• http://pagerage-stugod.blogspot.com/ STUART GODDARD

    One of the most interesting posts I have ever read.. Of course that is how it should work. Still waiting for the miracle

  • http://www.clickfire.com/ Emory Rowland

    Very cool analogy. What happens when Google starts doing this for political and not just commercial motives?

  • ChrisFree

    1.Wouldn’t it be nice if the feature
    were optional and could be turned-off
    or not activated in the first place.

    2. Wouldn’t it have been nice if the twitter toy-store would
    have simply played nice with Santa so the Google elves
    could have found better ways to access to their toys-list
    so Santa could be more miracle-like.

    3. Wouldn’t it be nice if could simply
    take the kids to the Gimbels’ Santa
    if you didn’t like the Macy’s Santa.

    Miracles can happen.

  • TimmyTime

    Looks like Google is about to reverse this, other Danny would not have written it. Or is hell freezing over?

    A few points Danny: I am all for SEs to do what they want, assuming they are honest. If you want to promote advertisers, partners, or your content, fine. Do it, but the financial interest has to be disclosed clearly and the SE has to say that they are biased. Without going in too much detail, it has been pointed several times the tricks that are played with colors and font size for “Ads” and organic search hidden by ads and SE’s own content.

    If you say that you are impartial and show your content first regardless of merit, then you deserve a crippling fine.

    I too remember the dark days, but that was before there was serious money to be made. Google and even Bing can make a lot of money by placing 2 (TWO) clearly marked ads on top and others on the side. If you aim to make $100 billion a year, then something has to give, and that thing is objectivity. Google was making a lot of money before 2007 too, wasn’t it Danny? But they want more and more and more. Where is it going to come from when now it’s almost a zero sum game? Sites. What type of websites is Google going to hurt in June? What about next February?

    Panda and what Bing did should be investigated, along their algorithms. Why? Because both Google and Bing say that they are unbiased and show what is the best answer for the users. So let us see for ourselves. If they lied all the people need to go to jail and all their assets seized, just as the Feds do to crooked Wall Street firms that play their own book .

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    Google has responded to Twitter, on it’s official page at Google+:

    “We are a bit surprised by Twitter’s comments about Search plus Your World, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us last summer (http://goo.gl/chKwi), and since then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions.”

  • mesel

    Regarding twitter/google deal – Google just paid $900M to firefox in order to renew a deal which will no longer be necessary as chrome/android continue skyrocket. So the claim that google did not want to pay a fraction of that to keep the twitter firehose working are clearly weak.

    The bigger issue had to be the terms that twitter was possibly imposing and how it could potentially limit what you see today – google search plus google+. Keep in mind that at Google’s scale, more often than not it’s not about the dollar cost but the opportunity cost. $11B for motorola mobility should drive that home.

  • TimmyTime

    “and since then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions.””

    uh, no you haven’t. Or tweets have many outside links, you can try site:twitter.com if you do not believe me. Twitter was asking around $100 million a year (or maybe for 3 years) so a sane person finds it hard to believe that Google would not want all that data for what amounts to peanuts. Erik Schmidt’s bonus was more than $100 million last year and by having Twitter’s data Google had access to lots and lots of quality signals.

  • http://nowsend.blogspot.com Dr Thomas M Campbell

    Google has the right to do whatever they want.

    That said, Google should not forget Prodigy, or America Online, or Yahoo. All of which, at one time, had vast control over the web. And all of which, as a result of overexerting that control, forced their customers away. People flocked to Google because it worked better. It gave better results. If Google inbreeds with itself, it will simply become weakened.

    Google can change whatever they want to but I feel they best remember they aren’t the only people who can design a search engine and their entire existence is based on how well they operate as a search engine.

  • http://deepfootprints.co.uk/ Joel Chudleigh

    I think that 2 things are motivating Google to make some poor decisions over the past year and they are both tied to each other:

    1) Fear of other social networks.
    2) Pressure from stock holders for profit.

    Now they have to balance an ethical policy with financial profit. These two do not actually have to be at odds, like you so quite rightly point out with the Santa on 34th Analogy but it seems that some of the senior people in Google have taken fear to heart and do not have the guts to take a gamble on long term success and instead are pushing for short term profits to please wall st.

    They are taking the gamble that users will do what they (Google) want in the short term which could potentially sink a number of other social networks (they think) and then all will be forgotten and Google will be the hero again.

    However, they are probably too late in the game to pull that off and will end up causing themselves some serious damage.

  • http://www.digologyMarketing.com D.M.

    Yes, let’s fine this free service for using the platform they created to provide content to you that you signed up to see (the Google+account you set up, which shows you content from people you chose to follow). I’m not a Google fan girl. I know what havoc they wreak with their considerable control. But get a grip.

  • http://www.mindshareworld.com Ciarán Norris

    “NOTE: Miracle On 34th Street imagine blatantly taken from IMDb. I hope they’ll forgive me”

    I’m pretty sure you don’t need to ask IMDb, but you might want to ask these guys http://www.fox.co.uk/legal/terms ;)