You need to update and twist. You can get good results but sometimes need to wait more than before. Never say never.
While they are not a pure monopoly, they hold majority on the search engine market and they have a lot of say in what you can and can't do when creating websites. Google has a lot of influence in what goes on in the web world.
I think if there where 100 + search engines that had less then 1% of the market we would be better off. I do believe that is true! Dan
Google is what a search engine optimizer should work with for now. And yes, they do update themselves, so does the SEOers.
Us the consumers got them there, they provide a service we all can't get enough of. Funny though because things can change overnight look at the MySpace story things could look a hell of a lot different in 10 years time. The whole success of Google came about from the business model of keywords. When they realised their search engine pulling up pages based on backlinks was far more popular than any other search engine at the time and realised they could make some serious money from business wanting their products and services to come up on top when consumers type in certain keywords this is what made Google. However all it takes is someone to come along and shake up the way things are done. I do think there's room for this as well. A creative idea where people be advertised to in a new way combine that with the privacy of say duckduckgo then you'd be onto something that could stomp out Google. What may seem impossible now may not be so impossible in the future. The other alternative is to find money outside of advertising. DuckDuckGo is so popular because of the privacy I think if search engines figured away of making serious money outside of advertising combined with the privacy of a search engine like DuckDuckGo that could pose a serious threat to Google. It may seem unbelievable now but in the 90s people would have thought it unbelievable that MySpace would be almost extinct today!
DEFINITION of 'Monopoly' A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products. According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity. " they have 70& market share exxon has less than 5% share yet people are always crying about the "big oil monopoly" opec the cartel has nothing like even 50% of world oil market. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/212716-opecs-oil-production-market-share-fall they need to be regulated as a common carrier meaning they have to stop acting like a website review company. preferably broken up too separate the adsence business from the search business Who appointed them king of the Worlds Taste? somehow they always seem to list there own business first so they are a vertical and horizontal monopoly imagine if the yellow pages took your listing phone number out of the phone book because it didn't meet there "quality standards" or buried it in print so small you need a microscope would that help or hurt small business that cant afford thousands to buy display ads? they also act like a "fence" for stolen i property by making it easy to post on y tube. What if go up to anyone i see at the store and grab money out of their hand when they protest i am stealing i say "my policy is to steal unless you notify me that you dispute my stealing by email or letter" the fact that some people dont think it is a monopoly is amazing... they make opec look like small potatoes and no one cares that's the sad part. all the small business owners and copyright holders and billions of other that were screwed just don't get it they did it in plain sight and the dumb baby boomer politicians didn't understand what they were doing. and now they pass around too much money to the politicians for them to do anything lets dig up teddy Roosevelt.. he would fix their wagon real quick Teddy Roosevelt was one American who believed a revolution was coming. He believed Wall Street financiers and powerful trust titans to be acting foolishly. While they were eating off fancy china on mahogany tables in marble dining rooms, the masses were roughing it. There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered? The Sherman Anti-Trust Act Although he himself was a man of means, he criticized the wealthy class of Americans on two counts. First, continued exploitation of the public could result in a violent uprising that could destroy the whole system. Second, the captains of industry were arrogant enough to believe themselves superior to the elected government. Now that he was President, Roosevelt went on the attack. The President's weapon was the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed by Congress in 1890. This law declared illegal all combinations "in restraint of trade." For the first twelve years of its existence, the Sherman Act was a paper tiger. United States courts routinely sided with business when any enforcement of the Act was attempted. " Theodore Roosevelt was not the type to initiate major changes timidly. The first trust giant to fall victim to Roosevelt's assault was none other than the most powerful industrialist in the country — J. Pierpont Morgan. This 1912 cartoon shows trusts smashing consumers with the tariff hammer in hopes of raising profits. Morgan controlled a railroad company known as Northern Securities. In combination with railroad moguls James J. Hill and E. H. Harriman, Morgan controlled the bulk of railroad shipping across the northern United States. Morgan was enjoying a peaceful dinner at his New York home on February 19, 1902, when his telephone rang. He was furious to learn that Roosevelt's Attorney General was bringing suit against the Northern Securities Company. Stunned, he muttered to his equally shocked dinner guests about how rude it was to file such a suit without warning. when will Serg and Larry get that phone call? We know know Eric Holder wont call... to much campaign money from them Teddy took the money from Morgan then did the right thing anyway does anyone think the current politicians have the balls for that? l
I guess people have lost sight that the site in question that belonged to the OP who started this thread actually sucked and Google quite rightly treated it the way they did!
"... the site in question ...actually sucked and Google quite rightly treated it the way they did!" "the diner in question ...actually had lousy hamburgers and the yellow pages did the right thing by removing their phone number'
Common Carrier Designation as Solution? ... public interest and/or consumer advocates decide they want the FCC to impose non-discrimination requirements on any or all of these tech providers? Google, for example, was investigated for several years by the Federal Trade Commission for allegedly discriminating against certain websites in its search results. The FTC pursued the investigation under its broad mandate under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to prevent deceptive practices, but ultimately decided against bringing a case (although the competition authorities in the European Union had different ideas, ultimately forcing a settlement with Google). If Google’s search activities, or those of any of the companies just mentioned, were subjected to Title II, any of them could face discrimination complaints in the future under a different and more specific legal provision than the FTC Act, either from competitors or the public interest/consumer advocacy communities. Even if the Commission did not extend Title II to these activities, the same groups could petition the agency, or seek a ruling from the courts, that it must do so, on the ground that if transmitting X to Y is a telecommunications service, then so are these additional activities." the point is they are acting as the yellow pages did in previous years and they need to be regulated the same way the phone companies were because there is no REALISTIC alternative for a small business to list his good and services. i think getting caught up in SEO misses the point they can push a button and make you disappear or re appear. they can do panda or a teddy bear update every week if they feel like it... its a big joke all the seo people jump like puppets they control everything-they set the rules-therefore it is all a shell game they run to force more adwords business. believing that they have a motive any different than greed is nieve
If I were the attorney general i would lay it out this way in a meeting with g 1. if we dont have a deal we coming after you with a lawsuit that you are subjected to Title II,regulation and have been systematically discriminating against customers and displaying a pattern of anti competitive business practices under the sherman act So that's the "big stick" 2 If we get what we want we can discuss a settlement A-propose paying 15 billion fine [opening bargaining position; settle for5 billion..that would mean they are still in business][hey they have been using the banks for a atm machine ever since Obama came in] B-breakup of ad division into separate company[ would still be bigger than any other internet ad company] C-divestiture of Youtube into separate company D-divestiture of search division into separate company E-promise in perpetuity or unless or until search share in any country is 40% or less that all websites/domains currently on server of any domain name extentions will be listed in search results within 30 days of request by domain owner [ listing order at googles discretion but subject to legal protection if google is found to be discriminating on race politics or economic self interest relating to google owned sites] mandatory fine if listing is not provided and domain owner would be afforded rights under the title 7 anti discrimination laws F-limitation on adword paid search results to a percentage of returned serp large disclaimer appearing on adword searches "these search results are generated based on advertiser payments and may not represent the best product or answer to your search request" 3- ISP fibre spinoff into separate company 4-Allowing separate per video fines lawsuits of stolen content. this will make them see they have to stop or they will go out of business Restitution payment fund set up before youtube spin off to handle decades of intellectual property theft lawsuits that would be allowed like what was done with the asbestos producers and breast implant makers
Epic fail there is a reason that none of that has happened yet. You still have not answered my question: Do you think that the site in question actually should be ranking high?
they can rank it any way they want now because there is no regulation everyone knows that they can also not rank it at all ...that is the problem I have no opinion on one guys site and what i think is right or wrong has no possible import to gman they do what they want when they want and they answer to no one we dont have a vote... its not a democracy its not supposed to be its a internet cartel with 70% market share designed to maximize profits publishers are just pawns in there game its like asking a northern rail road passenger circa 1903 if he liked his seat on the train he is still riding on a train controlled by the jp morgain train monopoly providing a product that you or i like or even use doesn't mean its not a monopoly in restraint of trade so if jp morgan ran a nice rr should he be allowed a monopoly because people like his service? that seems to be what you are implying
Don't you think the right question to be asking is, "what gives Google the right to dictate this policy"?