Am I missing something, or is this a fight Google cannot back down from?
Allowing a precedent like this would be an expressway to bankruptcy for Google.
Their income to employee ratio is presently very high, but the kind of resources it would take to become the world's (still ineffective) copyright police would break even the oil industry.
Not to mention the gruesome sight of copyright "industry"'s ongoing mutilation of the long dead corpse of free speech.
these guys claimed to be an international group with huge numbers of stakeholders involved, when it turns out to be 90 people from groups that run the gammit from marxist leninists to pure socialists
Did you just wake up from a 55-year nap? Extrapolate communist ties please, or explain why you are attributing civil liberties and an open market to Marxism.
I pretty much illustrated my position in the last thread but I see there still isn't consensus on the definition of "search neutrality".
The way this is playing out, the meaning of "search neutrality" (originally an ideal born out of concerns of censorship) is going the way of "free market". i.e. what is commonly called "free market" today in government and in media is no such thing at all, but simply a reference to the dominant economic realities of today.
It is absurd that Microsoft would try to jump into the fray claiming we need "search neutrality", because they themselves are in the search business with results biased to advertisement. This is, however, entirely American for a big established company to come whining for "help" in a market they have yet to really penetrate.
The simple fact is that paid search is a vital part of the modern economy, and without the resources, Google would not have had any where near the impact on society that they have had today.
Everyone should choose their search engine based on their own parameters. But do not kid yourself... there is nothing 100% organic about paid search, nor with the "inbound links" algorithm which SEO's legitimately use to skew results to their customers (Google's advertisers).
If you truly believe Google makes it bread by all the clicks it gets in the "Sponsored Links" column, you need to take closer look at your own search habits and ask yourself why you think so many people would behave differently.
Page One of the "natural" search results is where all the money is made. In this society, it could be no other way, or it would not be very well "paid" search.
Re: Re: Re: They don't care about the Constitution
And before we hear all about how citizens can't be entrusted with large and/or volatile weaponry, what reason do we have to trust the government with it?
I think the official stance in this case is now more akin to Marcel de Jong's (sarcastic) take on the issue. (see above in this thread)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
I hear where both of you are SteelWolf coming from. CC is a lot like a counter-copyright copyright. It seems a worthy cause, but in reality one really cannot control information once it is in the public
The biggest problem I see for CC is in the courts. The way things are going, CC works will soon be rolled over in the courts by corporations that steal the work then get a "real" copyright. The justification will be that the original artist did not do enough to protect their IP, and therefore is infringing on the "valid" work. This will be outrageous and palpably "illegal", true, but in this case, the court removed itself from using any reason on the issue.
De facto abolition is the only way to go when the institutions that were supposed to deal with Constitutional issues refuse to do so in a particular business case (in the interest of the government...)
Living free is not a government granted monopoly -- just do it.
further, it is clear that revenues are not in line with the increases in product created, which means the average take per product is lower.
The curve does seem to indicate that the middle-man without a plan is going extinct, yes.
Must suck for them to have had a free ride on a massive bubble for so long and then have it burst. The unskilled labor market is a bitch right now too...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Your entire premise is based on a Google search showing some results you assume shouldn't be above others.
I'm not passing judgment on Google or anyone. I'm not saying results "should" look one way or another. I'm saying that Google's results (like Yahoo's and Bing's) are biased to advertisement. Plain as day.
Whitehat SEO's can do little more than improve your ranking by a little, and only in comparison to other websites of similar standing. They focus mainly on gaming people, rather than algorithms.
We have reached an accord. By "exploitation" I meant something more akin to "strip mining" rather than "cheating".
But, yes, Google ordained (or at least tolerated for the present) exploitation of the algorithm is clearly at play in the results.
Reciprocal links to Google "quality" sites are no more useful in gaining true relevance than a rogue link farm. It's like an NFL approved metabolic versus an unapproved metabolic: one will get you in trouble, one will not.
The rogue link farms are more likely used to serve those sites too cheap to pay for Google ad words.
Maybe it's because the search you requested is fairly obscure for the large majority of searchers.
Yes, and this obscurity makes the term perfect to illustrate the nature of the algorithm. This search was most likely not cached anywhere.
What makes you think Google hits should only look good for commonly used search terms?
For the most part, commercial results ARE the most relevant, especially when your search involves products.
Clearly commercial results are the most relevant based on Google's (and Yahoo's, and Bing's) algorithm. The only thing you left out was the fact that none of the page one commercial hits actually contained the entire search string I sent to Google.
I agree though, "legislation" is definitely a product. ;)
3) Inbound links from well-ranked pages
4) "Quality" of website (judged by the algorithms)
Put it this way: they may rate these as "3" and "4" in the relevance algorithm, but the weighting is not adequately distributed to prevent SEO exploitation using these criteria.
For people who remember Google's search performance before they licensed Goto.com's technology (pay-per-click keyword advertising), there is no doubt that advertisers are getting priority.
"Don't be insolvent."
More power to Google, I don't want anyone telling them how to run their business. I'm just saying, again, they are not in it for the love. Good for them.
Obviously, Google and Yahoo cannot neglect well-known government resources (and other resources such as Wikipedia), like the EPA so they are given priority. But if you scan down the page you will find the rest of page one filled by commercial sites. It is not until page 2 that the user will find the most relevant link from the Indiana state government.
By the way a quick review of the commercial sites on page one reveal that none of them actually contain all three words "Indiana tire legislation".
It is in the algorithm, and in the SEO.
The problem with being an engineer is so many get used to living in a silo.
Are you even aware that people have the power to give a thumbs up or thumbs down?
If you are referring to the activity of people in the (not so free) market, yes I am fully aware that people have full control of their decisions. I felt my post made that clear.
If you are referring to people having control over government activity, I would have to say, no, I am not aware of that. The prevailing mechanisms of our government are in alignment with commercial interests, and the government's role is to clear the way for the dominant economic powers to continue to dominate. If you have any doubt that the government's activities are aligned this way, I would refer you to that past 160 years of legislation.
Horse and buggy vs. the nascent auto industry. BP and the Coast Guard vs. The American Public
I'm going to disagree on semantics. Search neutrality is a worthy ideal (not an obligation), which in no way conflicts with or excludes search relevance heuristics.
Search neutrality is a concept of content inclusiveness and accessibility, where all sources of content have an equal chance at meeting the search relevance criteria. The "problem" this concept addresses being that a search engine could exclude for any reason content that they do not "like".
That being said, search neutrality does not align well with the for-profit search model, as advertisers need to be seen or they are not getting advertisement value. Google fanatics will deny this, but every profit driven search engine's relevance heuristics are stacked (and remotely manipulated with support of the search provider aligned SEOs) to favor paid links.
Google is paid per click on their advertisers' links. This is how they became the powerful corporation they are today. I do not think anyone has the right to tell Google how to run its business, I'm just saying they are not in it for the love.
Mike, however is correctly pointing out the absurd, in that the ideal of search neutrality is now being used as a red herring by competitor search engines in order to gain some footing (and perhaps direct government assistance).
In the linked article (lol Hillicon Valley almost says it all.. freaking mercantilism!) the article first evokes the ideal:
Search neutrality is the notion that search engines should not favor certain content, including their own.
That's all good. But then he goes on to quote the MS exec and reveal the red herring:
'Where is the biggest lack of competition?' he asked. 'Search!'"
True, a dominant search engine is in the perfect position to limit content access in any way it pleases. However it's clear to me that, considering the forum, these people are really after government assistance in the market.
The last thing we need in the area of content neutrality is a government guided mandate.
Let the users sort out who they think is the best search provider for finding content. An overly oppressive search heuristic will eventually reveal itself, and open up an opportunity for someone else to "do search better" and start running away with the market.
Too true, one would need correlative evidence of some kind to accurately say that stifling a research project caused death.
Likewise one should logically have to prove that independent research on a "patented research process" was both stolen and capitalized on to the detriment of the patent holder. -- Only that's not how patent law seems to work.
Therefore, using the same measure of evidence used in patent cases, I can deduce that StemCells is indeed a baby killer.
And on a tangential, every infringing download causes a lost sale, and kills Pikmin.
On the post: Why Google's Street View WiFi Data Collection Was Almost Certainly An Accident
Re:
You might be on to something. People really can be stupid.
Now I'm going to switch on my radio and wiretap some overpriced generic music.
On the post: IFPI Sends DMCA Notice To Google Demanding It Stop Linking To The Pirate Bay... Entirely
Re: I am not a lawyer...
Allowing a precedent like this would be an expressway to bankruptcy for Google.
Their income to employee ratio is presently very high, but the kind of resources it would take to become the world's (still ineffective) copyright police would break even the oil industry.
Not to mention the gruesome sight of copyright "industry"'s ongoing mutilation of the long dead corpse of free speech.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Google, Yahoo, Bing are all the same. None of them make significant money off of the "Sponsored Links" breakout, because nobody clicks them.
On the post: US Copyright Group Says BitTorrent's Architecture Explains Why It's Ok To Lump 5,000 Defendants Into One Lawsuit
Re: Well, that makes sense
On the post: Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US
Re: Re: Re:
Did you just wake up from a 55-year nap? Extrapolate communist ties please, or explain why you are attributing civil liberties and an open market to Marxism.
On the post: A Recommendation Is Not The Same As Corruption
Paid Search Cannot be "Neutral"
The way this is playing out, the meaning of "search neutrality" (originally an ideal born out of concerns of censorship) is going the way of "free market". i.e. what is commonly called "free market" today in government and in media is no such thing at all, but simply a reference to the dominant economic realities of today.
It is absurd that Microsoft would try to jump into the fray claiming we need "search neutrality", because they themselves are in the search business with results biased to advertisement. This is, however, entirely American for a big established company to come whining for "help" in a market they have yet to really penetrate.
The simple fact is that paid search is a vital part of the modern economy, and without the resources, Google would not have had any where near the impact on society that they have had today.
Everyone should choose their search engine based on their own parameters. But do not kid yourself... there is nothing 100% organic about paid search, nor with the "inbound links" algorithm which SEO's legitimately use to skew results to their customers (Google's advertisers).
If you truly believe Google makes it bread by all the clicks it gets in the "Sponsored Links" column, you need to take closer look at your own search habits and ask yourself why you think so many people would behave differently.
Page One of the "natural" search results is where all the money is made. In this society, it could be no other way, or it would not be very well "paid" search.
On the post: NY Times Becomes A Trademark Bully Over A Logo For A Newspaper That Hasn't Existed In 40+ Years
it follows - we IP Troll too!
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: They don't care about the Constitution
I think the official stance in this case is now more akin to Marcel de Jong's (sarcastic) take on the issue. (see above in this thread)
There is no reasoning with a tyranny's parrots.
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
The biggest problem I see for CC is in the courts. The way things are going, CC works will soon be rolled over in the courts by corporations that steal the work then get a "real" copyright. The justification will be that the original artist did not do enough to protect their IP, and therefore is infringing on the "valid" work. This will be outrageous and palpably "illegal", true, but in this case, the court removed itself from using any reason on the issue.
De facto abolition is the only way to go when the institutions that were supposed to deal with Constitutional issues refuse to do so in a particular business case (in the interest of the government...)
Living free is not a government granted monopoly -- just do it.
On the post: Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society
Re:
The curve does seem to indicate that the middle-man without a plan is going extinct, yes.
Must suck for them to have had a free ride on a massive bubble for so long and then have it burst. The unskilled labor market is a bitch right now too...
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
I'm not passing judgment on Google or anyone. I'm not saying results "should" look one way or another. I'm saying that Google's results (like Yahoo's and Bing's) are biased to advertisement. Plain as day.
On the post: Senate Oversight Of IP Czar... Only Involves Entertainment Industry Execs
Re: Re:
It's OK, though. The only victims are the little guy and the Bill of Rights. They are soooo passe.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have reached an accord. By "exploitation" I meant something more akin to "strip mining" rather than "cheating".
But, yes, Google ordained (or at least tolerated for the present) exploitation of the algorithm is clearly at play in the results.
Reciprocal links to Google "quality" sites are no more useful in gaining true relevance than a rogue link farm. It's like an NFL approved metabolic versus an unapproved metabolic: one will get you in trouble, one will not.
The rogue link farms are more likely used to serve those sites too cheap to pay for Google ad words.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Yes, and this obscurity makes the term perfect to illustrate the nature of the algorithm. This search was most likely not cached anywhere.
What makes you think Google hits should only look good for commonly used search terms?
Clearly commercial results are the most relevant based on Google's (and Yahoo's, and Bing's) algorithm. The only thing you left out was the fact that none of the page one commercial hits actually contained the entire search string I sent to Google.
I agree though, "legislation" is definitely a product. ;)
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re:
Put it this way: they may rate these as "3" and "4" in the relevance algorithm, but the weighting is not adequately distributed to prevent SEO exploitation using these criteria.
For people who remember Google's search performance before they licensed Goto.com's technology (pay-per-click keyword advertising), there is no doubt that advertisers are getting priority.
"Don't be insolvent."
More power to Google, I don't want anyone telling them how to run their business. I'm just saying, again, they are not in it for the love. Good for them.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Sure. I direct you to a Google search for Indiana tire legislation
Obviously, Google and Yahoo cannot neglect well-known government resources (and other resources such as Wikipedia), like the EPA so they are given priority. But if you scan down the page you will find the rest of page one filled by commercial sites. It is not until page 2 that the user will find the most relevant link from the Indiana state government.
By the way a quick review of the commercial sites on page one reveal that none of them actually contain all three words "Indiana tire legislation".
It is in the algorithm, and in the SEO.
The problem with being an engineer is so many get used to living in a silo.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
If you are referring to the activity of people in the (not so free) market, yes I am fully aware that people have full control of their decisions. I felt my post made that clear.
If you are referring to people having control over government activity, I would have to say, no, I am not aware of that. The prevailing mechanisms of our government are in alignment with commercial interests, and the government's role is to clear the way for the dominant economic powers to continue to dominate. If you have any doubt that the government's activities are aligned this way, I would refer you to that past 160 years of legislation.
Horse and buggy vs. the nascent auto industry. BP and the Coast Guard vs. The American Public
Mercantilism never died.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Search neutrality is a concept of content inclusiveness and accessibility, where all sources of content have an equal chance at meeting the search relevance criteria. The "problem" this concept addresses being that a search engine could exclude for any reason content that they do not "like".
That being said, search neutrality does not align well with the for-profit search model, as advertisers need to be seen or they are not getting advertisement value. Google fanatics will deny this, but every profit driven search engine's relevance heuristics are stacked (and remotely manipulated with support of the search provider aligned SEOs) to favor paid links.
Google is paid per click on their advertisers' links. This is how they became the powerful corporation they are today. I do not think anyone has the right to tell Google how to run its business, I'm just saying they are not in it for the love.
Mike, however is correctly pointing out the absurd, in that the ideal of search neutrality is now being used as a red herring by competitor search engines in order to gain some footing (and perhaps direct government assistance).
In the linked article (lol Hillicon Valley almost says it all.. freaking mercantilism!) the article first evokes the ideal:
That's all good. But then he goes on to quote the MS exec and reveal the red herring:
True, a dominant search engine is in the perfect position to limit content access in any way it pleases. However it's clear to me that, considering the forum, these people are really after government assistance in the market.
The last thing we need in the area of content neutrality is a government guided mandate.
Let the users sort out who they think is the best search provider for finding content. An overly oppressive search heuristic will eventually reveal itself, and open up an opportunity for someone else to "do search better" and start running away with the market.
On the post: Children's Hospital 'Allowed' To Continue Research Using System It Developed After Patent Fight
Re: Re:
Too true, one would need correlative evidence of some kind to accurately say that stifling a research project caused death.
Likewise one should logically have to prove that independent research on a "patented research process" was both stolen and capitalized on to the detriment of the patent holder. -- Only that's not how patent law seems to work.
Therefore, using the same measure of evidence used in patent cases, I can deduce that StemCells is indeed a baby killer.
And on a tangential, every infringing download causes a lost sale, and kills Pikmin.
On the post: Children's Hospital 'Allowed' To Continue Research Using System It Developed After Patent Fight
Re: Re: Larger problem
Next >>