Google is becoming too powerful

Not true at all.

I started working on optimizing for Bing, using its services as a webmaster, and I have seen greater traffic from Bing on one of my sites than from Google, for my targeted group.
Other search engines are by no means dead, there are millions of people who are utterly fed up with Google, especially those using Image search.

 

noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.

(Underline emphasis mine)

I don't care if you went to business school, the facts are there for all to see.

Google is the only corporation on the planet controlling how websites are ranked, delivered, created, managed and more, without a mandate to do so. Bing does not have such power, Yahoo does not have that power, the government of your choice does not have a similar power. Google is the exclusive dominating force dictating website standards, and to allow a corporation to posses that exclusive power IS A MONOPOLY.

You are looking at this in far too a simplistic view, judging a monopoly on the basis of being a "SOLE" provider dominating the market. A monopoly doesn't require a sole provider, it simply requires consolidation of power within that market, where others do not have that power.

 

There have been so many updates, particularly over the past 2 years that it's hard to keep up with Google. You think you're doing everything just right and according to the latest SEO regulations and have numerous top 5 rankings only to get 'slapped' and lose half your business just because Google has changed its algorithm. I've done everything entirely white hat (as far as I know) and provide quality to my readers but I've still lost a few high earning sites due to Panda, Penguin, Hummingbird etc. The traffic I get from Bing and Yahoo isn't even worth mentioning compared to Google.

Lessons learnt though I've started building lists for most of my niche sites. I've had way too many eggs in the Google basket and it's time to take back some of the power! I still love building affiliate sites, doing SEO, and getting sites ranked etc. but it's way too risky to rely solely on Google for my income.

 

They are getting very popular, and internet advertising is growing insanely so they are in the plus for the future aswell.

 

Google is a powerhouse we have to follow very closely... watch out for G+ I can feel it is on the heels of facebook already baaa

 

I think that the worst is not that google is just monopolizing the market. Imagine the future. Google will be able and currently it is able to buy whole countries. Military,DNA and other unbelievable researches are already on. This sci-fi movie in which google is the ruler of the world is about to come in all cinemas worldwide and we all have the ticket.

 

@Conran basically that circumstance is only when Google has exclusive control of the share meaning that everyone cannot use others by choice. Now, Bing is gaining traction, I think 20-30% is impressive, no?

 

Yes, Google has a large market share when it comes to online search and mobile search, but there are alternatives. If people find it too difficult to keep up with algorithm changes, then focus on Yahoo and bing. Between them, about 5 billion searches are made each month.

 

Google is a very competitive search engine. Everyone wants to be in it to be found. Furthermore, this SE giant is working hard to make it fair for everyone and to improve the quality of information that people find while searching online.

 

This is just my personal opinion, of course, but I'm not convinced that they are being fair to everyone. I won't rehash what's already been said in this thread but I think Google favours big brands over the 'little guys.' The corporations are their money makers, afterall.

Re the quality of search results since the algo changes - I often CANNOT find what I'm looking for now. It's quite frustrating at times.

By the way, does anybody remember when the U.S. government took Microsoft to court, claiming that they were a monopoly? Late '90s, I think. And that was just because they included the IE browser with their product. The government said that gave Microsoft too much of an advantage and didn't give other browsers a chance. Claimed that Microsoft was manipulating users into using their browser for search results. If including a free web browser defines a monopoly (in the eyes of the government) then what the heck do we call what Google is doing?

 

I read this interesting article this morning about how one guy is "Google proofing" his business. He used to own Mahalo but G killed it, so he went in another direction to try and keep it from happening again:

http://www.webpronews.com/how-this-panda-victim-google-proofed-his-business-2014-01

 

If that happened to you then you weren't doing everything right and you weren't entirely white hat. Hw were you building your links?

 

I don't know, I've read lots of comments in the Google forums of frustrated site owners who went far out of their way to please Google and keep their ten year old established sites in the upper ranks. Didn't work, they got slapped down, anyway. There were a ton of them complaining after Panda about following Matt Cutts' advice to the letter yet still getting penalized.

They do it because they can. That's how it seems sometimes.

 

I'm a big Google fan. And my whole business comes and goes with the way of the Google algorithm. Where hence before I was consistently ranked high on the first page, now it comes and goes. So some days I'll get a bunch of sales if I'm listed high while other days it feels like I'm not even listed. Really wish they had stuck with the original algorithm so that I can at least understand how the algorithm is trying to work. I've also tried adwords as well with the same inconsistent return. smh = (

 

Then have a look at all the backlinks that they created themselves, exactly how Google has been saying not to do it for yrs. All that changed is that the Google algorithm has got better at detecting and dealing with unnatural links.

 

What bothers me is when Google kills your traffic by burying your site deep in the results, far beneath irrelevant results, and then sends you an email (if they have it such as when you joined Webmaster Tools) trying to get you to pay for advertising. It is crooked. That has happened to me on just about every website I ever created. If you want traffic, you have to pay Google for it--and it is expensive!

 

What warped logic! What obligation does Google even have to actually give any site free traffic?

 

Love them or hate them, we all have to play by Google's rules if we gain a lot of traffic from search engines. They bring me thousands of visitors every day, and sometimes it is a pain adapting to their new algorithms but you just have to do it.

 

Apparently, there is some kind of God/Satan/Alah/Easter Bunny-given-right to traffic from Google for little-to-no-effort/spam/plain stupidity.

It's not like Google never told people don't spam or build unnatural links. Some people were just too lazy to read, or read and arrogantly ignored, or are just too stupid to understand what an unnatural link is. There is this idiotic view that "it isn't automated, so it's white hat". No, spam is spam however you do it.

Too much focus on bots and algorithms, not enough on HUMANS who are the ones that spend money!! Give them what they want, not a bunch of spun crap and manipulation. Don't goddamn cry and blame Matt Cutts/Google when your site gets ravaged by a Panda, Penguin, Elephant, Dolphin or whatever, but be an adult, review your business (yes, it's a business - learn how to run one properly) and reflect on your mistakes. Only then can you move forward safely.

/end of rant.

 

Google has no responsibility to give anyone traffic. However, as a search engine, they do have a responsibility to provide relevant results to people who use their search engine (or disclose their manipulation). Taking a website from #1 or #2 and burying it 500 results down then sending the webmaster an email trying to get them to pay for advertising because Google buried the site does nobody any favors except Google's already bulging bank account. It's crooked. It's also potentially illegal.

Relevance is the key. You can argue all day over who should be #1 or #2, but most sensible people would agree that any credible search engine should show a relevant website somewhere within relevant search results. Agreed?

Thousands upon thousands of webmasters have complained over the years about Google burying their websites for no reason. You should know that. I have experienced it myself and have done nothing wrong. What benefit does burying relevant websites provide to the end user? None. But it does force some webmasters to pay Google upwards of $1 per visitor for traffic.

https://www.google.com/#q=google+buried+my+website
https://www.google.com/#q=google+killed+my+website
https://www.google.com/#q=google+killed+my+traffic

I don't even worry about Google traffic. I count on Google for nothing. Google sucks. I stopped using Google as a search engine in 2004 before I launched my first website as I found Yahoo provided superior results. At least when I used Yahoo, if I wanted to find a website I visited a few days earlier, I could find it, unlike Google with its habit of ranking high one day then burying the next.

I had a website that ranked #1 for the most competitive search terms back in 2008 and I watched as the different data centers took my #1 website and buried it sub-600 in the results within hours. I never did any link exchange requests, I don't know how to do blackhat, broke no Google rules. Webmaster Tools indicated nothing wrong. No penalties of any kind. But I did get an email within 2 weeks soliciting me to pay Google for advertising.

Do you think it is coincidence that Google buries my website in the results for no reason then tries to get me to pay for traffic?

In addition to killing my traffic, it also killed the traffic of my competitors. The site I replaced as #1 was buried about 2 weeks before my site was. The webmaster was on Google Groups complaining to Google that he could not afford to keep spending $3,000 per month on Google advertising to replace the traffic he lost. His site eventually recovered in the rankings. Mine did not.

Here are my visitor stats for the site I mentioned as of Sept. 2013:
Yahoo: 5,214
Bing: 3,242
Google: 102

5 years later the site is still buried in Google, beneath a bunch of irrelevant results.

Yahoo and Bing have sent me consistent traffic all those years. I stopped worrying about Google years ago. If you think I'm the only one alleging that Google is manipulating its search results to drive advertising revenue, I am not. Almost all of Google's profits come from advertising. Too keep the stock price high, they have to increase revenue every year (not an easy task). What better way to increase revenue than kill websites in the rankings then send webmasters emails to try to get them to pay for traffic?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2034703/google-search-manipulation-starves-some-websites-of-traffic.html