• http://www.eBizROI.com Rick Noel, eBiz ROI, Inc.

    Awesome article Danny. The whole Google Antitrust case is fascinating to me. Page makes some fair points about needing Google+ for social signals as access to Facebook/Twitter data has been limited, especially since Google/Twitter data arrangement ended last July. Google needs social signals to compete with Bing who uses social signals from Facebook and Twitter, which like it or not, are integral to the search algorithms today, probably because they are harder to “game.” Everyone likes to complain about Google, but as an Internet Marketer, I find things in Google search results that are not currently available in Bing or anywhere else that I have discovered, especially the longer the tail gets. If you want to compete with Google, then beat them at their own search game and the users/market share will follow. And oh yeah, saw press this week about Facebook gearing up to compete in search … good luck with that!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mrken777 Ken Kinstle

    Danny, absolutely Google has changed their focus or the rating of importance from back links to social proof. Learning more about the changes are critical to our business and your in depth article was helpful. Thanks..

  • judchuks

    Anything that Google does is only temporary. The company is continually changing its algorithms and no one can actually predict them. The best thing for web users to do is maintain high quality websites and use of the web at all times. See more at http://www.checklistmag.com 

  • http://www.facebook.com/wspencer Will Spencer

    Page is right, of course, but that doesn’t help make any of us feel more comfortable when we are constantly bombarded with examples of Google behaving in capricious, uncaring, malevolent, and downright evil ways.

    Google needs to step up and earn the trust which Page is asking us to give them.

  • okungnyo

    It’s all bullshit really. You don’t want to use Google? One-click BOOM and you’ve converted. Compare that to the Netscape-IE fiasco in the 90s. Paying for Netscape was a pain in the ass, and even after installing it, Microsoft pulled some tricks to make Netscape not work. THAT’s anticompetition.

    Pundits are complaining not because they don’t like the +ification of Google. If it was just that, they’d use something else (like Bing, Hotmail, etc.). They’re complaining because they don’t like what Google is doing, BUT they want to continue to use it. Talk about arrogance and false sense of entitlement.

  • Juanjo Bermúdez

    Google has become the wrong way to innovate in search technology. They are impeding innovation from startups and centralizing all decissions under one viewpoint. We already know from the past that it’s the wrong way. Look how they are copying features from Wolfram Alpha. Wolfram Alpha isn’t a startup, imagine what could they be doing with startups that nobody knows. They are a company with a wrong mission, a wrong vision, and wrong objectives. They have a exclusionary viewpoint about science: they mainly hire people from top universities. As consequence of that exclusionary viewpoint they are too committed to statistical methods, that is what that universities mainly teach to their students. The result is a company with a dominant position that can crush startups from competition, that follows only the predominant pathway in science (where we already know that usually isn’t the solution), and that has serious financial commitments that make they count to 10 before applying any changes that may affect their business (advertising).
    http://blogs.by-voice.com/?p=39

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/CQJ7IUON4SONFZE5EYNDVNTADM Jose

    Are you kidding? Making Google Plus was necessary in order to keep up in this Facebook driven society. But If I were looking for results based on other’s personal taste, I would just ask the question in the right category of Y!A, and sit back while others scramble to query my searches for me. Of course if Google had gone ahead and merged with Facebook, like should have happened in order to fullfill the 2012 doomsday prophecies, then we’d all be faith-full flock. Instead they will begin the perpetual cycle of making the internet into a gimpy circus; already, Google’s attempt to be omnipotent is turning the internet into somekind of a myspace-circus. It’s like, we tried to kill myspace and now it’s everywhere. Go ahead, delete your G+ account, and it will always haunt you. You will continue to receive personal results from some musician you don’t care about. And then have fun trying to watch Youtube without the constant invitation to upgrade your account.

  • http://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe Joe Youngblood

    Disagree. Bing paid for that access, Google isn’t playing nice. Why would Twitter and Facebook play with Google when Google wants to compete against them? Lousy excuse to use IMO. Google has a history of trying to buy the innovator or copying them, period. Google+ is just the latest iteration of that culture.

    Not that facebook is immune to this behavior either….

  • Jon Vanden Berg

    Why do people complain about what Google does?
    It’s their search engine, they can do with it whatever they want.  That’s what happens when you own something, you get certain rights to it.
    If they want to add G+, so be it.  Don’t like it, start your own search engine.
    Everyone complains about Google, but everyone contributed to using them, eventually making them the internet giant that they are.

  • http://www.socialcolleague.com/ JPMiddleton

    I agree it’s still hard to find what you want anywhere else, but I wouldn’t discount Facebook. 

  • Gregory Dinning

    Of course they’re going to try to cross- and up-sell.  That’s what companies do.  Who ever said that search results from a for-profit company are going to be unbiased?

    If you don’t like what Google does, then stop using Google.  Simple as that.

  • nagleonce

    Social makes search worse, not better, because social is so easy to spam. Look up our paper “Social is bad for search, and search is bad for social”.  The trouble with crowdsourcing is that crowds can be outsourced. You can buy “likes”, “+1s”, fake reviews, fake accounts, fake phone numbers for verifying the accounts, and fake IP addresses. It’s cheaper than running a link farm, and almost a respectable SEO technique now. A sizable fraction of Google+ accounts are known to be fake.

    Google claims they can weed out the fake accounts, but their track record with phony GMail accounts indicates they cannot. 

  • http://twitter.com/mattchantry Matt Chantry

    Everyone is doing the same thing now Ken. Even another firm mentioned in this article, TripAdvisor, take more and more steps towards social every day: http://www.screenpilot.com/blog/2012/05/is-hotel-review-site-tripadvisor-now-a-social-network/