monsanto? They just about rule the world.
Google? Their closest competitor is no competition.
it was too good to be true when the searches made many hundreds of dollars only to be slapped down by their new rules.
(we) need to have more search engines (yahoo and bing) start ad revenue programs perhaps?
or is this the problem?
money does corrupt it would seem...
Personally I think they have probably not been paying enough in kickbacks. It is extortion using the justice department by congress. Do know it was true in the past, the last time they came under scrutiny.
by My Esoteric3 years ago
This was a conversation that started when talking about expanded Medicaid, but a CNN article prompted me to bring it up here. New Jersey is enforcing a ban on the high-end electric car manufacturer Tesla, in the...
by Paul Goodman5 years ago
Link to the Guardian's article on investigation of Google's monopoly:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 … oly-senateDon't get me wrong, I have a great respect for many of Google's products, including their...
by Frankly My Dear3 years ago
Where is the quality control?
by Susan Reid4 years ago
"People will look into the connection with his father-in-law who is pretty heavily into natural gas and several people have raised the issue of fracking and his support of that," Bice said about Daniel Little,...
by TheWicklessCandle6 years ago
So, we've seen this before. A sweep of the offices to the opposite direction, but then the president being reelected. It happened with Clinton, Reagan, etc. So, will Obama be reelected despite yesterday's landslide?
by William F Torpey4 months ago
My Google Adsense Account has disappeared. How do I get it back?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.