I think that Jagger has outsmarted us all. The reason for this view lies deep behind this update: to make AdWords flourish, thus pushing their stock market value through the roof for revenue generation, is their real agenda. To quote CNN on Jan. 9, 2005: "Google closed last Monday, the first trading day of the year, at $202.71, the first time the company closed above $200 during its brief history as a publicly traded firm...Moreover, Google is trading at about 60 times 2005 earnings estimates and a stock split isn't going to make that valuation any cheaper, either." Now, to quote NEWS.COM almost a year later, on November 17, 2005: "Google's share price got a dose of high octane in the past four weeks, soaring from $300 a share to hitting in excess of $400 on Thursday. Does zero to 60 come to mind? And the messages boards that track the sentiment of Google investors have been a buzz, with some predicting a further run up to $500 a share." But have they got it wrong? I think this update, disguised as an attempt to bring in 'relevancy', is truly a market manipulation intended to push up revenues but through limited relevency, with blogs becoming the tour de force of internet search, forcing users to use AdWords. One client recently complained that his ad spend is almost 100% up against a year ago. He halved the price and still gets the same volume of hits. It is interesting to note that in this period Google's share price has witnessed an unprecedented but identical percentage uplift. All very well for the shareholders but are internet users going to accept the return of useless blog sites instead of relevant companies and products in their searches? I think not. A growing number will migrate to Yahoo, leaving Google's shareholders, in the very near future, wondering why the share price has plummeted. There is a quite brilliant stock advisor in Austria that believes this to be the real rationale behind the update. I now concur with his words.