Is Google Evil?

"Do no evil"

"In business, evil refers to unfair or unethical business practices. Firms that have a monopoly are often able to maintain the monopoly using tactics that are deemed unfair, and monopolies have the power to set prices at levels which are not socially efficient. Some people therefore consider monopolies to be evil. Economists do not generally consider monopolies to be 'evil' though they recognize that certain business practices by monopolies are often not in the public interest." - Wikipedia

Are Google a monopoly? I'd say yes. By definition (on Wikipedia - so take it with a pinch of salt) that would mean that Google are indeed Evil.

Google have often been said to "do no evil". Promoting free access to information for all. Arguing that ISP's shouldn't limit access to information. While I'm all for a free and fair internet and information at my fingertips, I am concerned at what the cost of "free" is. Power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"There are no free lunches!"

Or so I'm told. So if they aren't charging me money for this service what is the cost really? I came across an interesting article on "The Plot to Kill Google" - the real Google killers (so much for cuil - anyone heard of them since their launch?). However many do have compelling arguments as to why Google shouldn't be trusted.

While all of that is a good decent argument, I guess one should be pleased that someone is trying to monitor Google's activities.

On the other hand, it could be worse: Google Press Release
Okay so those are just for humor's sake. But imagine if they were actually true. Which is more evil. I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on the almighty Google for now.

By the way, all information was found searching with Ask.com

Google AdWords

Well, Google have done it again. Upgraded another great service. Only problem I see however is that with each and every update the service comes to a crawl.

Google AdWords have now had yet another update. The interface while more appealing and easier on the eye has gone the same way of the Analytics. Only problem is now it takes about 5 times longer for me to load. I think Google have forgotten that we in South Africa just don't have the connection speeds that Europe or North America do. A pity because when running multiple accounts it seems that things simply aren't working at times.

Okay the "previous interface" is available, for now. And while the "New Interface(Beta)" is still in Beta, why do they default to it. I guess with the enforced changes and updates of other popular sites such as Facebook. But possibly the most annoying thing for me at this time... the horizontal scroll! I've always hated it, always will! Okay so it overlaps just slightly, I still need to scroll to confirm the average position of the ads.

Google please offer those of us that have poor connections to view the older versions of these services. Yes, I know that we may even be missing out on some functionality, but at the end of the day I'd rather have limited functionality than none at all.

PageRank Update!!!

Like I care...

hehehehe...

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the PageRank craze. It looks like Google have run out another PageRank update. So far it would seem that many of our sites have seen a bump up in PageRank, and none come down as of yet. Guess from a cosmetic view I'm doing something right.

Too Cuil for You

Well it's been some time since the Google killer Cuil was launched and I've not heard much since. Launched to much fanfare and expectation I think this has to be the largest flop seen in years. I wonder just how much was put into this development in time and money? I wonder if any of the investors would be getting anything back?

As I've not used this search engine (mostly as I found it to be useless at launch) I can't comment too much on the accuracy of the search results but do know that the images displayed still don't quite match up. Nice try though. I think Google, Ask and even Live have better image results blended into their universal search.

Perhaps in time they will be able to make sense of "the largest directory of indexed pages". But for now the results seem to be outdated, irrelevant and at times just wrong. Was this what we expected of the ex-Googlers? Perhaps this is a prime example of why they are Ex Google folk?

PageRank the next Y2K?

PageRank… or is it really just a few green pixels? Every so often we hear of a new PR update and the craze that follows it. Has this addiction finally reached a pinnacle or has the worst yet to come? I shudder to think.

Funny enough, the name PageRank has little to do with actual web pages. The name is derived from Google founder and developer Larry Page, hence the name Page-Rank.

PageRank is defined by Google as: PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important".

This translates into a democratic internet where the sites with more links are deemed more important, but that links from these important sites are deemed to be more important too.

I am sure that anyone who has an email listed somewhere in cyberspace has had a link request that has included the: …please put a link to our site on a PR2+ page. Possibly the most concerning is that nobody really knows what the PageRank of any page truly is, so how can anyone really verify this? With the current PageRank updates coming out so very slowly, about 4 times a year, how would a young website ever be able to compete with an established website?

Most web users, with the Google Toolbar installed, assume that PageRank goes from one to ten. This is little more than a very (and I do mean VERY) rough guide as to the popularity of the page. In this case the 1 really represents something silly like 0.000001 and the 10 virtually immeasurable. This all remains very subjective to the number of pages and the number of links on indexed pages and which of them Google gives weight to or ranks highly. As you can tell quite quickly, that value of 1 to 10 really could represent anything.

Now I say it: I’m so very much over this PageRank craze!

Okay, now that that has been said. Links are important. Links are possibly the most important attribute when trying to rank a webpage for a particular search term. You need only have a look back upon all the Link Bombs from the past to see that by simply adding links to a site you can rank it for virtually any search phrase. The terms find chuck norris and miserable failure come to mind. It must be said however that while many of these tactics do work, they often don’t last for very long.

PageRank is indeed a very valuable concern when trying to rank for competitive phrases. And as the PageRank description points out that the more links the better, the more popular the website sending the link even better still. But I think we can all appreciate that the true nature of this recipe is as closely guarded as the Coca-Cola or KFC recipe – perhaps even more so.

But perhaps it is the next level of the PageRank that really makes the most difference – Trust Rank. As mentioned before PageRank is calculated by the number of incoming links and from which site these links are from. A newly created website has little weight when it comes to casting a “vote” to another website. A site that has been online and active for the past 5-10 years would pass a lot more weight along. Usually you will see that these older sites do indeed have a good few green pixels in that toolbar. But possibly the most important factor here would be the age and traffic Google themselves have passed on over time. This would go some way to establishing trust. If Google has never blacklisted a URL and it has remained active and current throughout all those years then perhaps it is very much trusted. This TrustRank could indeed prove to be the real PageRank over time.

While it may be difficult to evaluate the true trust value of a website, especially a new website, there are a few tell tale signs to look out for:

• Look for a security certificate; this is usually a good sign that someone else has already done the fine-tooth comb job for you.


• Check the websites back links. Remember trust is often created by links themselves; these links will indirectly be linking you to the rest of the internet.


• Check for indexed pages; this is where the green pixels do come in handy, if it has a visible PageRank then chances are that Google has ranked the page. It never hurts to use the site:www.domain-here.com command.

These are normally the easiest ways to establish the authenticity of website.

Links are very important in speeding up the indexing process to any new website as the more links that are incoming the more likely Google will notice your website. The weight of those links are more important than bulk. After all a site that has a high Trust Rank will pass on more weight to another page than a page that has 1000 links from spam websites.

As for right now, I believe that little green bar to be nothing but a big hoax as it is out dated, rarely updated and so far pretty meaningless, I wouldn’t give it any more credit than the Y2K bug. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google were to announce that its PageRank toolbar is little more than smoke and mirrors. If so, Larry Page is surely a better illusionist than David Copperfield.