Google: Cool or Creepy?

There has been a lot of negative news circulating around Google lately. But oddly enough, the company’s stock price continues to climb (over $500 per share at last check) and its market share continues to grow. Ronald Reagan earned the title of “Teflon president” because nothing bad seemed to stick to him, judging from his approval ratings. Is Google a Teflon search engine?


Read the full article here: Google: Cool or Creepy?

For more discussion go here: Blog Article Discussion

Great article!

There does seem to be a lot that just slides off Google.

However I do have to differ on this point:
"It’s hard to argue with an important tool that just works so well when you need to do research, whether it’s for work, a personal interest, or something else entirely. "

I have found Google a poor tool in research, my opinion based on my own SEO of competing articles with different SEO methods is that too much weight is given to age and link authority.

I think the reason Google has had good success as the Teflon Search Engine is do more with awesome marketing and the vast amount of useful other products they put out.

Hmm and what exactly would you replace that with? What should be given the weight that links and authority are given in Google? If you can think up a better way you will make millions but my guess is you don't have a clue of a better way.

I think google is now moving slightly away from age and authority. I think QDF, user behavior, social bookmarking, geotargetting, personlised search etc will see google results flucuate far more in the future. Google is obviously looking at more ways to incorperate user behavior into its ranking algo.

To me the sadest thing is the other SE seem to be doing sweet FA. I would like more competition in search area but what is needed is the others to 'step up' and compete.

Lets face it, it is not like yahoo and msn have no money to improve their search engine's.

Its not so much that google is scarey, what is scarey is the lack of serious competition....

I think you've hit the nail on the head there -- and thanks for pointing out something that's been nagging at me that I haven't been able to put into words. It feels like the other search engines have given up -- except for Ask anyway, which actually IS trying something different.

And thanks for the kind words cstrohmeyer! Re Google as a research tool, the sense I've gotten (anecdotally anyway) is that it really depends on the kind of research you're doing. I've heard users complain that it's not good for some very specific queries, and there have been times when I couldn't find what I was looking for -- but for me that's very much the exception rather than the rule.

The more I read and write about search engines, the more I think there's a place for vertical and specialized search engines, and that some day most people will have about three special-purpose search engines bookmarked along with one or two general purpose engines. But that's not going to happen for a long time.

price they have to pay... politics, showbiz, business.. they are all the same...

I think that Google will make use of the User data it gathers and will really make some interesting things happen.

I definately see things like local search and local linking being an important part. Also social media will probably play an important role.

The one big hold up I believe is society its self. People seem so scared about privacy. Why are we so bothered? If everyone let Google look at their search usegage it would allow them to make dramatic strides in their goals.

Google will rule the world I tell you!

Actually I have a clue, however I am no expert either.

I would count links of course and content of these links and some authority, just not as much.
As for age, the problem with this is that in my field giving too much relevance here is similar to giving a nod to old science which is what happens very often. I have seen CNN articles come up over legitimate science in Google and not in MSN or Yahoo. So obviously it can be done.

Using my own information site as an example, several spammy sites come to the top on Google but do not on Yahoo or MSN.

Believing Google gives the best results does not make it so!

lol... SPAM
Search
Position
Above
Mine......

Maybe so in some cases.

However under the keyword aquarium information, my own little experiment I started about 18 months where I have two competing sites, one more information based where I went after and have more relevant links and links from articles (such as ezine), not to mention much more content VS. a site (also mine) that admittedly links to the first, but does not have the number or quality of links nor as good of content out ranks the first.

Also as per the spam, here is a site (edited for forum rules) that is nothing but pure spam, no real aquarium information to be found: www.save1004.***

I should also note that the top site is an excellent site (not related to me) and it is not spammy (a little outdated content is my only complaint).
My point is some are spammy, not all.

Also it is fair to say that based on this statement "If you can think up a better way"; Why should anyone change this strategy by Google? It is obviously serving them well as they are not stupid, they will produce a link relevancy strategy that serves Google best. My only point that this does not always produce the best results when it comes to my area of expertise.

I should only note that I was only using my site as an example. Some search terms such as Aquarium Electrolytes actually bring up my site first however, MSN actually delivers more relevant results. I should also note that I am not saying Google delivers bad results (or Yahoo or MSN always deliver good results, especially when Yahoo answers is brought into play), just too often poor or irrelevent sites come up that have too much authority for the wrong reason (such as sites like about.c**)

An insult? It was a disagreement not an insult, please don't take offense to everything. I say "If everyone agrees with you then your probably on the wrong path"

BTW I didn't mean that your right either



So far so good but you still have not concluded a plan which is better. You appear to be hinting at MSN and Yahoo being better. Please explain why... what parts of their algo make them better, how do you see them providing better results.

And as for your idea Google had a better marketing plan you are partly correct. They brought out a innovation that crushed the competition, nobody can hold a candle to Googles algo. As far as marketing the search engine their are hundreds of SEs which have been around long before google. Google had something much more appealing.

The fact remains YOU and I are webmasters, Google basically could care less what we think or want, what Google cares about are the searchers, the users of their engine. And that is what makes them so good. And the public poll concludes that Google overall gives the most relevant results.

Sorry if I took it that way ; it was the comment about "you don't have a clue of a better way" that I felt was a little over the top, not that you disagreed with me. In fact I would not have made such a comment if I did not expect some disagreement.

As to the first part, all I can say is based on my search experience (in areas I do have more experience in) and how I see results managed in Google.

No arguing your second point. Yahoo really dropped the ball. But that is partly what I was trying to convey, not only did they vastly improve search results, they had a much better game plan. I just think their results are not what they used to be as corporate profits trump all else vs. Google original plan.

As to your third point, public opinion does not always make it right (it does not make it wrong either). An example is the small town I now live; in the interim of selling my business in LA and starting this business so that I can be around to take of my family I took a job as a production manager at a candy factory ran by a popular person in the community. This was the most poorly run business that treated their employees like #%!#, yet everyone in this town has this great image of them, but ask those who have worked there. Now I am not saying this is Google (in fact Google has very high employee morale from everything I have read), I am only making the point that Google has done such a great job marketing themselves that they hold an almost God like status.

Your example has a few problems. First of all the towns people didn't know what the company was run like. Everyone knows and can see what Google provides, who cares how Google is run inside. As long as when I goto google and search "_______" and I get what I am looking for I could care less(assuming they keep out of analytics account )

Mate if you can find a better way of providing search engine results get me in on this idea and we can make millions together.