UPDATE: Hypothesis appears DISproved. After under an hour Google has correctly posted Technology-Report.com’s coverage of this issue “yahoo bing search” ahead of JoeDuck.com’s at Google Blog Search. This is the RIGHT answer. Good work Google!
(( This is mostly an SEO test post – please ignore or read at your peril. If you were looking for a political argument, please see other posts ))
OK, so the “real” and meatier post is over here: Yahoo / Bing Search Update, but I predict Google is going to index this one way above that one for the reasons I discuss …. over there! JoeDuck is an old site and has a lot more Google Authority than Technology Report , so even though I’ve got a picture of over there of me hanging with no less than Google CEO Eric Schmidt, I’m thinking this one will get a much higher rank for “Yahoo Bing Search” than the real post at Technology Report which is far more insightful and relevant than this one. Hmmm.
SEO–like Shekels Efficiency Operator??
(j-k. It’s the holy S.E. Optimizer function). I wager they relate it to…cash, with some complex algorithm which lists money-making blogs and sites (not only just # of hits, but thats relevant)–say Slate– above…blogs which don’t make much revenue (Joe Duck, apparently). Simple loser blogs (ie New Worlds) just don’t appear in the searches at all, except with some tweaking (ie, “tweaking” new worlds, perps, Glenn Beck etc).
That said, Google’s ad programs are, per those philosophers Penn and Teller, mostly …bull-sh*t. (Maybe put a call into Herr Schmidt for some blog-stipends).
Even with my many concerns about Google’s clever economic opportunism, I think you are too cynical Horatiox. Even a whiff of that approach would undermine Google’s credibility to the extent they’d lose a lot of market share. That isn’t to say it’s not about money, but in this case Google’s best long term self interest really does coincide with the quality, though this has yet to be tested well. If, for example, Google had to choose between a slight reduction in search quality and a massive reduction in revenues, I think they’d take the cash. Folks I know there would bristle at that notion, but I’d argue this has already happened. One example are the ads placed directly above organic results that many people think are not ads. I don’t think they are WRONG to do this, I just think they need to be more honest about their self interests and how these change the search landscape.
… you are too cynical Horatiox
Dankeschoen! And you, Mr Duck, may be overly optimistic. I’m not opposed to anyone making money by blogging, but that’s quite rare. Any normal citizen who thinks that vis a vis SEOs or Google’s “analytics” they will convert their 50 hits into 5000 in a few weeks, and their one or two shekel-a- day into hundreds–well, Eric Schmidt’s got some ocean-front property in Pahrump he wants to sell you. That’s not really what blogging’s about anyhoo.
Google has for a few years (since like taking over blogspot) been pitching their ad plans (as have others–blog ads, etc) but apart from a few big sites the ads are mostly fluff. Any real revenue due to a sale of a product online goes to the vendors themselves (and …Schmidt & Co), and blog-person rarely even receives a finder’s fee. In short, Google’s not too respected for their shark-like business practices (or you-tube practices).