fear91

Note: It's not a result provided by a neutral algorithm. Contrary to what debunkers want to say, it has been hard coded.

For example, search for other often occuring words such as those:

"over" "before" "using" "between"

Those searches give a listing of companies having these words in their description.

Searching for "sell" redirects straight to Apple stock even though many other descriptions have this word in them. Several have way higher density of the "sell" word than the Apple description.

The redirect for "buy" search is reasonable as the Best Buy has it in its name. Apple has no sell in its name.

It's fishy to say the least.

EDIT:

This can be proven even further by running a specialized search query to the main google.com page:

site:finance.google.com sell "quotes & news"

If you use this query, which uses the neutral algo, you won't see APPLE anywhere near the top.

The same argument can be made for any company.

Fiber networks? Their employees security by funding Police and the Military? Health care for their employees and customers?

What infrastructure are translators and lawyers using? They still pay normal taxes because they extract profits from a given country and are ought to pay taxes on it. One shouldn't argue whether he or she is ought to pay taxes. If it was the case, 95% of companies and entities would argue that they shouldn't pay a cent. All using their own, twisted logic.

No one wants to pay taxes but avoiding them is unethical and doesn't help the society at all.

Google is reaping benefits from the infrastructure built on taxes paid by small companies and yet they fucking dare to say they do more good than them.

Fucking hypocrites

Exactly.

Companies get profits proportional to the value of goods they provide to the economy.

Saying that somehow $100 earned by Google is more beneficial than the $100 earned by a small dental gabinet is extremely stupid. Both companies should pay taxes on their profits and none of them can claim it does more good for its money than the other.

To me, what Google tries to say is pure bullshit.

And private companies exist for...?

In other words:

FB, Google, Zynga Ask courts to invalidate patents they don't have

Programming and business managament are two different fields. You can't compare them.

I agree, you can't become a good chemist without proper education, the same goes for particle physics. Business is not a hard science, it's a set of skills you have to develop such as: perseverance, creativity, people-skills and confidence. You can't learn it in any school, even the top-ones.

You can be a great actor, amazing cook, great musician or artist without having any degrees. Running a business is similar - it can't be simply in schools because it's not a hard science.

You get the experience from running your own company, look: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison

They don't seem to have any degrees and there are thousands of CEO's just like them who didn't get higher education yet built something amazing.

What makes you think that being a MBA equates to having business skills? Being MBA is just being MBA.

People who don't get higher education and just start their companies fresh out of high-schools will have WAY more business skills than MBA.

I'd say that 2 years of running your own business gives you more business skills than 5 years of MBA education.

If they are not making money in the UK - why won't they disband their UK sales team or stop offering their service to the UK customers?

After all they make their money in the Bahamas.

There's difference between paying 19% of your income in UK vs paying 1% of your income somewhere in the Bahamas.

Over 90% of companies pay 19% of income tax + over 20% VAT tax. They often times coexist in the markets with the corporations paying 1%.

It's not important whether it's Google or Apple or BP - they should all pay the same taxes the small/medium business owners pay. Corporations use the same infrastructure that small/medium business owners pay for. Meanwhile they say "fuck you!" to said people and pay their 1% in the Bahamas. Additionally, they get enormous competetive advantage through lower taxes while medium or small companies need to gain it through superior products.

It's wrong thinking.

Google is ought to pay taxes like everyone else. Without the UK infrastructure, there would be no businesses to advertise through their service.

Taxes fund healthcare and security. Without healthcare, people would die and Google would have less customers. With no police and justice system someone could just go and bomb Google's UK datacenters.

Trying to rationalize why one company should not pay taxes while others do is bad.

Google extracts profits from UK economy and doesn't pay anything in taxes. It's bad for every UK resident.

If there was no Google, people would use directories/yelps/UK-based search engines which would pay taxes. In this case, from the economic point of view, Google is simply a parasite.

Well the same is true for the android.

Matter of fact, pushing ads in your face is the only reason Google funds android. They don't even want you to pay them. The SOLE reason for it's existence is for you to click their ads.

Well if you show people Bing;s results in Google's search template, they will prefer it over Google's own results.

It's not like consumers make rational decisions. They are habituated to use Google.

PS: Searchers are not Google's consumers, they are their product. Advertisers are their consumers - they are the ones who pay them.

The problem is when for majority of people Google = The Internet.

If you are not showing high in Google and you don't want to pay, you are fucked. You don't exist for the 85% of population.

Alexa reports rapid increase for Bing and a rapid decline for Google:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bing.com#

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com#

I am curious what caused this.

Some results are even worse. There were keywords where you could see only 7 organic results.

The rest was AdWords.

To make things worse, Google adds more and more "product search" results (paid placement).

With each day, there's less and less traffic for those people who don't pay Google. I suspect that the paid placement trend will increase until it is possible.

To make things worse, Google not only decreases the SERP "real estate". They also introduce frequent algorithm updates which tend to drop down websites which earn on search-engine traffic. Leaving those which may have lesser quality but don't earn on their traffic ( no monetization ). And if you do it to a million websites, you will gain quite a lot of new AdWords buyers. Some of them have to try your PPC ads. Let's say that 10% of them will try to get traffic out of PPC - now you've got yourself 100.000 paying customers.

It's obvious they want to force people both to buy and to click ads. They don't gain anything by sending free traffic to other affiliate websites ( which will then convert to sales/leads ).

The question is: Where do you draw a line between a search engine and an "ad engine"?

To many people, especially those less tech-savy, Google = Internet.

I personally think, it's pretty bad for the overall state of e-economy to have this one big mogul who administers the majority of targetted traffic. He wants his share of the pie from everyone. If you are too small to pay, fuck you. They don't need you. The consumer won't notice you are not in the search results, there are 50 other websites happy to take your place. Either you are at the top or you don't exist.

It'd be great if there would be something like Google but with a more "socialistic" approach. Instead of having a few websites occupying the top place, provide the traffic to other, smaller players. So the e-economy can expand more.

First, the hobbyist home-made motherboards were not stolen. Wozniak built a great motherboards which then were mass-produced. He was a genius, he hasn't copied anything.

Second - Xerox was paid for their Xerox Parc patents. That's an obvious difference. Samsung haven't paid Apple a single cent for using similiar ideas.

Samsung simply built phones which looked extremely similiar to Apple ( design and OS ). This is an elaborate action because Apple built a great brand around their smarthphones. When people saw iPhone they thought about something high-quality and elite.

Samsung wanted to gain on that so they've built very similiar phones and now people begin to associate them with the brand built around iPhone.

To me, it's a pretty dickish move.

What I find frightening is that this company was acquired for $250 mil and I've never remember hearing about it. I really don't see those valuations to be justified.

"The real" Google glass is the bluetooth 2.0, if you know what I mean.

I've seen heroin addicts say that caffeine withrawal is worse than the one caused by opiates.

The headaches are unimaginable. The energy levels are lower than being hung-over.

Short-term memory works in a state siimiliar to that when you have 70% packet loss in multiplayer video games. Everything is annoying and you just want to disintegrate people.

Not really but a friend of mine was scammed out of $40k legit AdSense earnings.

As for the quality of AdWords - I have not forgotten about the 500 million dollar fine Google received for pharmacy ads.

You are clearly in a minority though. I bet that at least 80% of internet marketers hate Google.

The idea is really simple but the results are nothing like normal search engine (it works differently than blekko, DDG, Google, Bing etc. ).

People are used to the way Google works. If they(Google) tried to adopt this new way, I am sure many people would resign / change their provider. But still for many people, it would be a better experience.

I have an idea( prototype? ) for a search engine that could be disruptive, with a bit of luck. It has nothing to do with bangs and slashtags.

I've hired a freelancing coder to do some "wrapping up" so I could show the prototype but it is over a month now and still I haven't heard from him.

I do not want to engage too much time and resources into this (hiring stationary coders) but this really is the search engine that is closest to disrupting Google and Bing.

I believe that slashtags and bangs and non-spam results are not the way to go, my search engine tries a different route altogether which those two big engines ( Google and Bing ) couldn't probably adopt because they are simply too big.

I can produce results semi-manually and all I need is automation for that method but the coder I've hired, stopped responding over a month ago.

I really see big future in it but I do not want to invest too much effort and money into something so risky.

I wish I could show you what it is all about but it would reveal too much. And without the automated prototype, some good coder could simply copy it in like 2 weeks.

I believe that for $10000 I could present a really basic prototype of something that is disruptive to Google and Bing and if it isn't I think nothing will ever be.

After unsuccessfully shaping it as a Facebook-killer? Google's PR department won't give up :)

Am I the only one that thinks this is pretty lame?

No it can't. Stop shoving it into our throats.

After Larry Page replaced Eric Schmidt, Google turned into company run by salesmen(even though Page had a really groundbreaking idea with his PageRank algorithm). It is not what it used to be in the past.

It no longer innovates. Google's strategy is now more like the one that Microsoft used - copy successful products of other companies and use your money and resources as a leverage. In the mean time, to kill the competition, perform smear campaigns against them or use the vast cash reserves to let them die the financial death(cutting their margins as in the case of Dropbox).

I mean look at Google's search results, they display google + anywhere it is possible. The same can be said about youtube, google books. Soon they will cut off tremendous amount of profit from other websites by introducing the Google shopping upgrade ( paid placement! something they despised in the past ).

They always defend themselves by saying: "Other search engines are just one click away. People are free to choose others, but since they stay, it must mean we do something good."

Well it is mainly people's habits. For majority of Internet users, 'google' means 'search'. What is interesting is that even if other search engines have better quality of results, those people will not change their search provider. People prefer Bing results to Google's results when they are served in Google's template. That proves something interesting.

I understand - shareholders want growth - but for fucks sake, stop turning that company into the Big Brother.

And how about Google? They spam that political crap on the half of the internet during campaigns ( AdSense ).

It cut out the part after the '#' character. You've got results for 'C'. It is a bug. Try other searches without special characters.