Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

dpam · 11-18-2003, 09:28 AM

I don't disagree that they have significant responsibility - but I don't agree that they 'owe' any site any more than a 'fair' algorithm or process, or an honest attempt at creating one. Nobody in this game is unaware that the algo is subject to change at any time - we hope it will be fair, we hope it won't knock us down (yet are happy when it bumps us up), we know we won't exactly understand it - but we knew the terms when we started playing. Their ball, their rules. Their feet should go to the fire for screw ups, and if this 'Florida' update turns out to be one then some of this heat is deserved - but a large part of my point was that the folks complaining don't help by screaming bloody murder in an inarticulate fashion or by mixing up issues that aren't a part of this update. (I'm speaking of a lot of the theatre going on over at WMW.)

Having said that, Google is clearly a bit sloppy and arrogent. There would be no harm in doing what you suggest and running at one data-center for a week or so. (Although folks who liked that result better would undoubtedly scream to speed up the distribuion...). I also think there is no reason for them playing coy with this 'black hat' stuff - just post a list of activities that will get a site banned. In this regard they promote all the 'test the limits' behaviour. They could offer a lot more transparency without exposing the algo itself or giving up proprietary info or legal indepenence (I think a lot of this is avoiding making statements they don't want one day to hear read-back in court.)

I understand your argument about their moral responsiblity to the businesses they serve. I'd argue that they have just as large a moral obligation to the business in position 245 who should be in position 4 - the sword cuts both ways.

I also think that they should get some room to do their work, and even screw up a bit, so long as they fix it. They shouldn't be reckless, and we shouldn't be unreasonable. Companies like Google get big and powerful but it is still just a bunch of people trying to do their work - they don't get proportionally smarter as their status rises, and to some degree they probably find themselves in unfamiliar territory.

They need to rise to the occasion, and so do we. I see this same situation in the affiliate world, where a million whiners complain and complain about everything under the sun, mostly in red-faced and unintelligible fashion, and in the end the valid rational complaints are washed away by the moronic flamers who it seems have personal issues far more troubling than their professional ones. Someone with a little time, talent, and the inclination could do wonders for this industry by describing the issues well and knowing how to get the press involved. There is a Business Week cover story in this, but only if the two sides of the issue are clearly marked - get 1000 significant web site operators on one side of a clear, resonable debate with Google and you've got 500 press articles in two weeks. Who's gonna step up? It's a tough gig and I don't know why anyone would really want the hassle - the tragedy of the commons I guess.

11-18-2003, 09:28 AM	#79 (permalink)
dpam Inactive Join Date: 10-13-03 Location: Nearly the East Coast Posts: 35 iTrader: 0 / 0% Latest Blog: None	I don't disagree that they have significant responsibility - but I don't agree that they 'owe' any site any more than a 'fair' algorithm or process, or an honest attempt at creating one. Nobody in this game is unaware that the algo is subject to change at any time - we hope it will be fair, we hope it won't knock us down (yet are happy when it bumps us up), we know we won't exactly understand it - but we knew the terms when we started playing. Their ball, their rules. Their feet should go to the fire for screw ups, and if this 'Florida' update turns out to be one then some of this heat is deserved - but a large part of my point was that the folks complaining don't help by screaming bloody murder in an inarticulate fashion or by mixing up issues that aren't a part of this update. (I'm speaking of a lot of the theatre going on over at WMW.) Having said that, Google is clearly a bit sloppy and arrogent. There would be no harm in doing what you suggest and running at one data-center for a week or so. (Although folks who liked that result better would undoubtedly scream to speed up the distribuion...). I also think there is no reason for them playing coy with this 'black hat' stuff - just post a list of activities that will get a site banned. In this regard they promote all the 'test the limits' behaviour. They could offer a lot more transparency without exposing the algo itself or giving up proprietary info or legal indepenence (I think a lot of this is avoiding making statements they don't want one day to hear read-back in court.) I understand your argument about their moral responsiblity to the businesses they serve. I'd argue that they have just as large a moral obligation to the business in position 245 who should be in position 4 - the sword cuts both ways. I also think that they should get some room to do their work, and even screw up a bit, so long as they fix it. They shouldn't be reckless, and we shouldn't be unreasonable. Companies like Google get big and powerful but it is still just a bunch of people trying to do their work - they don't get proportionally smarter as their status rises, and to some degree they probably find themselves in unfamiliar territory. They need to rise to the occasion, and so do we. I see this same situation in the affiliate world, where a million whiners complain and complain about everything under the sun, mostly in red-faced and unintelligible fashion, and in the end the valid rational complaints are washed away by the moronic flamers who it seems have personal issues far more troubling than their professional ones. Someone with a little time, talent, and the inclination could do wonders for this industry by describing the issues well and knowing how to get the press involved. There is a Business Week cover story in this, but only if the two sides of the issue are clearly marked - get 1000 significant web site operators on one side of a clear, resonable debate with Google and you've got 500 press articles in two weeks. Who's gonna step up? It's a tough gig and I don't know why anyone would really want the hassle - the tragedy of the commons I guess.