[Macworld]

Post your comments for Google counters claims of rigged search results here

[Photonerd]

Anytime a company denies something and finishes with "you don't like it, go somewhere else", that is a sign both of guilt and of arrogance. It's dismissive. I believe the Google does favor the biggest players in some industry niches (people who also happen to pay a lot for ads), but not universally, therefore allowing them the deny, deny, deny. Because they can always point out the niches where they don't involve pay to play as evidence that they never do it and all the others are just a coincidence.

[bastion]

Photonerd, on 11 June 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Anytime a company denies something and finishes with "you don't like it, go somewhere else", that is a sign both of guilt and of arrogance. It's dismissive.

That's a bit over-generalized. Tone matters. There's a difference between "you don't like it, go somewhere else" and correctly pointing out that credible alternatives exist and providing references to them.

[thomaspin]

Endemic corruption in the US campaign finance system makes Congress the worst place to bring these accusations. The European Commission is a better choice, as its history suggests a greater respect for fairness. Just ask Bill Gates and MSFT - fines so far are $2bn and counting.

[CatOne]

Google may be rigging the results. I wouldn't be shocked in the least.

That said, this missive is from the CEO of NexTag. I cannot freaking STAND NexTag: It used to be that pretty much ANY terms I searched on, I'd get a NexTag link that *looked* like it was product information about the site, but in fact NexTag was just re-listing a bunch of stuff (pretty much every product in the universe) and I hit their page ALL THE TIME when I wasn't careful to read the URL. I never wanted to see it, but they were gaming the results. So anything Google can do to keep them out of the top 20 search results would be just fine in my book.

[scottellsworth]

Photonerd, on 11 June 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Anytime a company denies something and finishes with "you don't like it, go somewhere else", that is a sign both of guilt and of arrogance. It's dismissive. I believe the Google does favor the biggest players in some industry niches (people who also happen to pay a lot for ads), but not universally, therefore allowing them the deny, deny, deny. Because they can always point out the niches where they don't involve pay to play as evidence that they never do it and all the others are just a coincidence.

Amit has said that google explicitly does not favor paid results or companies. He stated clearly that all paid results are explicitly separated as well, so paid results are not part of organic search results. It is hard to be clearer than that.

Read the blog entry - his point about going to other engines was clearer in context than in this summary. Users (people who search) can pick a different engine, often with a simple button push or menu select, so google is not trapping users. This is also why the search team talks so much about quality, and they tweak the algorithm hundreds of times a year - if users stop liking what they see, they can try a different engine trivially.

[AppleZilla]

Google is Big Brother, incarnate.

[elroth]

Photonerd, on 11 June 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Anytime a company denies something and finishes with "you don't like it, go somewhere else", that is a sign both of guilt and of arrogance. It's dismissive. I believe the Google does favor the biggest players in some industry niches (people who also happen to pay a lot for ads), but not universally, therefore allowing them the deny, deny, deny. Because they can always point out the niches where they don't involve pay to play as evidence that they never do it and all the others are just a coincidence.

I took his advice about a year ago - I use Bing now. I still use Google Images and Google Maps, but nothing else. I've never had a Google account, and never will.

[DlBetty]

bastion, on 11 June 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Photonerd, on 11 June 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Anytime a company denies something and finishes with "you don't like it, go somewhere else", that is a sign both of guilt and of arrogance. It's dismissive.

That's a bit over-generalized. Tone matters. There's a difference between "you don't like it, go somewhere else" and correctly pointing out that credible alternatives exist and providing references to them.

The question to me after is that after trying Bing, Yahoo, any other search than Google, why does "Google Analytics" plus "Google + 1"show up as being blocked by DO NOT TRACK regardless of which search engine or any webpage that I am using show up? That bothers me yes. Why are they tracking me when I am not using or don't use Google, at all?

[DlBetty]

elroth, on 11 June 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Photonerd, on 11 June 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Anytime a company denies something and finishes with "you don't like it, go somewhere else", that is a sign both of guilt and of arrogance. It's dismissive. I believe the Google does favor the biggest players in some industry niches (people who also happen to pay a lot for ads), but not universally, therefore allowing them the deny, deny, deny. Because they can always point out the niches where they don't involve pay to play as evidence that they never do it and all the others are just a coincidence.

I took his advice about a year ago - I use Bing now. I still use Google Images and Google Maps, but nothing else. I've never had a Google account, and never will.

I don't use Google either but install Do Not Track or Ghostery, and notice that no matter which search you use, or any web page that you visit, shows Google Analytics and Google+1 as being blocked. I don't know how they can track me when I am not using their services but I do hope that they do something about it, they are probably not even aware of it as I was not until I put Do Not Track in.