This house would stop Google from taking over the world.

Selected Version - Version 2 (Current Version) : 20 Jan 2012 | 13:22 | NADIA999

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted

Changes from Version 1 to Version 2

On the point: Advertisers paying for top placement have to work for it as well


"Even some of Google's advertising customers complain that the company sometimes appears cavalier about their concerns. That's partly because of the very technology on which it's built. Its search-ad business runs on a pointedly opaque set of complex mathematical formulas that give high placement to ads based not simply on which marketers pay the most but on how many people click on them and other factors. That prods advertisers to create better ads and more relevant Web pages to which the ads send them. But such a system leaves advertisers to guess which ads work best and how much to pay for top placement, and the ranking can change without warning. "Yeah, they say they're not evil, but you have to trust them," says Anil Kamath, chief technology officer at Efficient Frontier, which helps advertisers run search ad campaigns. "It's difficult for advertisers to figure out what's going on." The secrecy surrounding the "black box" of search advertising remains particularly galling to some advertisers when it comes to the issue of click fraud. That refers to an array of schemes by which nefarious Web site operators generate fake clicks on Google ads to make money or hurt competitors. Until recently, Google said only that it believed the incidence of click fraud was very low. Some advertisers believe Google ignored their claims. In early March the company released more data on click fraud and said it would offer more tools to combat it."- [[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_15/b4029001.htm]]
Google's policies are so fair/libertarian that it's unfair to Google's customers. When a customer pays to get website views, that customer expects his/her website to be in one of the top results. The problem is that the placement of related search results is contingent upon how many views/hits the website is already getting, which makes paying for a top spot largely pointless. The other issue is ofcourse that Google should not be selling top search result slots and it should all be based on merit. (how popular a website really is)

Everybody wants top placement, Google can only do so much to satisfy customers. As for the morals of selling top placement, why shouldn't Google have the right to do that?  
The thing is, if customers were not okay for buying top placement and making the effort to maintain their position they would not buy Google's services.  
Google is striking a balance between merit and paid advertising.

Yes, because... Advertisers paying for top placement have to work for it as well

 

No, because...

"Even some of Google's advertising customers complain that the company sometimes appears cavalier about their concerns. That's partly because of the very technology on which it's built. Its search-ad business runs on a pointedly opaque set of complex mathematical formulas that give high placement to ads based not simply on which marketers pay the most but on how many people click on them and other factors. That prods advertisers to create better ads and more relevant Web pages to which the ads send them. But such a system leaves advertisers to guess which ads work best and how much to pay for top placement, and the ranking can change without warning. "Yeah, they say they're not evil, but you have to trust them," says Anil Kamath, chief technology officer at Efficient Frontier, which helps advertisers run search ad campaigns. "It's difficult for advertisers to figure out what's going on." The secrecy surrounding the "black box" of search advertising remains particularly galling to some advertisers when it comes to the issue of click fraud. That refers to an array of schemes by which nefarious Web site operators generate fake clicks on Google ads to make money or hurt competitors. Until recently, Google said only that it believed the incidence of click fraud was very low. Some advertisers believe Google ignored their claims. In early March the company released more data on click fraud and said it would offer more tools to combat it."-[1] Google's policies are so fair/libertarian that it's unfair to Google's customers. When a customer pays to get website views, that customer expects his/her website to be in one of the top results. The problem is that the placement of related search results is contingent upon how many views/hits the website is already getting, which makes paying for a top spot largely pointless. The other issue is ofcourse that Google should not be selling top search result slots and it should all be based on merit. (how popular a website really is)

  1. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_15/b4029001.htm

 

Everybody wants top placement, Google can only do so much to satisfy customers. As for the morals of selling top placement, why shouldn't Google have the right to do that?

The thing is, if customers were not okay for buying top placement and making the effort to maintain their position they would not buy Google's services.

Google is striking a balance between merit and paid advertising.

 
22 February 2011