Creating an environment of free information where data flows easily among people is the ultimate promise of the Internet.We share data and information with one another, and, as a result, we increase what we can do as a culture, and what we can do as consumers.But actually, in many cases, this isn’t happening.
Internet search engines like Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) are supposed to enable companies to compete for consumers’ attention and provide “value” without actually having a recognizable brand. The opposite is actually taking place. There is so much information available on the Web -- the end result is a whole lot of useless data. This has led to a “devolution” effect that is actually diminishing the ability of consumers to find useful product information online.
To get a better sense of what’s happening, let’s explore the online car buying experience. What car buyers want online is to be able to find the best deal with an upfront price. In effect, they are saying, “Computer, buy me a car!”
You may never have heard of FreeCarQuotes.net or CarPrices.com, but if you search on Google for new car prices, these sites will pop up in the results.Google is supposed to enable innovators to compete in the car market.The search engine should create an open platform that drives the online marketplace and, hopefully, improves our experience in buying a car.
What’s happening instead is that brands likeFreeCarQuotes aren’t adding value to the consumer; they’re just exploiting the search process by giving the consumer a different way to buy a car, which Google already enables.So instead of creating alignment between what the consumers want and what the car dealers want to offer, some brands are merely creating another clog in the wheel, further frustrating the car buyer’s experience.
Here’s the problem: Car buyers ask for a price online, but they don’t get a price. The car dealers want buyers; instead they get a gobbledygook of customer leads.In a strange way, Google is not enabling innovation when it comes to finding relevant information; it actually stops the natural progress of creativity that the Internet is capable of providing -- hence the devolution effect. Google forces companies to develop monetization strategies that end up cheating the user and stopping innovation.
From an online consumer's perspective, the ultimate goal of the Internet is to transform the buying experience to a transparent, predictable, and pleasurable one. To make that happen, new innovative business models need to be created that bypass the Google paradigm. For example, there should be a transition from pay-per-lead to a pay-per-sale model. This would help create a marketplace where value is created in the alignment between the consumer and the seller.
“Computer, buy me a car” -- now that’s evolution!
— Oded Noy, Chief Technology Officer and co-founder of Zag.com
What a good example! Each time a friend of mine searches Google for "toyota" (looking for used cars), he ends up following a link to a site that tries to install spyware or other benign junk on his system. My solution for him was to simply stop searching for cars. Another good use of the internet ruined!
Are you talking about Internet Search Engines in general or are you deliberately focusing on just Google as the culprit? Clarification would be appreciated.
I am talking about "Google and thier ilk". Google is more tageted in the blog since they are the biggest, but alos since thier form of ads and how hier auction model works seems to amplify the problem.
Do we blame the newspaper ads when we can't find what we are looking for? I think that yeah, some people exploit google weaknesses but that happen everywhere? the internet is not something independent, it's a continuation of real life.
Companies should focus more on SEO and working on delivering a spider-friendly website. At the end, if they have good information and are able to transmit that, they will get their share of visits.
hmmm, I see... This is just another rant against a successful and innovative company. Anyway, I don't know how much you know about the Google indexing algorithm... Study shows that 90% of those searching the web don't click on the top or side placed ads. Personally, 99.9% of the time I never click on the placed ads when I search.
Google, is a powerful search tool, and with that tool, I search the internet, and deside for myself what site I want to do business with, not based on Google's recommendation. I'm having a hard time see the validity of your Google accusation.
What a good example! Each time a friend of mine searches Google for
"toyota" (looking for used cars), he ends up following a link to a site
that tries to install spyware or other benign junk on his system. My
solution for him was to simply stop searching for cars. Another good
use of the internet ruined! - Michael
Yeah I agree with Michael. Just stop. I just recently had a trojan attack which halted my PC operation because I was searching for car models and I ended up reformatting my PC because of these spywares that automatically pops up and then installs. What a crap.
I think Mr. Roques has a good point. Google mainly uses its "PageRank" algorithm for the search results with some text-matching techniques. But how exactly Google does it or what exactly it uses in the search algorithm is pretty much only known to Google. Ideally, the PageRank based algorithm should be "fair" but we're living in a real world where nothing is perfect, and I think Google and other search engine service providers are well aware of the search engine optimization (or SEO) issue that leaves gaps for exploitation. So, as Mr. Roques pointed out, blaming it all on Google isn't exacly right.
Also, as it seems, search results don't stay the same. I just tried search on Google for new car prices, and FreeCarQuotes.net didn't pop up in the top 20 results (at least).
I also have a few questions I would like to ask:
1./ What exactly do you mean by "the natural progress of creativity that the Internet is capable of providing"?
2./ I'm not sure I understand when you said "Google is not enabling innovation..."; How is a search engine company like Google enabling "innovation" through the search results? Are you suggesting that a product search query via Google's search engine should return results listing companies that provide relevant and innovative products or services? In that case, how would Google know which of the companies' products or services are actually innovative?
3./ And lastly, to make the case for Google's devolution effect, do you have any other examples apart from the online car buying experience?
is a little bit like trying to count the instances of the word 'and' in a full set of encyclopedias. It will find some on a page that talks about cars, no doubt, but it may be found on pages that are not related to a car at all.
I am sure this is an extreme example, and it certainly does not represent the algorhythms which make up googles page rank system, or likely any other significant search engine for that matter.
It is certainly a good point that a newspaper ad does not always get results either. Are we to blame the loggers that cut down the trees that make the paper that the newsprint is made from?
To me that is how distinct the disparity is between buying a car, and doing research about what cars may interest me.
As a consumer I need to research quite a while before making a major purchase. I certainly don't expect to have all my answers in the top 10 google results. But if I don't, google is not to blame in my book.
I really don't understand your incessant love for Google that you could describe a 'friendly' post like this one as a rant. We know very well that Google is powerful, innovative and successful but that does not rule the fact that even the best needs improvement. There is room for improvement and it's the purpose of this forum to discuss current and future trends that will make our internet experience both memorable and worthwhile.
I don't see the post as an accusation against Google but rather calling for a new model in online advertising that will make search engines optimised their current operation. Companies are employing various models like pay-per-click, pay-per-deal and pay-per-sale. The author of the post was simplying suggesting that a pay-per-sale model will force search engines to upgrade their present indexing. Whether this is technolgically possible is debatable but this is the reason we are on this site. So do you think a pay-per-sale model is the ideal model for all those involve in the process?
First let me say, "Nice to see you back" kind of missed you there
for a while.
Now to answer you, I would try to respond in like fashion. I don't understand
your incessant hatred for Google, that you would describe my objective
statement as a subjective notion of me loving Google? I nether love nor hate
Google but was just positing a counter point to an article. I'm not assuming
that Google is perfect nor will I waste my time trying to defend such clam.
Paul, I think I do have enough intellectual capability to know the purpose
of this forum, and please next time when passing judgment on people, be careful
not to make the same mistake you're castigating the other person for, 'cause it
renders your point mute and irrelevant.
Search engine optimization (SEO) and search engine marketing (SEM) are two
very different thing. Simply put, SEO deals with building a website that is
search engine friendly. A well coded site with
well planed architectural and hierarchical layout gives you a solid premise on
which to build semantic web structure with high integrity, this naturally leads
to higher page ranking. While SEM deals with paying search engines
for placement when spesific keywords or key-phrase are searched for. Like I
said before, I hardly click on paid ads, because, most often they are irrelevant
to my search.
Anyway, thanks for the callout. I guess I might have
to make some time to write an article on SEO, because I can sense lot of
ambiguity out there.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Web
2.0 is both a data-mining goldmine and a nightmare. While it provides a valuable environment of consumer-generated data
and media, it's hard to
consume this information in a meaningful way without getting overloaded with noise.
Virtualization and Web services: This innovative combination is creating an evolution of flexibility and efficiency that far transcends just running applications. Now, a small group of concentrated IT administrators are able to control an enormous amount of network activities and applications from a single management console. But there's a catch.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
The Google backlash continues. After seeing their Project 10^100 submissions disappear into the bowels of a Google server farm, a group of irate developers has started their own site to re-collect and vote on the ideas.
The big news at the Web 2.0 Summit was that Twitter partnered with Google and Bing, enabling the search engines to show Tweets in search results. This couldn't possibly be less interesting.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
