Isn't There Something Ironic In An Anonymous Exec Demanding Transparency From Google?
from the entitlement-culture dept
It really is amazing sometimes to see how many people think that Google "owes" them something. For example, we've had a few different stories about companies suing Google because they don't like how Google ranks them. That makes little sense. Google doesn't owe anyone a spot in its index. It determines its index by figuring out what it thinks people will like best, and it's always tweaking it. If it fails to figure that out properly and someone else (like Microsoft) does figure it out, then Google will lose business. So, it seems a bit odd that some anonymous "well known exec at one of the largest sites on the Internet" is suddenly demanding transparency into how Google ranks content, suggesting that it's somehow unfair and arbitrary in its rankings -- and only by opening up the details of its algorithm will "fairness" be restored.Ryan, who alerted us to this story, has written up a biting, but reasonable, response, where he notes that being ranked highly in Google is no one's right. And demanding that Google be transparent about its algorithm is meaningless (while being especially ironic, given that this "well-known exec" is demanding transparency while wanting to remain anonymous himself). The key point Ryan makes:
You want an algorithm, here it is:Indeed. Create useful sites with useful content that people use, and don't be spammy, and you'll most likely rank well in Google. You don't need to force Google to reveal the nuts and bolts of its algorithm. That doesn't change anything. If you're trying to craft your websites to the specifics of the algorithm, you're already lost. If you're creating websites that match the "plain English" code above, you're going to be just fine.
1.) Sites that are useful to visitors will rank high.
2.) Popular sites that are useful to visitors will rank higher.
3.) Sites that don't offer any value to the web or are irrelevant to the query won't rank well.
4.) Sites that are harmful or spammy won't be included in the index.
Seriously, that's Google’s algorithm in plain English. There's your disclosure. The weighting factors and code behind it don't matter -- these principles are all you really need to know.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: algorithms, entitlement, search, search engines, sem, seo, transparency
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember this?
http://merged.ca/monetize/flat/how-to-get-billions-of-pages-indexed-by-Google.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paid rankings suck
these guys are just pissed because organic rankings are very difficult to "buy". you can hire someone to set up a link farm, or spam tons of blogs, and most of the time, that still doesn't get you anywhere. google's search engine won the search wars because they valued bibliometrics over paid rankings. google's engine is still the best there is.
as for it being some anonymous exec, i wouldn't put it past techcrunch for just making it up entirely. they've been put out there making shit up multiple times over the last 6 months while they claimed the tip was from an "inside source". there was the allegation that last.fm gave data to riaa, tons of claims that various companies were about to buy twitter, and another one about how facebook was massively "hacked" (someone defaced one of the pages in the developer wiki... and douchebags kept defacing it as it was getting reverted).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it ironic?
It would be ironic if the only way to achieve the desired transparency in Google was through such opaque (anonymous) means, but that is certainly not the impression I got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You get the government involved and it would force all search engines to be more uniform. This would suck, one search engine might otherwise be able to find what you need while another might not and you can simply choose which one you want. But the government regulation would force them all to have similarities that may make none of them find what you need. This CEO wants laws that benefit only the rich and the powerful, just like how our mainstream media has become a joke in terms of presenting important issues with any detail and presenting various sides of the issue. He’s afraid of the backlash that the public would have on him because he knows his ideas to restrict the free market would not be welcome. DON’T LET this stupid top down structure that has invaded our mainstream media invade the Internet. We also need to destroy the top down structure of information on our mainstream media as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A backlash from Google? ARE YOU SERIOUS??? This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've seen in a while. Can we honestly trust morons like this to regulate Google's search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, what a post. The original article seems like it was written by a 15 year old brat having a temper tantrum and wants mommy and daddy to take the ball away.
If I had to guess where it originated from, it wouldn't be difficult. Perhaps some company that is having a tough time re-branding their search engine every year, and also feeds the media statistics such as "XYZ Search Engine grows 8% in past month" Which is an interesting way to tell the story-- they didn't increase their marketshare 8%, but increased 8% from what they already had, which actually may be a 2% marketshare increase.
The original article, if it's not linked in the article is here:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/13/the-time-has-come-to-regulate-search-engine-marketing- and-seo/
It's well known that a general who divides his resources will invariably be defeated. You can never do everything, everywhere, all at the same time. A company's range of products cannot be allowed to overflow. Besides, it's silly to believe you can satisfy all tastes anyway.
Instead, it's perhaps best to concentrate on the products that got to you to where you are today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With Google representing the start point for a significant percentage of the web population, they do hold powerful sway over the ebbs and tides of the internet at this point. So much so that government intervention at some point is almost a forgone conclusion. I suspect it will come right after the Chrome OS hits the streets.
Do no evil? Who are they kidding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you do, be sure to understand that Google is in many senses, a Web 2.0 platform and is constantly evolving to meet the needs of it's userbase. This is the approach "The Goog" takes, and employs in-house. Perpetual Beta, Open Standards, APIs and the like are not typical outside of Google. So when you provide your evidence, it would be nice to see of issues that have not been rectified within a reasonable amount of time.
Your attempts to vilify without evidence are telling, and quite sad at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google isn't a "web 2.0" platform - they are just another major corporation attempting to take over everything. They are just smarter than Microsoft because they are doing it nicely, with free software trinkets and with the support of people like you.
No matter how it happens, when a single company (such as microsoft) ends up controlling too many of the strings and can pull them in sync, they cause trouble for the marketplace. Microsoft got spanked by the AGs, and Google is looking to be running right about online to hit the same wall at some point, if the stories I am reading are any indication (please see The Standard from Hong Kong yesterday for an interesting light writeup on the whole situation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then, as the first sentence of my comment requested, I will again kindly ask again for evidence, please.
I am merely re-stating a comment that can be found all over the web.
So there is no evidence.
Google isn't a "web 2.0" platform - they are just another major corporation attempting to take over everything. They are just smarter than Microsoft because they are doing it nicely, with free software trinkets and with the support of people like you.
I beg to differ. Google pretty much invented the idea of perpetual beta. Much of this was developed inhouse and there have been several books on the subject. One comes to mind called "Wikinomics" by Don Tapscott, which discusses some of the ideas of Perpetual Beta, Open Standards, and APIs. It's very interesting because it shifts ideology away from things centralized to things distributed, and apparently it works.
No matter how it happens, when a single company (such as microsoft) ends up controlling too many of the strings and can pull them in sync, they cause trouble for the marketplace.
You brought up Microsoft, and my original commentary was not aimed at Microsoft, however, you bring an interesting point to this exchange:
Bill Gates, is curiously still listed as "Chairman" of Microsoft according to SEC documents.
And no, he has not retired, but still acting chairman.
Quite possibly, he still comes into work every day via Helicopter his Honda Hybird, or a more generous vehicle when he wants to show off. Mr. Gates said he read Mr. Tapscott's Wikinomics book (which, it seems The Google uses) and had this to say:
"I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were," mused the uber-geek, although "There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises."
Gates's views have since been ridiculed throughout the tech community (though they recently received some elegant support in Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur). But the tycoon's anxieties were not baseless. In particular, Microsoft faces a swarming battalion of services on the internet which promise everything the software giant does – email, database, operating system – for nothing. These services have mostly been developed by digital idealists committed to a vision of knowledge and culture which – if not communist – then at least revives the old idea of a "commonwealth", a realm of resources available as of right to free men and women.
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/wikinomics-by-don-tapscott-and-antho ny-d-williams-463602.html
So it appears your addition to this conversation can't be backed up with evidence..? Interesting.
when a single company (such as microsoft) ends up controlling too many of the strings and can pull them in sync, they cause trouble for the marketplace.
Sure, I agree, however as I asked before, where's the evidence? You again brought up Microsoft, and it's well known that Microsoft has a Monopoly in operating systems. What are they worried about? What prevents them from developing an operating system that people are willing to pay a premium for?
Microsoft got spanked by the AGs, and Google is looking to be running right about online to hit the same wall at some point, if the stories I am reading are any indication
There you go again, bringing up Microsoft. It's kinda funny, actually. Do you not like them or something? I again ask for some links to support this position.
please see The Standard from Hong Kong yesterday for an interesting light writeup on the whole situation
Oh wow...
LINK PLEASE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You quoted:
Stop and think about when he also said "640k ought to be enough for anybody." Got the joke? Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know everyone wants to make Bill out to be some kind of evil idiot, but he is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484
But due to a long list of quote misappropriations, quotes, and perhaps a real ugly sense of humor, perhaps it remains possible that Gates has an iPhone himself. I wouldn't doubt Mrs. Gates to have one too... This isn't outside the relm of possibility, considering AT&T's friendly on-campus efforts to build cellular sites. Full disclosure: I've never met Melinda and don't know if she lies a lot. Like Bill does when he says he's retiring. Maybe you can provide insight.
Source:
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/03/04/2009-03-04_steve_jobs_be_proud_meli nda_gates_wife_o.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh wow...
LINK PLEASE
here you go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh ?
That wasn't even a slap on the wrist. It was finger pointing and hand waving followed by patting themselves on the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
MS's reaction was something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBZEk_GrATo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not if they're complying with good business practices. Sure, a good successful company that acts ethically maybe bad for all the unethical rich and powerful entities out there that want to manipulate everything only to their benefit (just look at the corrupt mainstream media and how they're controlled by special interest groups). But that's no reason for the government to get involved just to help rich and powerful entities (not that there is anything wrong with wealth in and of itself, is how one acquires wealth. Google acquired it via ethical means).
"Microsoft got spanked by the AGs"
Only because they participated in unethical behavior. Google did nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong with being acquiring market share in and of itself, it's how one acquires that market share. Microsoft acquired market share through unethical behavior, that's why they got in trouble. Google is acquiring market share by being a good company, there is nothing wrong with that. If google starts participating in bad business practices people can simply switch search engines provided the government doesn't disturb the free market.
"Google is looking to be running right about online to hit the same wall at some point"
Again, only if they do something wrong. For them to gain market share by acting ethically and adopting a business model that says they would rather be respected than feared (unlike the RIAA that adopts one that says they would rather be feared than respected) is fine. If you honestly think you can make a better search engine, with more transparency and such, be my guest. If it's a good one, if it's better than Google, people will switch. If they don't then it's your failure to produce a better search engine and that's your fault. But you can't drag other search engines down just because you can't produce a better one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only because they do a good job. If they didn't do a good job government regulation wouldn't be necessary, people would leave their search engine all on their own. If this CEO doesn't like Google he can find another search engine or make his own. Then he can have and present all the transparency he wants. If his search engine really is better the government doesn't need to do anything, people will automatically switch to his search engine. If not, tough, keep the stupid government out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes, for amusement, I find myself lost and wonder what other undocumented deals made with the CIA, NSA, FBI were made over the years. Anything involving with Anti-Trust?
Consider that SBC/Bell South perhaps had a a carrot dangled in front of them. But it wasn't any carrot. It was a magical carrot. This magical carrot greased the wheels, and completely reversed the Bell System Divestiture in 1984. I wonder if there were other reversed anti-trust actions.
In the most prominent case....
SBC/BellSouth were green lighted to buy some 49% of the US telecom infrastructure, perhaps in return for multiple "Room 641A"s across America.
When they were found out, Congress was persuaded to grant immunity, against the Citizens desires and will.
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis said:
"It is inconceivable that any telephone companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program did not know what their obligations were, And it is just as implausible that those companies believed they were entitled to simply assume the lawfulness of a government request for assistance."
And he's right. However, if you have a magical carrot which reverses anti-trust and grants immunity. A crazy rabbit will do anything.
I tend to think that multiple large cap companies benefitted from this "War on Terror" craze. Selling out their customer's emails, conversations, and the like, financed with "War on Terror" dollars.
PayPal and eBay.
eBay and Skype.
HP and Compaq.
So maybe a competitor to Google was also offered a magical carrot which reverses anti-trust lawsuits. What info would be provided? Quite a bit, I suppose.
The Patriot Act is an amazing piece of legislation. Read it sometime.
However, it's only Patriotic if your Fascist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone, and someone big, who thinks they can persuade legislation, wants to use Google's IP without paying them.
Perhaps Doubleclick IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe he sees Monopoly
If you are like me and feel like MS should have never had to deal with this, or the silly IE thing in Europe, then you can without being a hypocrite actually feel like Google shouldn't have to do anything here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or maybe he sees Monopoly
This isn't just about market share, it's also about HOW one acquires market share. MS acquired it by trying to contract people who sell computers to sell only their operating system. That's unethical. Google did nothing wrong. You're being short sighted here, market share isn't everything, it's the practices that one does to acquire market share. If a company acquires market share via ethical behavior and good business practices that's fine. If one does so via unethical behavior then that's unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or maybe he sees Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or maybe he sees Monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Exec
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damned AT&T.
Steve Jobs for the win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
However, exactly what is wrong with having full disclosure and public monitoring of all search providers' methods?
The times have already changed, and Google, along with Yahoo, MS and a few others, are the de facto gatekeepers of information for private citizens world wide.
I've seen many complaints about the 'old news', here and elsewhere, and the media's ability to filter out vital public news from the public they are supposed to serve. I would count myself as also being suspicious of the seemingly endless parade of 'masking' news, such as the non-stop coverage and almost 100% front page dedication, for a week, to the death of Michael Jackson.
For the this information era, why shouldn't the custodians of information be publicly monitored to prevent corporate, or worse, government control of the 'visible' information spectrum?
Google, and the major search providers now effectively deliver a vital public service more potent than traditional news media ever was, or could ever hope to be, if one wants to be informed. Likewise search engines carry much more potential for stifling information, impeding first amendment rights and the practice of informed 'democracy'.
That being said, this article still seems like a whiny tirade from someone who wants a TOP-PAGE link on Google for a crappy site.
Oh and just for fun, I'll reiterate my belief that WHEN these algorithms are made public, the definition of "Organic" results will be explicitly modified to include "organically sponsored by...".
I mean, really, people... how many of you have EVER clicked a link in the sponsored box? Thought so. Everyone drives this business model... saavy or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
What is wrong with forcing all operating system providers to release the source code? Lets force Microsoft to release the source code for their operating system.
Google doesn't owe us a search engine and if they provide one they don't owe us the source code or any disclosure of how it works.
"Likewise search engines carry much more potential for stifling information, impeding first amendment rights and the practice of informed 'democracy'."
If a search engine does this to the extent that people don't like it they can simply switch to another search engine. Requiring all search engines to comply with certain laws is a formula for giving the government, and other entities, an excuse to allow the government and special interest groups to take down search engines under false pretexts. The system we have now works fine, NO NEED TO BREAK IT!!!!
"For the this information era, why shouldn't the custodians of information be publicly monitored to prevent corporate, or worse, government control of the 'visible' information spectrum?"
Allowing the government to regulate google "IS" government control. As far as the "visible information spectrum" if something was done invisibly government control isn't really going to stop that (especially if the government is the one doing it). Better to have a free market that allows others, including other search engines, to do whatever it takes to distribute this previously invisible behavior to the public instead of allowing the government to take down search engines.
"I've seen many complaints about the 'old news', here and elsewhere, and the media's ability to filter out vital public news from the public they are supposed to serve."
and government regulation is responsible for this. It's the government, thanks to lobbying efforts, that doesn't allow other companies to build more information lines to peoples houses or to use the existing information/cable lines to broadcast their own stations or to allow anyone to provide internet bandwidth to anyone (despite the fact that much of the infrastructure was government funded. Then corporations like Time Warner and AT&T get exclusive government monopolies on it. It's nonsense). It's the government that gives special interest groups exclusive rights over the airwaves. You get the government involved in search and the internet and the same mess will occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
However, I suggested *public monitoring of the search providers' methods. I realize the public is often used synonymously with 'government', but disagree that the public needs government impetus to act. In this case, the 'public' is everyone, world wide, so the U.S. government should have no jurisdiction even if we *wanted government monitoring.
No one government, or even a consortium of governments should control access to world-wide information. China has illustrated just how effective this type of censorship *could be if all search-engines world wide were content-controlled.
What I suggest is world-wide read access to active search algorithms. Transparency would suffice in this day and age. That and pitchforks for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
your choice of name is in conflict with your political views.
Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
Perhaps your research on the subject of political views was filtered by your choice of search engine. (just kidding, here's the first link from Google on the subject of anarchocapitalism):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
I think you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
You're kidding, right? Its unfortunate that the mass media has helped turn the term "free market" (I assume that this is from where you're drawing the non-sequitur connotation) into the definition of today's corporate republic. However, I reserve the right to use the word "Free" in its original context in my choice of pseudonym. I will not be held responsible for the misled opinions of others, as I have plenty of my own thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
notice the word CHOICE in that sentence. He CHOICE that search engine, no one forced him to use it. Lets not have the government regulate a perfectly good search engine that people voluntarily use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
Lets not have the government regulate a perfectly good search engine that people voluntarily use.
Because then people who want to use a search engine maybe compelled to use a search engine that may operate in a way such as to provide them with search results less relevant to what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
As clarified in my second reply, I would NOT want government monitoring or oversight of any kind.
My point is that pretty much everyone world wide uses one of a few search engines to gain access to information. Information IS power, and biased control of what information is made public is censorship.
In today's age it would be pretty easy to give the public the power to PROTECT their free access to information. All it would take is for the major search providers to make their active search algorithms read accessible to the world.
By all means, keep government the hell out of information control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
I can see a few potential problems that could come up if search providers made their search algorithms public, but most are already being dealt with. For instance, even with the search code being "hidden" (its not, really, the Chinese, for instance, license it from Google and Yahoo), there is a lot of fraud going on trying to make crappy sites more relevant. Keyword spamming, hidden links and link farms being the 'classic' cases.
Most of the automated work combatting search relevance fraud is done at the crawler level. This is another layer of complexity though, as I think at least parts of the code for the crawlers should also be public to ensure certain subjects aren't being "ignored".
Fraud detection might be summarized instead of published and split from the regular crawler work (yes, this would be expensive to implement). In this case, comparison tests could be run pre and post-fraud detection to ensure there isn't any 'sweeping under the carpet' of legitimate information. This is some heavy duty analysis, that might be appropriate for a public distributed application similar to seti@home and done over particular time periods.
There's also the potential legal issue around IP, and the competition that might spring up overnight. But I thought that wouldn't be an issue here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
Which includes not forcing them, with government authority, to release their algorithms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
Then create your own search engine and provide such access, but don't force others to do the same. This may cause some entities that would otherwise make perfectly good search engines not to. If a search engine is popular it's because people CHOSE that search engine, no one forced them to use it. If closed search engines provides for better search engines then people will voluntarily choose them. Forcing engines to reveal the algorithms will give people no choice in the subject matter, they have to choose one that reveals the algorithms (even if that provides poorer results for what they want), and fewer choices for the consumer is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
They're not supposed to be but given the incompetence of the patent office the mere potential of a lawsuit (even if unlikely and even if the engine knows it won't hold up in court) might compel search engines to ruin their search algorithms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article Questionable, but what is wrong with disclosure?
Right. I am sure that a well funded company probably already has possession of the requested "Organic" algorithm which has been dutifully opened to public review ("Patent") perhaps owned by Google via acquisition or otherwise that can't be modified or created as "new" by the new rights holder without royalty payment.
However, it's possible that the brightest at whoever this "mysterious Google opponent" is, can't or is unwilling to pay the requested licensing rights to the technology.
Hence the AstroTurf at TechCrunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finger Pointing
If only our ranking were higher, I know we would've sold more product .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look up the Google papers -- they are public!
http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html
Once you understand everything there, you can move on to third-party analysis of further tweaks Google has completed, to deal with problems not dreamed of before 2000, like blog link-spamming distortions of PageRank.
Just remember to be even more open with your business process details when you're done with Google2, you damn anonymous hypocrite. Until then, just repeat this mantra: put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]