Stuck In Google's Doghouse 165
hansoloaf writes "The NY Times is running an article about a business, Sourcetool.com that seem to be in a sort of a doghouse with Google. Initially Sourcetool uses AdWords to help build up its business. The business centers around providing links for business that sell industrial products. The owner, Dan Savage, explains in detail how Google over time used its AdWords bidding system to limit or reduce Sourcetool's ranking and revenue because the site's landing page is not 'googly' enough. Savage wrote a letter to the Justice Department as they are reportedly looking into Google and Yahoo's proposed deal." The article is nuanced in its observations about the complexity and ambiguity of anti-trust law. Even if Sourcetool and similar businesses aren't "Googly" — which is a Google proxy for "what the customer wants to see in search results" — should Google be able to pick winners and losers among industries and business models?
Google (Score:3, Interesting)
If
The Google rules are:
1) well understood
2) documented
3) Non-arbitrary
I'm sure google will be able to defend them in court.
However, whenever I hear people discussing them, 2) is not true, on the argument that they would be gamable otherwise.
I predict a loss for Google. Without documentation they can't prove they're not arbitrary. If they're arbitrary, they're acting like a monopoly and need to be struck down. From "do no evil" to "do the only evil that's actually explicitly forbidden by law for a company". It's quite a drop
Re:Why not just improve the site? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know reading the article isn't popular, but on this occasion it's important. Parent really isn't being insightful.
Re:Why not just improve the site? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bingo...
The website is a link farm. and it's a whiney butt complaining that their semi shady business is pissing off google.
Honestly, I think any link-farm site needs to be delisted.
"googley" stands for a honest and real website and not a site page that is designed to list links to other places purely to build google page ranks for other sites.
Re:Google (Score:2, Interesting)
"I predict a loss for Google. Without documentation they can't prove they're not arbitrary. If they're arbitrary, they're acting like a monopoly and need to be struck down."
I think you misunderstand anti-trust law. "Arbitraryness" has nothing to do with it - it might even be a good defense. Anti-trust id designed to prevent companies from using their monopoly power to run competitors out of business. It has to be a conscious choice - they have to TRY to run someone out of business. But if a company goes out of business as a result of the way Google does business on an everyday basis, then they can't make the claim that they were specially targeted.
In addition, the complainer was both a competitor and a customer. Anti-trust law doesn't compel companies to make it easy on their competitors, only that they don't make it harder.
Lets take the classic trust, Standard Oil. If I run R2.0's fuel distributorship, and I buy gas at $4.00/gallon, run it through a filter, and then sell it back to Standard Oil at 4.25 gallon, Standard oil is under no compulsion to keep selling to me, or keep buying from me, just because there is a loophole in my sales and procurement practices.
All google has to say is "We believe link farms are bad for consumers and also competition; our algorithms discourage us doing business with ALL link farms, not just his" where's the problem?
Why isn't "Expert's Exchange" in the doghouse too? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the greatest annoyances of Google (to those of us techies searching for answers) is "Expert's Exchange". Google gets to see the answers, but anyone searching for those answers doesn't get them, but is told to sign up and pay money for a "premium subscription".
There are ways around this, but this is all an annoyance and a pain to deal with, because the answers are readily and freely available on the Internet, and they would be much easier to find if the search results weren't clogged up with this type of garbage result.
So why aren't they in the "doghouse" too? (while we're at it, It would be great to move all the scientfic access-for-pay journals to a separate "scientific" google while we're at it -- they end up being half the results of my searches sometimes, but at least they aren't the tease that the EE site is)
The entire concept of AdWords... (Score:3, Interesting)
...has morphed into a "pay to play" scam, where you either pony up what Google demands, or else choose not to do business with Google. I've used AdWords for a couple of years now. This past year, I've noticed a disturbing trend: When I select relatively obscure (but valid) AdWords, with low CPC traffic estimates, it takes about a day before Google exponentially increases the price -- sometimes by a factor of 10, even more. And here's the kicker: Google does not give you the choice of paying to rank "in the middle of the pack". Instead, it's all or nothing: Either pay the exorbitant price tag Google now demands for the number #1 slot, or don't run your keywords at all.
This makes sense, in that it ensures that Google can take in maximum revenue for each keyword, rather than varying levels based upon what customers are willing to pay. As is to be expected from a publicly-traded company seeking to maximize shareholder value.
As a small business owner, I simply can't compete with (1) the click fraud that's rampant in AdWords, (2) the ability of well-heeled businesses such as eBay to bid up random AdWords to excessive CPC values, and (3) legitimate companies who can afford the number 1 AdWord slot for a keyword.
The sooner people realize that Google is not craigslist and has no reason to support anything that does not directly and positively affect its bottom line (thereby further enriching its shareholders), the sooner we'll get alternatives out there from companies and individuals who truly believe in enhancing usability and accessibility for the typical Internet denizen (read: you and me).
Re:Not so simple once you really think about it (Score:2, Interesting)
Many industrinal suppliers have horrible web sites. I buy a lot of Allen-Bradley products, and while I've learned to navigate their web site, I hate it with a passion.
Imagine that you need to know something about a switch, maybe an 800T-J91A. Do you want:
Guess which usability model they went with...
Go GOOG Go! (Score:1, Interesting)
Roughly 2 years ago I wrote Google about my mother searching for cancer information only to be presented with link farm results. They promptly replied with an uncanned email to the effect they were fully aware of the situation and that they were actively weeding out the "pollution" (their word not mine).
That said, even if there is a remote possibility Sourcetool.com is not farming pay-per-click links (and I highly doubt it), he is simply a casualty of war and one which I'm glad Google is actively fighting.
Re:Why not just improve the site? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, except you've forgotten a critical point... Companies who advertise and pay them money are their customers, not the masses who use their services for free.
Hmm, so Honda, Toyota, Ford, etc. should care what their dealers want, and not what the people who buy their cars from the dealers want?
Re:Google (Score:2, Interesting)
1) The rules he is breaking *are* documented:
- "Thin affiliate site": http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66361
- "Keyword stuffing": http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66358
2) It's "Don't be evil", not "Do no evil". How hard is it to remember the fucking slogan correctly? Also, how is cleaning up link farms "evil"? Maybe you have a different definition than I do.
3) Savage's website is clearly shite, look at the keyword stuffing and complete uselessness of about 90% of the links there:
http://search.sourcetool.com/search?q=cache:zx7C3sNc9ygJ:64.52.254.233/Profiles_2/azE9LTUsMTAwMDEwNzA1MA
Sourcetool Replies (Score:3, Interesting)