• Craig Devlin

    Dailymotion is where you go for videos that were pulled from YouTube due to copyright. Can see why Google wouldn’t want to feature copywritten content.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    I will never for the life of me figure out why people think that Google has some obligation to be “fair” in what they show on their own website. People are not forced to use Google. How is telling Google what they should show on their website and where any different than me telling Search Engine Land that they HAVE TO link to my website and show it just as prominently as links to other websites – all at no charge, of course? Be careful what you wish for. Someday, things that the court system forces Google to do out of some sense of “fairness” may just as easily become law for your own website.

  • http://www.alaminchowdhury.com/ Alamin Chowdhury

    Dailymotion has got every right to say that, but they need to figure out why other video platforms are being neglected. Definitely nothing happens without any reason, but it’s quite true that now a days we don’t often get to see other video site results over youtube. To some extent I do agree with Devlin on the copywritten content issue, but does that levy with all content that the site has? Or Google is surely playing some fishy games here to outrank their Youtube competitors?

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    That may be the case but their definition of fair may be completely different than yours. The fact that they list a competitor’s website at all may be seen by some as being VERY fair.

    Regardless, they will still make their money whether they lie or not. Are you going to stop paying for ads because they are liars? Not if you want to keep making money!

    It’s not against the law to sculpt your own version of the truth. If it was, every lawyer and politician would be in jail. I hope you really don’t buy into everything Matt Cutts says, hook, line and sinker!

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    So your point is that they lie. Mine is, so what? If you plastered the world with signs that Google is lying and provided proof, it still wouldn’t affect their business one iota. This is great fodder for those who want to attack Google and turn them into a villain but where does it get you? They can do what they want, they can lie all they want and they still make the same amount of money. “It’s just not fair” stopped working when I was about six years old.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    Actually, they end up settling before they ever test the real waters in all of these legal cases. The fact still is, what you are claiming that Google is compelled to do out of fairness or some sort of twisted legal obligation should then hold true for every single website that exists. If you think they should have to list their competitors’ services on their website then I hope you are listing links to your competitors and all of their services on your own website, as well.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    Exactly what I thought. Just another liberal who thinks that large businesses should have to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the world because it isn’t fair that they are so successful. That’s what I was trying to draw out of you. Nothing more needs to be added to this thread.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    Well, when Google gets to a 90% market share, you can use Judge Learned Hand’s opinion that they now are a monopoly. Until then, you cannot point to a single they do that is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

  • http://www.alaminchowdhury.com/ Alamin Chowdhury

    Well said Scott….appreciated

  • http://www.alaminchowdhury.com/ Alamin Chowdhury

    Nothing can be done, no matter if they lie or not. The results that we see is clear. I hardly see videos from other platforms when searched with different KWs. Most of the time it’s Youtube that dominates, but that doesn’t mean videos from other sites aren’t unique. So someway or the other the message is pretty distinct, believe it or not.

  • http://serprex.com/ Apoorv Parijat

    This is just sad. For a simple keyword like ‘hobbit 2 trailer’, Google ranks 4 youtube videos at the top. While the same videos from DailyMotion are pushed to page 5.

    While it may seem Google is being fair in ‘at least’ linking their competition, in this scenario, it doesn’t even count.

  • Ian Lockwood

    In many European countries, they do have 90%+ market share (certainly when you add “partners” to the equation like ISP homepage search functions). That’s a near-monopoly in most people’s eyes.

    Monopolies are just as likely to stifle innovation and economic growth as regulation, so yes, they do need to operate under a different set of rules.

    Your use of the term “just another liberal” suggests you see it as a derogatory term. Thankfully, it doesn’t have those connotations in Europe. The world would be a much better place with more liberals and fewer condescending small-minded neo-conservatives who believe the 1% BS they’re fed.

  • An0nym0usC0ward

    There is a notion in most legislations that the operator of something big, which is also of public interest, has to be fair. It’s a legal obligation in most legislations, even if the big thing is private.

    For example, if one data carrier has a huge market share in a country, he needs to be fair -i.e. to provide services on equal terms to every interested customer.

    For example, the data carrier above could significantly impede access to Google maps content, making it easier for Apple’s and MS’s maps to reach people, if it wasn’t forced to be fair towards Google, and to carry its data under the same terms as the data of MS or Apple. Or it could allocate only a tiny amount of bandwidth for carrying OpenStreetMap data, favoring commercial services over similar free services. All this would distort the market, and therefore it’s a legal requirement for large operators of anything which is used as infrastructure by others to be fair.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    I don’t use Google because I think their search results are horrible. I don’t like the way Google does lots of things. The HUGE difference between Google and the corporations that people like to use in arguments is that Google does not charge consumers to use its services. Protection laws were put in place to protect consumers. If the consumer feels the results are skewed in Google’s favor, they are free to use something else – just like I do.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    … and slapping the ambiguous “small minded neo conservative” label on someone makes you so much better. In all actuality, I am neither conservative nor liberal. I believe in the power of an individual to make his/her own choices – something the consumer clearly has a right to do here.

    The end user is free to switch their home page to anything they like. They don’t HAVE To search with Google. There are dozens of free alternatives. The consumer is the one who chooses to use Google and pays nothing for that choice.

    In your ideal world, you would tell consumers, “Sorry, you can’t use Google, you have to use Bing or Yahoo (or duckduckgo or whatever). We need to keep things balanced so that all search engines get an equal amount of traffic.” A new search engine starts up, and they automatically get a percentage of all the business from the other search engines.

    Might as well pass that along to every business model, too. Start a new restaurant, get your fair share of business from all of the other restaurants. Forget that it harms those other restaurants and that the consumer may be getting far worse food now.

    Start a new SEO tips website, automatically have traffic re-directed from Search Engine Land to your new site – just to keep things fair. It doesn’t matter if your site sucks. Search Engine Land has gotten too big. The smaller guys need their fair share. Screw the consumer who was free to choose before!

    Who gets hurt here really? – The end user who no longer has a choice.

  • Ian Lockwood

    Thanks for telling me what my ideal world would be. :)

    Your highly simplistic description is clearly (a) wrong and (b) unworkable (well, actually it probably is technically possible on the internet, but hey). In fact, it belies the seemingly standard notion amongst neo-cons that anything that isn’t completely laissez faire is communism expressed in its most stereotypical form. Did McCarthyism teach the US nothing!?

    I am simply suggesting that in a monopoly (or duopoly or whatever) situation, the power of companies to distort the market or suffocate competitors has to be checked in some way. Checks and balances – isn’t that what your Constitution is based on?

    Even if Google’s actions are ultimately determined as fair and reasonable, they still warrant investigation if a third party has a legitimate case to make. That might not amount to much more than a cursory check, or it might require a full anti-trust inquiry. Just because Google is free to use doesn’t mean that they don’t have monopolistic power. I certainly agree it makes things more complex than in the case of, say, energy suppliers where consumers are paying for something they cannot live without; but where you have a company with massive resources that enable it to restrict competition in whatever forms (whether that is not showing competitors in search results, lobbying government, or locking Android developers into certain contracts), clearly they cannot be given carte blanche to do as they please.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    Not sure how McCarthyism ever got into this. I have not accused anyone of treason or disloyalty to their government here nor have I accused anyone of being non-patriotic. Sure is a nice buzzword to use, though.

    The U.S. Constitution is based on government checks and balances. Nowhere are checks and balances on businesses discussed.

    Android can choose whatever company they want as their search engine. ISPs can do the same. Perhaps you need to be lashing out at those companies for choosing to use Google.

    And, back to the original context of this post … “DailyMotion boasts 120 million monthly unique visitors and more than 2.5 billion video views per month.”

    We’re not talking about some poor “little guy” here. We’re not talking about a name so obscure that nobody ever heard of them. Why the heck aren’t people just going to Daily Motion’s home page if they want to search Daily Motion videos?

    The same argument can be made by Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc. “Before ANY search results are displayed by Google, our search engines results should be shown (or at least links to our search engines).”

    Heck, I think my websites are FAR better than many of the ones outranking mine. They are bigger companies that have been around longer, though, and are being rewarded for the longevity and (in many cases) paid links they have obtained. Can I sue Google? Can I sue Bing and Yahoo, too? Their job is to bring forth the best search results, after all.

    Where does this end?

    Oh, and please educate yourself on what neo conservatism is. You have no clue what it is, based upon your use of it. I have certainly never been a liberal and don’t advocate USA dominance on an international front. If anything, I’m for quite the opposite. I’d be far happier if the U.S. took an isolationist approach and let the rest of the world sort out its own problems instead of running to bail out every country from the problems they have brought upon themselves because they don’t have the money to defend themselves against other countries or acts of nature. Free is never free.

  • aaron wall

    “Android can choose whatever company they want as their search engine”

    Not according to the leaked confidential legal agreements which REQUIRE Google to be set as the default.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    Those agreements were entered into by Android of their own accord. If you have a problem with that, your problem is with Android, not Google!

    And again, just because something is set as the default doesn’t mean that a consumer can’t change it or simply enter another browser into the address bar and search with it.

  • aaron wall

    “your problem is with Android, not Google”

    Good point. http://www.android.com/meet-android/

  • An0nym0usC0ward

    I get a feeling you think the world is revolving around you. It’s not. You see, it is an option for you not to use Google, but it’s not an option for DailyMotion to appear in Google’s search results. People find videos via search engines, and in countries where Google owns more than 90% of the search market, you are simply barred from reaching your customers if Google artificially demotes your site’s relevance.

    How would you feel if you were a laptop manufacturer, and Amazon would constantly display your products in the tenth search results page, in spite of stellar reviews? As a customer I am free to buy elsewhere, but with Amazon selling more merchandise than the top several US retailers taken together, your products would have a hard time finding their way into customer’s hands, if Amazon would unfairly place it at the end of search results.

  • http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    I would feel exactly the same way I do now. “It’s not fair that such and such a site is ranking above mine – mine is better.” How the heck is that any different than what practically every single webmaster of an eCommerce site not named Amazon or eBay feels? How is it any different than practically every website owner feels who is not at the top of the search engine rankings?

    How in the world anything I have said gives you the feeling that the world is revolving around me is, in a word, ludicrous. Of course, nothing I have said comes even close to defining me as a “neocon” (look it up people) or as an advocate of McCarthyism but that doesn’t keep uneducated people from flinging around words like that because they’ve seen them someplace before and they think they might fit.

    Just the opposite. I don’t feel I have a right to any search position. It’s not my website! Google can do whatever they want. So can you! Build your own search engine and you can manipulate results all you want, too! Oh … that’s right … Google owns so much of the market that you could never compete with them. I wonder if Larry Page and Sergey Brin ever had similar thoughts creep into their heads 18 years ago when Google was nothing but a research project.

    Although it was originally written because of the backlash
    Google was receiving when they started charging for PLAs, the article I wrote back then applies here, too.

    In the end, if the consumer feels that the results suck, they’ll stop using your search engine. So far, that isn’t happening with Google because their two biggest competitors – at least in the USA – suck just as bad or worse than they do at displaying relevant results.

    You are not paying for organic listings; consumers aren’t paying to read organic listings. Your example is one that brings paid listings into the equation, though. In your Amazon example, you are paying Amazon money. Are these other sites that are ranking higher paying less? Likely, not! How much money is DailyMotion paying Google?

    I actually think that I am the only one here that is not thinking of himself. I’m the only one that ISN’T being a hypocrite. I’m sure every one of you has a website where you have given no concern at all into the placement of copy, ads, banners, affiliate links or products on pages in relation to how it will affect your income. You’ve done whatever is the right thing to do out of fairness, right? Lord knows there are no review sites out there owned by people here that promote one product better than another because there is a little more affiliate commission in it for them. None of you promote your friends’ websites or people who have done you favors over people you don’t know or who haven’t done you any favors, right? LIARS! The SEO community is one of the biggest link networks on the planet. But, of course, your rules don’t apply to you. They only apply to big, bad corporations.

    Tell you what … why don’t you all figure out which search engine is giving the best overall results – the one that NEVER thinks of money – and let me know which one that is. Then, we’ll all start using that one instead. I mean, we have the best SEO minds in the world all gathered here. Nobody can market better or manipulate search engine results better than SEOs, right? Surely the collective minds of the finest the SEO industry has to offer could get the world to switch to a better search engine in under a year!

    I’m done arguing with people who are, unlike me, looking out for their own interests or who simply have a “take down the Big Guy” mentality because that’s how they are wired. Feel free to bash me; I have never cared because unlike many, I AM being honest with myself and with others. I’m not here, kissing butts, hoping that someday I can get a link from you!