Do you think google will mess it all up within the next 2-3 years by getting into too many domains which it might not have complete expertise over? What do you think? Cos the companies its openly challenging arn't going to take it lying down. They are all masters of their respective domains. Just cos Google has 7b liquidity and investors confidence, wouldn't mean that they would take all steps in the right directions.
Tink the chain reaction has started VERY deeply. Google is nothing by intself - its just an idea, google been made by us. And how friendly we'll accept every new stuff depends google's success...
I think what this thread is about it this: Is Google stretching their resources too far, by constantly bringing in new products and taking on more well established businesses? At least I hope that's what "stuff's" meant...
Which is why their search results are fast becoming the most irrelavant. Even though MSN has become easier for spammers I still use it. If I want relevant up-to-date results when Im searching for something I use MSN.
I dont like msn or yahoo for finding stuff. After scrolling past the ads, which take up 2/3 of the screen, I forgot what i was searching for. Especially yahoo. Google's pages are the simplest and cleanest, even with all the ads. Given that, I wish MSN would get more market share, but since yahoo won't list one of my sites, I don't care if anyone uses it
Somone needs to get it through the folks at Google's heads that just because a site is older doesn't make it more relevant. Google results are full of old outdated pages that rank high literally because they are older. Not because they have more keywords Not because the name is in the domain Not for a variety of other reasons. Just because they are older with older backlinks. Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=george+boone MSN: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=george+boone&FORM=MSNH&srch_type=0 I want fresh up to date information so I'll deal with the ads. Just because a site is old and has plenty backlinks doesn't make the content on it correct, current, or even relevant.
Googles great for many things, but then it's really bad too. Many times you might get 2,000,000 results but make a script and loop all the results, you will find more than 1/2 dead or they don't even hold 1% of any relevance to what you searching for. It once was much better but now it seems worse. But you can't blame google for all it, it has to do with many factors like dishonest webmasters that play the * follow me bot game * creating fake pages on the fly to move up in the rankings! There other things to, so many that it can become very confusing. But the point is googles search engine is not as good as it once was. Maybe it's because they are trying different things and have forgotten temporarily what made them unique in the first place. Maybe things will get better, but I am not so much concern with that as I am with ISP(s) blocking all Google Ads. I've noticed this happening more and more. This hurt my revenues more than any ranking as I have a constant client base already, but even though having 600,000 + more visitors each month, in the last 9 months I am making less in revenues than before because google ad blocking is becoming a more common thing! jb
I think Google losing focus of their primary business is a real concern as they move forward. Things have come relatively easy for them. Problem is there core business has little room to grow. It is not like when a company like Wal-Mar or Microsoft grew.. They had substantial room and still do to grow their core business. Google really has to expand outside its core business in order to sustain growth. That is a very dangerous reality for them. I think Yahoo and MSN will eat away significantly at their search engine business in the next few years, and within the next 5 years there will be a substantial shift in the marketplace, likely by some unknown entity at this point which will have a major impact on the search engine business. Google probably realizes all this too and is why they are diversifying... Is something to sticking with what you are good at too, though. Just impossible to know at this point what will happen, really.
I don't think that is possible.All Google has to do is hire an expert in any field they want to enter that has a proven track record, and dominate the field.
But I dont think its as simple as that. Just getting experts doesnt make any company master of that game. Because those experts cannot challenge the present masters of that field so easily. Google could do it in the "search field" because they started their business with that and everyone, including the 2 owners were totally involved in that for more than 7years. Imagine if they would have got int classifieds, free wifi, browsers, OS etc.. from day one? that is from 1997, what would have happened. We wouldnt have Google in today's form at all. I am sure focus brings lots of things with it. And too many things into that focus would definitely blurr that vision in the future
Google definitely has been hiring, even if it's sometimes tongue-in-cheek. Whether or not they lose focus is another question. When Yahoo! started to expand past search, a lot of people complained. They may not be considered to be as big of an innovator as Google, but they're still in the game. I think it's great that Google experiments with lots of different "stuffs." Considering they allow their employees to spend 20% of their time fostering their own ideas, it's bound to happen that Google will enter new fields. Some of those new fields they've been successful in. Email comes to mind.
If you want "fresh, up to date" information, you shouldn't be using traditional search in the first place. You should be using RSS and blog search, google news, etc. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. A newer site is infinitely more likely to be run by a spammer than a long-established one, but the odds of it having "fresh, up to date" information is hardly any higher. Uhm, Yahoo did not start as a search engine. Yahoo was (and still is!) first and foremost a portal site. Yahoo is a media company first, a search engine second. Google is a search engine first, an advertising agency second. Google used to power their search. It wasn't until about 2-3 years ago, as Google's viewership and market penetration became a sore in their sides that they shifted their focus on search.
And where should I do a search for the blogs containing up to date info? Should I spend all day sifting through blogs and RSS feeds for information I need or just use my favorite search engine? In your arrogance you actually upheld my point. Newer blogs with fresh content aren't getting good rankings (and likely won't for months thanks to Google) because old pages rule the results. What's funnier is you didn't even take the time to understand my post before making a fool of yourself. I never said one is more likely than the other to have relevant results. I was saying that it's foolish to consider all new pages to be SPAM by default and that a lot of newer pages have better information than older ones. A lot of newer services entering a niche may offer better results than their predecessors.
yeah thats it, lets search through page upon page of unemployed, fake journalists, babbling about stuff they know nothing about when we need to find important information. good idea.
I agree with GeorgeB and ly2 here... I don't know why you think a new site is more likely to be a spam site than one that's been around for a few months. I'm sure all the webmasters who have recently launched new sites will be dismayed to hear that... Also, if I recall correctly, Yahoo! started as a directory and a search engine, not a portal. The portal craze came later, just before the Google guys stepped in and blew the rest of them out of the water.