__/ [ hug ] on Wednesday 22 February 2006 12:42 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>If Google bans a site, it's banned. It's inexistent and requires a
>>re-inclusion request to ever appear among the search results again.
> The whole thing is becoming a joke. The tail is wagging the dog so
> hard its little puppy head is banging against the wall. It reminds me
> of MSDN a few years back, you simply had to be a member or the world
> was going to fall down all over your head and squish you into nothing
> but a grease-spot. Now google is in the spotlight. When google first
> appeared a number of years ago I started using it because simply put
> it provided better search results than my previous fave (altavista).
> But now what it provides is ads, ads, and more ads, then lots of
> irrelevant matches, then at about page N-1 the results actually being
> looked for, if you're lucky. The thing doesn't behave like a search
> engine anymore, it behaves like an ad delivery system.
> SEO is fine to a point. People whose sites are ad-based and paid for
> by traffic need traffic, but people whose sites sell products don't
> need traffic they need sales. Both groups are letting themselves be
> jerked around by one single search engine that panders to ads. So if
> your site is ad-based just give google money and you will have
> traffic, and if your site is product-based make it robot-friendly but
> instead of wasting your time jumping through page-wanking hoops work
> on product. Whether your site is ad-based or product-based if you
> have something worth their time, people will find it somehow; ng's,
> blogs, forums, gosh even word-of-mouth. And whether your site is
> ad-based or product-based, if you have nothing people care about you
> will gather dust comparatively speaking no matter what you do.
> The idea of losing sleep over which keywords in which tags will get
> the best google pr is just silly imo. Oh well, often I don't get it
> for a long time then the light goes on, maybe someday I'll see the
> light and bow down before the great and wonderful google. LOL.
On the other hand, with no intention of depleting from your arguments,
people are lazy. People choose routes that require the least amount of
work and I too *gasp* use Google for many of my search needs. Very often I
put a name of a program in the GoogleBar and hit the fig leaf. It is some-
times quicker than browsing my bookmarks, which are handy under different
Google has geared up owing to momentum and public opinion. Advertisements,
which should be largely attributed to the IPO, are slowly killing that
company. Google are victim of their own success and those who want to cash
in so long as they rise. The ads simply come to show the dangers of
_greed_. If not its (Google's) finance, its image is eroded. It will one
day explode, unless their ideaology reverts back to Googenesis, 1998.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Lions are like hippie tigers"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:10pm up 5 days 3:29, 9 users, load average: 0.79, 0.46, 0.42
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms