Tom Usher wrote or added | Twitter & Digg are recommending whom to follow. "Social networking sites" are driving traffic to the lowest common denominator: "popular." Google ruined much of the Web by selling keywords. The rich get richer. Better, non-greedy ideas, get buried layers down, even though people might actually change if not for the deadly capitalist-herd mentality. It's getting like freeware that's nagware.
You may not think this is so bad, but consider that these capitalist sites are going to reinforce the user's existing greed or violence or depravity if that's where the user is. That's the problem!
Google was selling keywords? Tom, if you have the time, please explain. Or is it that I don't understand it because I am not on twitter? Even so, how can they sell words?
Well, Betty, I don't know when you first got on the Internet, but just in case you weren't on before Google appeared, search engines used to return the most obscure information without any consideration for the sites pockets. Some poor-as-a-church-mouse site could have really good content and be ranked right up there with the biggest sites with the most money backing them.
The two Google boys, were a couple of college-aged Jewish guys, focused on, what else, money. I don't mention that they are Jewish to attach the lust for money to Jewishness. Bill Gates isn't Jewish – enough said. Anyway, these two raised enough money for some 6,000 desktop computers that they linked together and then started offering search results but with a hitch. People could buy sponsored results. If you were a pizza chain and jumped in early, you could buy the term "pizza." If you paid the most for that term, then when anyone had "pizza" in his or her query, your pizza chain's website would pop up at the top of the search results under "sponsored links or results or whatever." I hated the idea right from the start. I knew it would screw things up.
Once the Google boys had enough money from doing that a bit (they still do it of course), they plowed it into more hardware and programming. Their algorithms have been written to return the "popular," which becomes a self-fulfilling thing. It's very difficult without big bucks to break through. Therefore, unless you are really interested in digging, you don't find the sources but rather mostly those who conglomerate – search around and gather other people's ideas and then rewrite them as if original. The name-brand writers get the attention off other people's hard work. It's not fair, and Google is largely responsible for the trend. Now Digg and Twitter are piling on so that the already more obscure will be buried that much deeper under those with money who don't labor nearly so hard and don't often have an original thought in their heads.
Google's algorithms also deliberately bury whatever the corporation deems to be more against the corporations desires, including political and social. My work was trashed in the rankings because I wrote about Zionism so much but also on homosexuality. Throw in the 9/11 stuff, and Google completely removed my blog at a crucial point in its development. I've never been able to regain the lost ground. At one point, I was showing up in the number-one spot on some fairly key terms, all without paying a dime. After about 3 months of being totally blocked, my traffic disappeared. Then when they let me back on, they had changed how they return results. Rather than being listed in real-time on every key word, I was place two and sometime three layers down, meaning someone would have to click special search links to get away from the deep-pocket results to see the likes of me who had more controversial things to say.
The next phase is the end of Net Neutrality and the bringing in of Murdoch's subscription model – turning the Internet into a newspaper stand, where only coughing up the money will get you anything more than a glance at the headlines from a distance. It's a selfish shame. We could have much better news under the nonprofit model and even better, the giving-and-sharing-all model.
Betty Molchany Tom, I believe you. On or about the time that I wrote an op-ed, "The Gaza Holocaust," which went all over the world, ugly things began to appear when a search was done of my name. But it was another search engine which was doing this and not Google. " Throw in the 9/11 stuff, and Google completely removed my blog at a crucial point in its development. I've never been able to regain the lost ground. At one point, I was showing up in the number-one spot on some fairly key terms, all without paying a dime."
What I had asked you about was the sale of keywords.
By the way, I began on the Internet around 1998. A year or so later, a search of my name produced 1,200 hits. Now, it is down to a few.
Betty, you wrote, "What I had asked you about was the sale of keywords."
Correct, and I answered: "If you were a pizza chain and jumped in early, you could buy the term "pizza." If you paid the most for that term, then when anyone had "pizza" in his or her query, your pizza chain's website would pop up at the top of the search results under 'sponsored links or results or whatever.'" That's selling keywords.
You can buy any word or phrase you want. You bid for your placement/ranking.
If you were superrich and a Zionist and wanted the Jewish ADL to pop at the top on the search on "Zionist," you could buy that term and make it happen. Once the ADL has a history of hits, it's ranked high on the unpaid-results too.
However, Google doesn't stop there. They've sunk sites that haven't fit Google's "policies" of political correctness. Mine is an example.
Oh, sorry, I missed that point, Tom. Was reading too quickly, which I cannot do properly at any time. :-) I had thought that the way to get to the top was to keep clicking on a site until its numbers expand to the top of those with hits. But now that you tell me that one can buy a keyword, that should help to direct the flow of traffic to that site. Oh, dear. We can can't [meant: count] on nothing anymore - or could we ever?
No problem, Betty. You're easy to communicate with. Of all my FB friends, you're the best at doing what you just did: just saying you missed something. That signifies with me. Everyone should be that way. Perhaps it's your legal training, but you're also very upfront about seeking needed and reasonable clarifications. That's a good trait too. Some people can't handle it. They take offense too easily. I think it develops better understanding though, so you get kudos from me for that too.
You should watch this, Betty. What they did to Alex, they did to me too.
They've probably done it to tens of thousands with many of those people not even knowing. Who looks at one's Google positioning everyday or week or even month? Many bloggers who write very serious and well researched articles don't. If they write things that really upset the Empire (I do): censored.