GeekNights 071119 - The Prehistoric Internet

Rym

Tonight on GeekNights, we talk about Google past and present. In the news, you don't need this processor, and Tiny URLs are dangerous to the web?
Scott's Thing - The Mona Lisa

Rym's Thing - Knights of Cydonia

Neito

I read that whole TinyURL thing. While I can understand why Twitter, or anyone who needs to put URLs in a non-clickable or space-limited format, would use such a service, I don't get why people would use this for their personal websites, or anything but putting URLs in a non-clickable or space-limited format.

But, people do a lot of things that I don't get.

Sail

Yay Muse.

Ryan

I've used tinyurl in the past for forum signatures that had a character limit.

chaosof99

The only thing I can see use in tinyurl is as a dereferer, but I am not sure if this is actually a service of them and I believe there are better services for that. I never use such things anyway when linking to anything and I don't see any reason why anybody would.

Conan-San

I've used tinyurl in the past for forum signatures that had a character limit.

What he said, it's actualy recomended on some fourms. The names of such would invoke me being killed so I'll leave it up to everyone to think about.

HMTKSteve

My beef with Google has nothing to do with their search results, it's all about their hypocrisy. They have no problem supporting Network Neutrality (no tolls for Internet other than your basic connection charge)and lobbying the FCC to add open access rules to the 700mhz spectrum auction (no locking devices out) yet they have no problem locking their competitors out of their organic search results and making them pay for a sponsored search spot even when searching for the businesses name (text link ads).

Look at Android, it's not so much about creating an open cell phone OS as it is about insuring Google gets a spot on cell phones to sell advertising. That is likely why Google lost about $100 in share price since the Android press conference. People were expecting the G-Phone and were disappointed in what Google delivered (not entirely Google's fault).

The one failing in Google's algorithm is that they look at anchor text on links which allows them to be gamed they way people used to use meta tags to game search results. Page Rank, which is supposed to be an internal Google metric, should never have been made public. I think Google made it public as a way to carrot/stick webmasters but sites like text link ads turned it around and used it to game Google's SERPs.

Now Google is going out and zeroing out a lot of website's Page Rank numbers in an effort to stop paid links but I think it is backfiring because it paints Google in the light of an angry kid that takes its toys back when it does not get its way. It also makes Page Rank irrelevant when you see Google arbitrarily knocking sites from PR5 to PR0 just for selling some ads. If the content is still the same why the PR drop?

What I find very ironic is the way people defend Google when you point out that they are hypocritical. The standard response you get is one of love towards Google and "all corporations do it". It's never a defense of the hypocrisy charge, I guess that can not be defended against other than by saying "everybody does it"?

Rym

The one failing in Google's algorithm
Google has never failed me in a search if what I was looking for actually existed.  The algorithm, from a consumer perspective, is near perfect.
 Now Google is going out and zeroing out a lot of website's Page Rank numbers in an effort to stop paid links but I think it is backfiring because it paints Google in the light of an angry kid that takes its toys back when it does not get its way.Actually, it makes Google look like a hero to the consumers.  Google wrecking some SEO scammer only helps their reputation as the best search provider in the world, and they have never zeroed out a site that had any actual worthwhile content.
 It also makes Page Rank irrelevant when you see Google arbitrarily knocking sites from PR5 to PR0 just for selling some ads.I say it makes Page Rank better, since they trim the fat and garbage away, making the actual rank mean more in the real world.
 If the content is still the same why the PR drop?In those cases, someone at Google simply noticed that the site in question was SEO garbage and did what I want and expect them to do.

...

It also makes Page Rank irrelevant

Was it ever relevant? As for Page Rank being made public, people could vote for sites. The Google search bar in IE had the pagerank, and a nice thumb up and a bad thumb down to vote for the site. It was probably used to indicate to the consumer, "Hey, this is the average grade people gave this site."

As for the G-phone. Rumour mill. I'm pretty sure that rumour mills have destroyed companies before, and you can see that the rumour mill strikes but Google is big enough to survive that.

Apreche

Steve, get over it. Google search is not a promotional tool for webmasters to get traffic. It's for searchers to find websites. Google has never failed me in finding exactly what I'm looking for. If Google always seems to find useful and relevant sites, and it isn't finding your site, that can only mean your site isn't useful or relevant. If you want more traffic, Google sells AdWords which you are free to buy.

HMTKSteve

If you want more traffic, Google sells AdWords which you are free to buy.

That is the key. Google is all about "Network Neutrality" yet it will block a site from organic search results but "let" them buy their way in via AdWords. If the site is so bad as to be banned from organic results why let them buy their way in via AdWords? Google says the infrastructure companies should not be allowed to filter traffic or block sites on the Internet but that is what Google does when it removes a site from their index.

I get less than 10% of my search traffic from Google but they control about 67% of the search traffic out there. How would you react if you did a search on Google for "Front Row Crew" and this site did not come up at all? What if you did a search for "New York Times" and the only link to nytimes.com was in the sponsored search section?

Buy into AdWords? Are you insane? There is far too much click fraud in the AdSense program for me to ever buy into AdWords. I prefer to buy ad space directly from websites that cover the same topics as mine.

I can't help but see Google as a 'pusher'. They come along and give you a ton of 'free' traffic. Then, once you are hooked, they pull it out from under you and tell you that now you have to 'buy' the traffic.

clx

Ah, I still remember pre-Google Internet.
I have a question for everyone, how did you discover Google? and what was your initial impression?

For me I was doing a project with a few other people, we had no access to a library on our subject, so we were searching the Internet. One person tried their favorite search engine, some one else tried another and so forth, but no one could get any good information. Then some one came along and said "Oh, you can't find any information? have you tried this search engine? its new but I found it useful" We all looked at the screen and were quite stunned by the lack of.. anything. but we were all amazed by the results, they were so much more relevant then results from any other site, so amazed in fact that we passed the address on to anyone who was on a pc, if they were searching or not

aaahh the good old days.

Apreche

If you want more traffic, Google sells AdWords which you are free to buy.

That is the key. Google is all about "Network Neutrality" yet it will block a site from organic search results but "let" them buy their way in via AdWords. If the site is so bad as to be banned from organic results why let them buy their way in via AdWords? Google says the infrastructure companies should not be allowed to filter traffic or block sites on the Internet but that is what Google does when it removes a site from their index.

I get less than 10% of my search traffic from Google but they control about 67% of the search traffic out there. How would you react if you did a search on Google for "Front Row Crew" and this site did not come up at all? What if you did a search for "New York Times" and the only link to nytimes.com was in the sponsored search section?

Google not listing your site is not comparable to your ISP shaping or blocking traffic. People can still go to your site just fine whether or not it shows up on Google. Google is not some gatekeeper that prevents people from going to your site. They just help people find sites when they know what they want, but don't know a specific URL. As it stands, if you search for Front Row Crew, we show up first. New York Times also shows up. This is why Google is so heavily used. It finds the correct site almost every time. If we are to examine your hypothetical question, if New York Times did not show up, then nobody would be using Google because it would be a shitty search engine.

Why do they let you buy AdWords? Because that's how they make money. That's the way the business works. When you search for something, it is in the search results. If you think that your site is relevant, but Google doesn't, they allow you to pay money to have your link in the ad section. I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. Even if I made a site about sheep and bought AdWords for iPhones and pointed it at my sheep site, Google doesn't give a crap. They make money from that, and it doesn't diminish the quality of their search results to the users, which is what allows Google to stay #1.

Buy into AdWords? Are you insane? There is far too much click fraud in the AdSense program for me to ever buy into AdWords. I prefer to buy ad space directly from websites that cover the same topics as mine.

I can't help but see Google as a 'pusher'. They come along and give you a ton of 'free' traffic. Then, once you are hooked, they pull it out from under you and tell you that now you have to 'buy' the traffic.

Google isn't giving you free traffic. I think the problem here is not Google, but you being addicted to traffic like it's some sort of drug. Stop giving a shit about traffic. You care so much about your stupid traffic, you obviously don't care about your actual content on your site. That's why your sites are shit, nobody wants to go to them, and they don't show up on Google search results. Ignore your goddamn traffic. Ignore your ads. Ignore the money. Just concentrate fully on making your site the best site it can be, and make it as useful as possible for the visitors. If you make your site the best it can possibly be for the visitor, you can't lose. Following that philosophy is what got, and keeps, Google where it is today. The reason you hate Google is because your philosophy is the exact opposite of theirs. As you are right now, normal web people, and Google, consider you to be on the level of an evil spammer. You are a nuisance, and we want you to go away. You are on the same level as the RIAA dicking over its customers and complaining about losing money.

Google is a company which makes it easier for people to find and access information. The fact that they are so good at it is why their stock price is so ludicrously high, and why people keep using it. From the perspective of people searching on Google, you are the evil. You are trying to make Google shittier for your own benefit. You are trying to make Google search less useful for the user just so you can make a few extra bucks without having to do real work, and without having to do anything that is actually useful to people. Google speaks for all of us users by giving you two giant middle fingers, exactly what you deserve.

You can't go around complaining about a system that has made such a significant and positive change in so many people's lives, or try to sabotage that system, and expect sympathy. Either change, get over it, or shut the fuck up.

xenomouse

Google says the infrastructure companies should not be allowed to filter traffic or block sites on the Internet but that is what Google does when it removes a site from their index.Did your site(s) get removed from the Google index?

Rochelle

Since there won't be a Thursday episode, perhaps a continuation of one of the Questions Week podcasts that you have saved for a rainy day? ^_~

HMTKSteve

Google says the infrastructure companies should not be allowed to filter traffic or block sites on the Internet but that is what Google does when it removes a site from their index.

Did your site(s) get removed from the Google index?

No, I have been largely unaffected by the recent Google Page Rank slaps. Only one site was affected and it went from PR3 to PR4.

If we are to examine your hypothetical question, if New York Times did not show up, then nobody would be using Google because it would be a shitty search engine.

Do a search for text link ads.

xenomouse

No, I have been largely unaffected by the recent Google Page Rank slaps. Only one site was affected and it went from PR3 to PR4.It doesn't seem like you've been really affected by the process you're attacking, so I'm wondering why it's bugging you so much.

HMTKSteve

No, I have been largely unaffected by the recent Google Page Rank slaps. Only one site was affected and it went from PR3 to PR4.

It doesn't seem like you've been really affected by the process you're attacking, so I'm wondering why it's bugging you so much.

It bugs me because the people who spend advertising dollars look at Google Page Rank when assessing the value of the ads they buy. This bothers me because there is nothing I can do in regards to Page Rank.

I'm not good at analogies but I see this as my competitor giving advice to my client. Google would much rather that I run AdSense on my site and use them as a middle man to sell ads. I don't want to do that, it puts far too much control in Google's hands. They are also far to cavalier in screwing over their AdSense publishers to keep their AdWords customers happy. Without AdSense publishers Adwords would be dead.

An advertiser that bases his ad buying on Alexa is just as foolish but Alexa is unbiased (even though easily gamed outside of the 10K and lower range).

That is my main beef with Google.

Apreche

Do a search fortext link ads.

What does that have to do with anything?

...

Do a search fortext link ads.

First result bring you to a site about text link ads. Exactly as one would expect from Google. Relevant results.

HMTKSteve

Do a search fortext link ads.

First result bring you to a site about text link ads. Exactly as one would expect from Google. Relevant results.

Yet no result for text link ads (dot) com except in the sponsored section? If you search for "New York Times" will the first result be a site talking about the New York Times or the New York Times site itself?

I am looking forward to SocialSpark. Giving advertisers a metric that is based on traffic (page views, hits, uniques, etc...) is far better than giving them an Page Rank number arbitrarily assigned by Google.

Google is known to have a problem dealing with Digg and Wikipedia in that there are cases where the digg or wikipedia link will rank higher than the actual article. Think of Scott's blog article last week that was on the digg home page. Imagine searching for that article and finding the first page of Google results pointing to digg and blogs that linked to Scott's blog and the link to Scott's article appearing on the second page of Google results.

...

You mean this?

Text Links Ads, Inc
www.TextLinksAds.com 10,000s of Text Link Ads For Sale From $10/m. Get $100 of Free Links!

*points to the words 'Inc' 'Sale' and the price* That's a company trying to make money. It does not provide information about text link ads. The New York Times provides news, information. People use Google to find information, and Google Product Search if they want to buy something.

Apreche

Yet no result for text link ads (dot) com except in the sponsored section? If you search for "New York Times" will the first result be a site talking about the New York Times or the New York Times site itself?

It's the NYT itself. Also, just because a site has the URL of foobar.com doesn't mean that it is therefore automatically the most relevant site if someone searches for foobar. For example if you search for front row, without the crew, Apples Front Row software is the #1 result, as it should be, while frontrow.com is a few links down.

Google is known to have a problem dealing with Digg and Wikipedia in that there are cases where the digg or wikipedia link will rank higher than the actual article. Think of Scott's blog article last week that was on the digg home page. Imagine searching for that article and finding the first page of Google results pointing to digg and blogs that linked to Scott's blog and the link to Scott's article appearing on the second page of Google results.

If the Digg page has a higher result than my site, that must mean more people are linking to the digg post than to my blog. That carries with it the implication that people find the Digg article with comments containing a link to my site more relevant than the article on my site itself. It's a good thing too, because all the URLs on my blog changed when I switched the webserver to lighttpd and threw away the htaccess file. Also, Wikipedia is very often the most useful link when people are searching for information. It is only natural that it will show up so often. If this really is a problem, and does make search crappier for users, then Google will fix it as they always have.

DJ_Katsuhiko_Jinnai

Hmm... Have a great Turkey Con day!

...

It's a good thing too, because all the URLs on my blog changed when I switched the webserver to lighttpd and threw away the htaccess file.

Old link has already been thrown out of Google. At least the first 3 pages.

Apreche

It's a good thing too, because all the URLs on my blog changed when I switched the webserver to lighttpd and threw away the htaccess file.

Old link has already been thrown out of Google. At least the first 3 pages.

As it should be.

HMTKSteve

Let me ask you this: Do you think an advertiser should consider a site's Google Page Rank when deciding on whether or not to advertise on a site and setting an advertising rate?

Apreche

Let me ask you this: Do you think an advertiser should consider a site's Google Page Rank when deciding on whether or not to advertise on a site and setting an advertising rate?

If I were advertising on the Internet, I would only advertise on huge sites where I know I'm going to get a return, or across a huge number of sites with geo or demographic targeting. I would either buy ads on Penny Arcade, AdWords, Federated Media, Facebook targeting, etc. If a site wasn't stupidly popular, or if it didn't have a large and attentive community, I would ignore it entirely. Pagerank would mean nothing to me. In reality, if I had money for advertising, I probably wouldn't do any Internet ads at all.

HMTKSteve

OK Scott, lets say you have $1K to do a run of ads for GeekNights (the money was free but you have to use it to advertise within one particular network's member sites). You have narrowed your selection down to 10 sites, all of them are in the same Alexa range with similar traffic numbers and content.

However, of these ten sites each of them has a different Page Rank number, from 0 to 9. All other things being equal do you do you spend all your money getting ten times the ads on the PR9 site or do you spread it around and buy a mixture?

What if each site costs $100 per month?

What if each site costs (PR*$100) per month?

Apreche

If I was forced to, I'd buy ads on whichever site had a demographic of visitors who were likely to enjoy GeekNights. I would also only advertise on a site that I personally felt was a good site worth visiting, and not someone just trying to make money without working.

HMTKSteve

If I was forced to, I'd buy ads on whichever site had a demographic of visitors who were likely to enjoy GeekNights. I would also only advertise on a site that I personally felt was a good site worth visiting, and not someone just trying to make money without working.

I already stated that you have whittled down the list of sites to these ten. ALL of them have exactly what you are looking for and the only factor that makes them different is the Page Rank.