Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gauging Google's Gaffes

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hire-a-demon-to-beat-back-hell dept.

conq writes "BusinessWeek has a piece looking at some of the recent faux pas of Google and what implications they might have. The articles's conclusion: They should hire a chief marketing officer to avoid such gaffes. From the article: 'Recent missteps that have whipsawed or irked investors include the inadvertent release of sales projections and an agreement to censor its own search results in China. Then on Mar. 8, Google used a vaguely worded blog on its site to disclose a settlement of as much as $90 million in a case concerning click fraud. That came days after the company said the case was without merit and told investors the impact of click fraud on advertisers is immaterial.'"

140 comments

  1. Conspiracy by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me a conspiratorialist- But I think that things like the "accidental" release of the slides showing the planned online hard drive backup thing, are planned.
    And another thing- They may or may not be a great company- I am not here to argue that, but they are made up of people- and as such, mistakes will be made.
    The real question is, is it hubris to think that google can do what it wants, instead of what wal street wants, and still stay so valuable (on paper)?

    --
    And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    1. Re:Conspiracy by master_gopher · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The mistakes made as a result of not having a chief marketing officer are to be expected - but not so much as the mistakes made as a result of being a company of human beings. More important are the policies themselves (Re: China, etc) which have much more real effect on the company's users and shareholders than their marketing division does.

      --
      Emergence
    2. Re:Conspiracy by irtza · · Score: 1

      As for the value of the company, that depends on who owns it and what's on the agenda. As long as the majority shareholders have made clear that they have no intention of compromising on principle for profit that remains the objective of the company, but as soon as walstreet types take over the board that may all change.

      Its this reason that I tend to never become too attached to a publicly traded company. As long as shares are trading, its objectives will be traded with it. So long as its bylaws are what they are and enough people stay on the board (or like-minded people buy into the company) they can remain (if you believe they are) a company of principle.

      For example, everyone remembers the departure of Jobs from Apple. That sort of thing can occur at google and now you have a "new" company. Other notable exammples would be the turnaround of IBM.

      Its for these very reasons that I advocate the creation of "good company" trading cards. It would be utterly cool and a great way to waste time. Every year you make 1000 limited addition cards for each company and if you think they will be good you buy the card and can trade them. I'm sure someone more creative than me will be able to turn this into some sort of game and childrens cartoon too. We can train a whole generation of people to play this game then we turn them loose on the stock market. Imagine it... wallstreet types will never be able to predict the market as little bastards say, "ah, but I am holding 2000 microsoft stocks and will attack you with monopolist pricing!"... it would be absolutely brillian.... now hopefully this post is coherent enough for some people to understand and incoherent enough that people don't try to stop me.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    3. Re:Conspiracy by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the real question is- do they care? There has been no voting stock issued, the founders still own the company. The company is making millions. In reality, the price of stock has no effect on a company unless the people making decisions want to dump their ownership for cash- stock sales give no new cash to the company. In fact, google has billions in the bank. Since I don't think Larry and Sergey want to sell their holdings entirely anytime soon, I don't think they give a shit about the share price. They're already millionaires on what they already sold, they don't need to care about short term profit/loss.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:Conspiracy by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      if you think google does any other than try to maximize its profits, you are mistaken. public corporations simply do not do anything but exactly that. public corporations are owned and by investors that have one single goal.

      i'm really sick of folks thinking that google is some sort of atruistic entity fighting for superior technical solutions. nothing could be further from the truth. i think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

    5. Re:Conspiracy by general_re · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They still have a fiduciary duty to the other shareholders, and given the explosion of shareholder lawsuits over the last few years, they'd be wise to care at least a bit - "I got mine so fuck you people" is not going to fly.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    6. Re:Conspiracy by bitflip · · Score: 1

      Yes, people make mistakes. Google, however, has enough of a cash flow that they shouldn't be making amateurish mistakes like these. One every so often - sure. A string of them? No excuse.

    7. Re:Conspiracy by tehdaemon · · Score: 4, Informative
      "public corporations are owned and by investors that have one single goal."

      Not at all. investors, like any other large group of people, have lots of diverse goals. In practice though you can't satisfy all of these goals. Most are mutually exclusive to some extent. So it comes down to the least common denominator - max profits - like you said. It is the nature of corporate law that is the problem here, not the investors.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    8. Re:Conspiracy by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      As for the value of the company, that depends on who owns it and what's on the agenda. As long as the majority shareholders have made clear that they have no intention of compromising on principle for profit that remains the objective of the company, but as soon as walstreet types take over the board that may all change.

      Which is why it's lucky that none of Google's shares are vote-thingy (I'm not a stock expert, but I've read here on slashdot enough that Google's shareholders get no say on anything about Google, because the shares don't give them the power to vote on anything Google does. If you've got some sources to the contrary, I'd love to see them).

    9. Re:Conspiracy by whoever57 · · Score: 0
      public corporations simply do not do anything but exactly that. public corporations are owned and by investors that have one single goal.
      You are mistaken. Public corporations can have many goals, and profit is usually one of them -- but there is no law requiring this. It all depends on the articles of the company. There is no legal reason why I could not form a company whose goal was philanthropic works and sell stock on one of the exchanges (there may be practical reasons why this would not work). To take a more relevant example, how many companies went through IPOs during the dot-com boom, saying that profits would only appear in the mysterious future?

      Secondly, you refer to "profit", but what is mean by this? Profit this quarter? Profit in 5 years time? 10 years? Those controlling Google can easily argue that they have a goal to maximise profits, but that their means to achieve this requires reducing short term profits in favour of greater long term profits.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Conspiracy by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      That would be cool! Player 1 "My 'Google Seeker(tm)' - 3 information points, 1 capitalist point 4 multinational points. Played in the back row - HAHAHA I beat your Microsoft Slug!" Player 2: " OHO! I counter attack with my 'IP Attourney Leech(tm)'"

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    11. Re:Conspiracy by irtza · · Score: 1

      very good point I googled (love using it as a verb) for stock types and found this link that seems to explain things... now I have no clue as to the reliability as I just followed the first link on this page.

      Now, I didn't verify the types of google stock issued, but still if it is publicly traded, someone has to own the common stock that has voting rights, and someone will most likely sell those at some point

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    12. Re:Conspiracy by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Public corporations can have many goals, and profit is usually one of them -- but there is no law requiring this.

      people invest in for-profit companies to make money. it's not a law (duh), but that's the whole purpose of a for-profit corporation: to make money. if corporations, as part of their marketing (read: propaganda) make you believe that they have some other interest in mind, well, it worked on you. i have no doubt there are some people on google's board of directors that believe in the free exchange of information, but those people do not control the direction of google. it's survival of the fittest and darwin in action. if those people did control google, google would go out of business. the path of maximum profits and doing the "right thing" may overlap sometimes, but not always.

      what really cracks me up is that things like ipods and OSX have become almost a political philosphy to people. folks, it's a PRODUCT. you've been brainwashed into thinking that it defines who you are and what you believe in. well, the end result of your "beliefs" is higher profits for a few people at Apple Corp. i'm using Apple here, but the same thing applies to google. there's nothing wrong with mutual benefit. who cares if google is making a profit it it helps you? i agree, but please let's not pretend that google is some friendly group of people that have our best interests at heart.

      Those controlling Google can easily argue that they have a goal to maximise profits, but that their means to achieve this requires reducing short term profits in favour of greater long term profits.

      yes, so?

    13. Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm starting to think the real conspiracy is by Wall Street against Google. Especially when I read that their deciscion to cooperate with the Chinese government was a mistake or something. That wasn't a mistake, that was a neccesary and decent business descision. Because if google didn't agree to that, then some other company would do it, like Microsoft, and make all the money in the new market. It's also funny how the hipocrites who complain about that being evil, don't seem to have a problem continuing to buy computers that are largely made in China. It's okay if THEY can save some bucks supporting a repressive regime, but not okay if Google makes a few bucks.

      Anyway, I think Wall Street is attempting to pressure google into yielding up the reigns of control to the share holders. I mean really, these so-called "gaffes" are extremely minor in the big picture, and hardly the type of thing that should call for handing over vast power over the company to wall street. Yet, that is exactly how the media seems to be portraying this. Why?

    14. Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They also need to maintain the value of stock options issued to employees in order to maintain employee retention. If their stock price drops, the options will become worth less/nothing, and they'll face the same problems Microsoft faced when their stock price became stagnant.

      Stock options are still a popular tool to lure and maintain valued employees within the tech industry. How many of Google's key people will look for greener pastures without proper incentive to stay?

    15. Re:Conspiracy by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      Stock options are still a popular tool to lure and maintain valued employees within the tech industry. How many of Google's key people will look for greener pastures without proper incentive to stay?

      While your point is well made, and valid for most of the industry, I'm not sure that it (yet) applies to Google. My anecdotal evidence is that people go to work for Google with the knowledge that they are going to make less than they could get at a typical tech company in SF and the surrounding area, yet they still do it.

      --
      2^5
    16. Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      people invest in for-profit companies to make money. it's not a law (duh), but that's the whole purpose of a for-profit corporation: to make money.
      I think that you need to pull yourself out of the argument sketch.

      All you have done is ignored my points, re-iterated your original point and thrown in one or two gratuitous ad-hominem attacks.

      Those controlling Google can easily argue that they have a goal to maximise profits, but that their means to achieve this requires reducing short term profits in favour of greater long term profits.

      yes, so?

      Try reading my post and attempting to understand it. You might find that taking a sentence out of context (as you did above) makes it more difficult to understand, so I would advise against this.

      My point is that companies do not exist solely to make a profit. Many companies have other goals that are listed in their company articles and prospectuses. If people invest in such companies without understanding the companies' goals and expecting them to pursue short-term profits at the expense of all other goals, then they may well be investing foolishly.

    17. Re:Conspiracy by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Well what public companies can or cannot do is arbitrary. What is in google's company constitution and in the prospectus when the shares where first issued is all that counts. I don't remember any legally binding statements about it's altruistic status.

      They quite simply put it out to IPO when it would produce the best return for the initial investors, just after what was most likely it's maximum period of growth, with it's best revenues to date, just prior to both MSN and Yahoo both making a big push to regain lost market share and revenues.

      It has very little room to move in the tech market for growth with out competing against it's own customers. MSN is unlikely to dominate, nor will Yahoo but with out doubt all three fighting hard for the same market will increase competition and drive down revenues.

      Especially as a lot of advertisers will have to pay all three to ensure effective market penetration, they will be squeezing down on how much they a willing to pay and will be taking a harder look at how effective their marketing choices are. Combine this with the rise in local regional search sites who know their market better and the bigger search utilities will have to reduce charges to retain relevance.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Conspiracy by patiodragon · · Score: 1

      "if you think google does any other than try to maximize its profits, you are mistaken. public corporations simply do not do anything but exactly that. public corporations are owned and by investors that have one single goal."

      Perhaps you could share with us your corporate credentials so we would feel better in getting this information from you? When I last checked, to become a public corporation (in the US, anyway), you have to have a charter. You are supposed to follow what you say you are going to do in your charter. This whole "one single goal" thing sounds pretty childish, actually.

    19. Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Stock options allow people hired at lower salaries to still profit greatly from their job. Google has many employees with relatively low salaries who have become millionaires due to their GOOG stock options.

      In the second quarter of 2005, Google began granting performance-based restricted stock units to all employees upon their hire. These vest on an annual basis over the next four years. Employees will be very aware of whether they are making money from their stock-based compensation.

      The history of the tech industry is full of examples of people going to work for companies at less than stellar wages. Many do it because of the lure of stock options. Many do it because they think it will be fun to work for a growing company.

      There are many ways to provide a rewarding environment for employees. If you take away competitive salaries and profitable stock options, then you will need to work very hard to make up for it in other areas. Sometimes you'll be successful, and sometimes you won't. Over time, it is difficult to maintain the allure and retain employees. There will always be some new start-up that promises to be just as exciting as Google in its heyday - it may even be started by a couple of ex-Google employees who vested early, and looked back to their alma mater for staffing.

    20. Re:Conspiracy by Firehed · · Score: 1
      Since I don't think Larry and Sergey want to sell their holdings entirely anytime soon, I don't think they give a shit about the share price. They're already millionaires on what they already sold, they don't need to care about short term profit/loss.

      They might care... I don't know if they'd want to lose their spots at #26 and 27 on Forbes' World's Richest People list. Of course, I think a hair under $13bn each should keep them covered. That is net worth and not banked funds, but still... Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs combined still have about $4bn less than either of them (on page 6 of that list).

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    21. Re:Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you, you old conspiratorialist, you.

    22. Re:Conspiracy by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just read this as "Google announces they will hire a Chief Marketing Officer"

      Bet their shares will go up when they do to.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. Search took... by master_gopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...0.07 seconds, + another 20 while we took out the ones you weren't supposed to know that we just found for you.

    --
    Emergence
  3. In other news... by LandownEyes · · Score: 5, Funny

    businessweek.com now has a PageRank of 0.

  4. Panty Bind by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Recent missteps that have whipsawed or irked investors...

    I think statements by Google have made it clear that they will not be playing the normal Wall Street Game. What's really going on here is that because of this, Wall Street is getting its collective panties in a bind. I for one am enjoying the show. Google should just keep doing what it wants and ignore the people in New York who seem to think they can't be ignored...

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Panty Bind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google should just keep doing what it wants and ignore the people in New York who seem to think they can't be ignored...

      Ahh, so they should continue to misrepresent information to shareholders? They should reap the financial benefits of the system but not be held accountable by the same system? Remember, "the investors" aren't just the guys trading in NY, there are tons of folks and organzations that invest other folks money that are also "investors" and they are being just as irked and feel like Google is not operating is a straight forward manner.

      It continues to amaze me that crap that Google does is seen as innovative and being a maverick shaking up the establishment, but the same deeds done by other companies would be universally condemned. If M$ did similar stuff everyone would be all up in arms. It's funny what cult of personality will do for you, that and a catchy tag line "do no evil". Reminds me of the schlocky 80's flick where Dolf Lundgren plays the alien that blows people away while stating (quite deadpan may I add) "I mean you no harm". I picture Dolf with the words "Google" tatooed to his head and all the gFanBoys drooling while mesmerized and chanting "I mean you no harm" while Dolf casually blows them into oblivion, all the while the other gFanBoys stating that "he must of deserved it".

    2. Re:Panty Bind by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If more compainies start doing this, analysists will be out of a job, and need to learn calculus first. A lot of analysists just do seat-of-the-pants based on reports. Google isn't giving them any material, which stabalizes GOOG.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    3. Re:Panty Bind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod the parent up. if the shareholders.. who OWN part of google would like to have guidance.. then google should give them a clue as to whats going on.. if they really care to "do good" or whatever slogan they rally around.

      google is just another company trying to make a buck. "doing good" is just a a marketing tool that they can't seem to follow any more.

    4. Re:Panty Bind by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The shairholders walked into this FULLY INFORMED, or at least the should have. Google said they would not be giving guidence in the treditional way that Wall Street has become accustom. None of this should come as a surprise. There has bee full disclosure, and now that a few of the buyers don't like the situation, they want to change the rules.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    5. Re:Panty Bind by shawb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By and large it is not the shareholders that are asking for guidance, it's financial advisors looking for guidance. Google issued statements on what they will and will not do before the stock was available public, so if people bought stock without looking at these statements, then they don't have anything to complain about. The people who bought stock second hand from those that actually got in on the IPO (back when it was what... $50 a share?) have even less to complain about, as they should have actually taken a look at the terms that Google set forth and what rights the initial stockholders were allowed to transfer.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    6. Re:Panty Bind by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >What's really going on here is that because of this, Wall Street is getting its collective panties in a bind.

      I really don't think that Wall Street cares either way.

      There are loads of companies that don't "play by Wall Street" rules. Sometimes its because the company doesn't think that guidance is worthwhile to the long-term care of the shareholders, other times it because they don't give a flying-crap about anyone including the shareholders.

      If Google wanted to not "play by Wall Street" why do they have Google Analyst Days?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    7. Re:Panty Bind by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      >The shairholders walked into this FULLY INFORMED,

      Read the parent post again.

      there are tons of folks and organzations that invest other folks money that are also "investors" and they are being just as irked and feel like Google is not operating is a straight forward manner.

      I would be too. $90 million dollar settlement is at least noteworthy and should be professionally communicated to the shareholders. Comments like "Guess if I'm talking about revenue or market capitalization" from one of the CEOs is just being arrogant.

      I'm not sure where the IPO document Google said that they would act in an irresponsible way to people who hold their shares.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    8. Re:Panty Bind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am ashamed to know this, but the quote is actually "I come in peace" which happens to be the title of this afront to all that is good in the world.

    9. Re:Panty Bind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are an anonymous jackass who stubbornly refuses to learn the rules of the capital market. No one forced you to buy, no one is forcing you to hold. Stop braying and sell the stock, jackass.

    10. Re:Panty Bind by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If google is within the law then what's the real problem? Could it be the "tons of investors" are stopping themselves from investing because of what they promised the people who own the money, ie: risk analysis. They wanted a slice of the pie at $80 a share but googles practices got in the way, they were forced to make their own forecasts. If they did fork out someones pension to get a slice, googles refusal to change their practices has left them exposed since they didn't tick all the risk boxes.

      The price of the shares skyrocketed after the IPO, ask yourself, why did that happen if google "doesn't do forecasts"? Google won't play the "markets" game and at the moment it is cashed up and doesn't need to. Forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on and can get you into deep shit. It's more honest and much simpler to point to financial reports than to fire up a crystal ball every time you need some milk from the pension cow.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Panty Bind by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >The price of the shares skyrocketed after the IPO, ask yourself, why did that happen if google "doesn't do forecasts"?

      Fear and greed? Investors are stupid and irrational? Bubble-mania?

      >Google won't play the "markets" game and at the moment it is cashed up and doesn't need to.

      If that is true, that would piss me even more as a long-term investor. What happens when Google needs to go back to the market in the future? Don't you think that the people they upset now will make it painful for the company in the future?

      >Forecasts are not worth the paper they are written on and can get you into deep shit.

      You got to get over this whole "Financial Analysts are all crap!" thing, this is not the point. Look at Google's actions that they are pointing out. Is their actions professional and responsible? Are they communicating to you, as owners, as you would like them to, in a clear and accurate way?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    12. Re:Panty Bind by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You know that many of Google's stockholders are their employees? When Google plays games like this, they're fucking over their own workers. They already pay them below the going rate, the options are one method to get people to work for them.

      So much for 'do no evil'...

    13. Re:Panty Bind by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Fear and greed? Investors are stupid and irrational? Bubble-mania?"

      How about third party predictions?

      "Are they communicating to you, as owners, as you would like them to, in a clear and accurate way?"

      Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Panty Bind by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >How about third party predictions?

      Umm.... its alot more complex than that.

      >Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.

      Google doesn't predict revenue?

      http://google.blognewschannel.com/index.php/archiv es/2006/03/08/google-accidentally-reveals-revenue- prediction/

      Our ads business... projected to grow from $6bn this year to $9.5bn next year based purely on trends in traffic and monetization growth.

      And also the comments from the CFO regarding future growth that Google had to "clarify" afterwards.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    15. Re:Panty Bind by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Umm.... its alot more complex than that."

      Yes it is, but the crux of the matter is that the forecasts and growth hype did not originate from google.

      "Google doesn't predict revenue?"

      Good greif man, that link is not a forcast the pension funds can use to satisfy their risk analyisis! Of course google make internal revenue forcasts, but they are not communicating them to the market. They, like many other smaller publicly owned companies are just not willing to put their balls on the chopping block in return for investment by pension funds and the like and why should they?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Panty Bind by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >They, like many other smaller publicly owned companies

      How in the world is Google considered "small"?

      >are just not willing to put their balls on the chopping block in return for investment by pension funds and the like and why should they?

      1. Google's orginial investors, before the IPO, are the sort of people who are interested in the bottom-line, ie-putting balls on the chopping block. (see:Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital) So I guess Google are interested in investments from pension funds and the like.

      2. A pension fund or a individual investor, does it make a difference how Google should act? Why shouldn't they act like they have their balls on their chopping block? Who's money is it anyways? What do you have against a pension fund?

      You seem to be hanging on to the "no guidance" issue like its a new thing that Google invented. It isn't, lots of companies don't do this.

      Seriously, forget about your hate against "big institutions with lots of money" and "Wall-Street games". Look how Google it is communicating to its investors (its easy just read the article!) and ask if its a professional way to act. Is it acting like a serious business or like some hobby run by a bunch of high-school kids?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    17. Re:Panty Bind by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "How in the world is Google considered "small"?"

      Heh, bad grammar.

      "Is it acting like a serious business or some hobby run by a bunch of high-school kids?"

      I would say "hobby" and google is also saying "hobby" to the investors as it has from the start. They are pushing the responsibilty for investment decisions back on to the fund managers, precisely where it belongs both morally and legally. Have they attempted to insulate themselves from a bubble by cashing in stocks, you bet!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Panty Bind by fm6 · · Score: 1
      What bullshit. First, Google employees have made out like bandits from their stock options. Second, I haven't heard from anybody but you that they underpay their employees — indeed, some folks I know who work there are doing pretty good. Then there's the benefits: free lunch every day, free snacks, free laundry, free other stuff, paid maternity leave, paid paternity leave....

      Unlike you and your metal mill, nobody at Google is working there because they can't get a job anywhere else. It's harder to get in the door there than any company in Silicon Valley.

    19. Re:Panty Bind by drsquare · · Score: 1

      First, Google employees have made out like bandits from their stock options.

      Exactly. Google doesn't have to even pay their workers, just hand out pieces of paper that don't cost them anything. Of course not to mention the tax benefits...

      It's harder to get in the door there than any company in Silicon Valley.

      You'd think then maybe they could be a bit more selective, and coule hire people who could actually get a simple web service to a full release in less than five years?

      Mark my words, Google is one giant pyramid scheme. The founders at the top, then the early investors, and the losers (every pyramid scheme has losers), will be the people who buy the stock, or get paid in options, just before the whole thing comes crashing down.

    20. Re:Panty Bind by fm6 · · Score: 1
      I actually agree that Google is badly managed. But your characterizing them as a "pyramid scheme" is braindead. In a pyramid scheme, you're not actually selling anything. Google is in fact selling a valuable service (advertising) and making a bloody killing at it. That's how they're able to get away with being badly managed: they're making so much money, they're under no pressure to get themselves organized. The latest stock hassle happend because their annual revenue grew by "only" 87%!

      It's also worth mentioning that many of the people who buy Google ads are small — tiny even — businesses that could never afford traditional ads, or even most kinds of online ads. That's because you can buy ads in as small a block as you can afford. And the bloody things are targeted, so you don't have to worry about spending all that moeny and only being seen by people who don't give a shit about what you're selling.

      That's a pretty impressive accomplishment. So yeah, Google has fucked up in many ways, but they've done some things right — and made a lot of money doing it.

      Of course in your simple universe, everybody's a genius or an idiot. Mostly an idiot. That's what they call projection.

  5. Google's Hiring by Slipgrid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't know if they advertise their "chief" positions, but it looks like they want a whole marketing department.

    1. Re:Google's Hiring by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My mother is working for google marketing "unofficially."

      I sent her a new computer with a firefox homepage of her shiny new google account. She is seriously computer illiterate and already she has fallen in love with it. (she used to have mail.com - ugh!)

      Now she wants all her friends to use gmail. It's kinda cute.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  6. Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationship by keilinw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gone are the days when Google was just a tadpole startup company with little more than a unique name. Over the years, the company has proven its worth time and time again with technology advancements cool new features. Until very recently I too was a hardcore Google fan... I was in love with the company that vowed to change the world, and succeeded.

    We're all familiar with the recent news about Google's policies on privacy, finance, and the Department of Justice. And, it has admittedly made a few mistakes. But who are we to argue? Isn't the company successful? Aren't they doing what the set out to do -- change the world? In a nutshell: YES... I may be disappointed that Google does things a little differently than I expected, but isn't the end result that I have cool new and "free" technologies... and isn't their stock still work a lot more than their IPO days?

    All of these thoughts are SOMEWHAT comforting... but I've started to develop somewhat of a love / hate relationship with them. Very recently (a few days ago) I fell into some sort of keyword promotion site over optimization scam. There is a company that wrote code that a person can insert into their websites in order to "show the location" of who's browsing their sites. This code had a cleverly embedded keyword in it that made a vague reference to "MySpace.com." As a result of including such code on my site, I was getting A LOT of Google hits.. and people were asking me how they could do the same thing. I answered by posing a copy of the code on my website... and then I got hit by a Google Site Ranking Penalty... something that I did not know even existed! Now, I am trying to recover my site's ranking and I'm not even sure how to do this.

    Prior to this experience I thought Google was great... but it appears to me that much of their company is "automated" and that my site somehow tripped some automated flags and hence automatically punished me... for something someone else did. So, in the end isn't it Google's responsibility to protect the small end user from abuses of their automatic systems?

    I personally won't suffer any great loss from my sites loss in status, but its just that -- a loss in status... and frankly its quite annoying. Luckily for me there were a few lessons learned:

    1. I enjoy posting on Slashdot more than on my blog because people actually read it.
    2. I know know how to avoid Search Engine Optimization Errors.

    So, there you have it... that's the story of my love / hate relationship with Google.

    --Matthew Wong
    http://www.themindofmatthew.com

  7. Good Google by Device666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can a company which is depending on the advertise business, stockholders and operation on world level between all the cultural disputes (China) stay an not evil company? Who decides: the clients, a nation or the stockholders?

    Besides that, what good is a google application which shares as a unwanted side-effect sensitive business documents without the knowledge of the respected companies?

    When it comes down to money,some evil stockholders, countries or clients will take on the power game. And I guess it will heappen when google has a real bad financial quarter. So we have to wait for that for a while I guess. We'll see how google will evolve.

    1. Re:Good Google by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      They cannot.

      The convergence of Internet and Advertising is evil.

      However, some of the loudest voices on slashdot these days are people who make a lot of money directly or indirectly due to advertising on the Internet. It isn't the old days anymore. . .

    2. Re:Good Google by rm69990 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The shareholders have no say whatsoever with Google, as the shares are non-voting. The shares held by the insiders have 10 times the voting power of the public shares.

  8. If only they would keep promises ... by slashbob22 · · Score: 1

    and obey their own robots.txt

    --
    Proof by very large bribes. QED.
  9. Google Print by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google Print is a good example of this. I'm participating in it as a publisher, and it's been a mess. They've gone through so many conniptions trying to avoid getting sued that it's crippled the program. Nobody uses it, because it doesn't show up in normal google searches anymore.

    --
    Find free books.
  10. CMO? Of course! by uradu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because--as we all know--companies that do have Chief Marketing Officers never commit any PR gaffes. You can never have enough management!

  11. I'm to blame by vinn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Years ago I realized I had terrible luck with stocks. I learned all kinds of stuff like P/E ratios, etc, etc. But more than anything, I just had bad luck. Well, it's been quite a few years since I've invested directly in a stock. I had some cash laying around in a money market and decided it was time to bite the bullet and buy some Google stock - mostly because I really believe in what they do. Well, that was when the stock was at $390 (60x earnings... ow) Therefore I'm certain you can all blame me for the recent performance.

    --
    ----- obSig
    1. Re:I'm to blame by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      That's not bad luck. That's just stupid.

  12. parent irrelevant by master_gopher · · Score: 0

    ... is there some law that says that to post on /. you have to use as many /'s as possible? The word "or" still exists for a reason.

    --
    Emergence
  13. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I wasn't aware that BusinessWeek had hired John C. Dvorak.

    Seriously guys, I know we've all been shaken somewhat by this huge google backlash, but isn't this a little much?

  14. Please, they sold out to the Chinese by RedHatLinux · · Score: 1, Interesting
    to make money for their stockholders, because that what they are required to do as corporation.

    Remember folks, Do No Evil is a marketing slogan, not legal contract.

    1. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by Krusau · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you are grossly oversimplifying the issue don't you?

      I propose you be added to the 'mindset of a political hack' category, because your knee-jerk reactionary antics aren't helping anything.

    2. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Ah, so letting the Chinese censor Google themselves, as well as degrading the performance of the service in the process, was a better solution? Looking at everything as black and white (or good and evil) without acknowledging the grey areas in-between is an indication of a simple minded person.

    3. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sold out to the Chinese? How so? They aren't preventing Chinese people from getting to google.com, China may be, though. All they did was add servers in China that make trade-offs: you get better, faster access to our site, but we filter some results (and tell you about it).

      they are required to do as corporation

      Typical ignorant statement repeated ad nauseum by Slashdot socialists. It's wrong on so many levels. You guys like to think that a corporation is legally required to do whatever it takes to make a profit, and you're flat out fucking wrong about that point. But you just never let it go. One of these days you should take Economics 101.

      Remember folks, Do No Evil is a marketing slogan, not legal contract.

      Actually it's a mission statement, which most companies have. Theirs is just succinct. Good and Evil is black and white. Operating your servers in China is a shade of grey. They never said Don't Be Grey, they said Don't Be Evil. Just because you have a problem with something doesn't make it evil across the board.

      I think the China move was a smart one, I don't have a problem with it. Then again, I seem to be one of the few that can look past the B.S. and see what they actually did -- added some services for Chinese users, while leaving existing services alone. If that's evil, call me Darth Vader.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      They aren't preventing Chinese people from getting to google.com

      Actually they do: if google can detect your country, you get redirected to the url of your country. I am pretty sure this is the same in china as it is in my country.

      This will also change the results you get: the french google will return results in a different order than the german or the english one, apparently some sort of positive bias for the right language

      There are ways around this (very annoying) redirect, but they are not easy to find for the uninformed.

    5. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      There are ways around this (very annoying) redirect, but they are not easy to find for the uninformed.
      You just click that big bright link titled as "Go to Google.com"?
      --
      More than mere navel gazing.
    6. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      Ways around it like clicking the 'go to google.com' link?

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
    7. Re:Please, they sold out to the Chinese by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      You are right, I just deleted my cookies and sure enough that link is there.

      Could have sworn it wasn't there the last time I had to change this thought. might be my memory.

  15. Oh, a "Google done bad" story. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great. It's been a while since I read 750 comments with the words "don't be evil."

  16. Google investors should blame themselves... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone believe that it's reasonable for a technology ccompany stock price to continue shooting straight up without falling down at some point? Investors should be disappointed. Not in Google but themselves for riding the rocket without wanting to suffer the crash as fuel runs out.

  17. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by pilkul · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So you used dishonest techniques to increase your pagerank on Google (you claim unintentionally, but that's irrelevant) and Google knocked your site off its listing as a result. I don't see what the problem is.

    You have a "love/hate relationship" with Google because you're running a website. My experience is that it's mainly webmasters and advertisers that have any dislike of Google, because they're so relentless at protecting the interests of their users.

  18. Regarding click fraud... by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I can't understand is how it is legal for Google and Overature to continue downplaying the effects of click fraud.

    Here is one such effect: I recently spent $150 on an advertising campaign, without finding a single sale (I usually get 5-10 for $150). Later I found out why: an ex-employee who had since become a competitor already knew all of my "favorite" keywords, and was working diligently to click every ad he could find. But what happens when someone applies a DDoS-technique to click fraud? At what point would Google and Overature have no choice but face this issue head-on?

    Using only IP logs and a date stamp, any "PHP-for-dummies" graduate could eliminate 90% of click fraud overnight. With the amount of data Google has, I simply *have* to think they already know the average time "between clicks" for any given keyword/ad placement anyway, and how often the same IP will "normally" click on the same ad. Anything outside those "norms" should go unbilled. It's not as if Google is facing any variable costs per click (nominal at best).

    I don't want to believe that Google and Overature are "evil". However, I'm not really sure what alternative makes sense. Consider: Google and Overature currently have the power to (1) bill clients whatever they want (2) settle lawsuits with more ad credits and (3) use "leading technology" to justify absurd market-caps, only to turn-around and plead helpless to stop "click fraud".

    Be 100% honest for a second: if *you* were in *their* shoes, would you run to the press and say "something must be done!" or would you walk directly into an attorney's office and ask flat-out: "How much should I take before I retire?".

    --
    Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    1. Re:Regarding click fraud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Overature/Overture/g

    2. Re:Regarding click fraud... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      >Using only IP logs and a date stamp, any "PHP-for-dummies" graduate could
      >eliminate 90% of click fraud overnight. With the amount of data Google has,
      >I simply *have* to think they already know the average time "between clicks"
      >for any given keyword/ad placement anyway, and how often the same IP
      >will "normally" click on the same ad. Anything outside those "norms" should
      >go unbilled. It's not as if Google is facing any variable costs per click
      >(nominal at best).

      Google already does this, it's in their anti-fraud documentation. I would think as an advertiser concerned about fraud, you would have read it already. Plus, you should already be comparing your own logs to what google is charging you. If you did, you'd have noticed that the # of clicks they charge you is less than what appears in your logs.

      You do have some sort of tracking to differentiate between paid and unpaid traffic, don't you?

    3. Re:Regarding click fraud... by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      I've read the TOS.

      I've also disputed my bill.

      I stand by my post.

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
    4. Re:Regarding click fraud... by plastik55 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK a lot of click fraud is done using botnets. IP addresses won't help much there.

      --

      I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

  19. Eh, I disagree with TFA by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Analysts and marketing gurus say that when it comes to communicating with the public and shaping its image, Google has some growing up to do. "It's inevitable that at some point [Google's technological edge] is going to be neutralized, and online search is going to become a Pepsi-and-Coke market -- that's when marketing becomes much more important,"
    Except... Google is (currently) like Wal-Mart. You can't afford not to do business with them.

    I don't think it's inevitable at all. As long as Google's results are relevant, there is no incentive to switch. Google makes sure you've got no reason to switch, by introducing a million and one free extras to tie you into their web.

    G-mail, Google Talk, Google Chat, Google Calendar, Google homepages, Google maps... and they're still innovating.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Eh, I disagree with TFA by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Webmail, online chat, online calendars, maps and homepages are google innovations????

    2. Re:Eh, I disagree with TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the grandparent means they've made innovations in those areas, not that they've innovated the entire thing. I mean, you can't deny that they've made some pretty damn big innovations in the areas of webmail, online chat and maps. Their personalised homepages, while perhaps not terribly innovative, were implemented well. As for their calendar... we'll have to wait until it's released (can't tell much from a few screenshots)

    3. Re:Eh, I disagree with TFA by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      No, the ideas aren't, but what you said is about as dumb as saying OS X doesn't contain any innovations because its just an Operating System. Gmail contains the conversation view, which I consider very innovative. I like the labels concept. Gmail was the first webmail service which I could stand to use (and now like better than traditional mail clients).

      I'll give you chat, Gtalk is pathetic. Calendar I haven't seen yet, so I won't comment. Their mapping tools (Earth and Local) are pretty neat, and I have yet to find any competition with as many features (don't even get me started on Windows Live Local, what a POS, doesn't work outside the US).

      Are you trying to say that you can't innovate in old markets, and move those markets forward? Cause that would be a pretty dumb thing to say IMHO. Does that mean Tivo wasn't innovative because TV had been around for years? What about eBay....auctions have been around for many years?

  20. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Over the years, the company has proven its worth time and time again with technology advancements cool new features

    really, like what? web-based email? instant messaging? web-based maps? a search engine? i hate to tell you this, but all of this was done 5-10 years before google existed. granted, google has (mostly) made advancements in these areas, but please, let's not pretend these ideas are "new".

    everything google does is available elsewhere, and in a form such that the quality of our lives would not significantly change if google dried up and died.

  21. Selling shares was a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google went public when it became a corporation and sold shares on the open market. They now have an implacable stakeholder, the share owners. Their duty (by law) is now to maximize shareholder value. They can no longer behave as they did previously. If they think they can they should consider the example of Conrad Black who was brought low by the shareholders of Holinger.

    Corporations generally behave like psychopaths. The people running them may be wonderful decent people but the corporations still behave in an anti-social manner. It will be not too many years before "Do no evil" becomes just a pleasant corporate memory.
    (/rant)

  22. I too am enjoying the show. by paulthomas · · Score: 1

    I am enjoying the show because the volatility may give me the ability to pick up shares when they dip to a reasonable level.

    However, itt will (IMHO) take a lot more bad news and uncertainty before this (great) company's stock is at a valuation commensurate with future cashflows and risks.

    Best,
    Paul

    1. Re:I too am enjoying the show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am enjoying the show because the volatility may give me the ability to pick up shares when they dip to a reasonable level.

      Yeah, I might be willing to take a flier on a few hundred shares at $0.01-$0.05/share, too. GOOG is nothing but bubble.

    2. Re:I too am enjoying the show. by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      GOOG won't be a value stock any time soon.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    3. Re:I too am enjoying the show. by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      True enough. At 10x book and 70x trailing earnings I'm just being hopeful. I'm not one of those guys who is buoying the price when it falls thirty bucks because all the sudden it's a "deal" in the mind of analysts who have done nothing but heap praise on the stock performance.

      On the other hand, maybe it /is/ a deal (an unprecedented one), but it is not one I'd put money on.

      Best,
      Paul

  23. Fuck Wall Street. by mikelieman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Playing the Wall Street Game isn't Google's game.

    Just be glad, Wall Street, that they even let you in to play.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    1. Re:Fuck Wall Street. by dedazo · · Score: 1
      Just be glad, Wall Street, that they even let you in to play.

      Even the Google fanboy in me would be hard pressed to attempt an argument like that... It's the other way around.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    2. Re:Fuck Wall Street. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing the Wall Street Game isn't Google's game.

      then it was a pretty f'ing stupid move on their part to go public

    3. Re:Fuck Wall Street. by LTripleJ · · Score: 1

      First, Wall Street in the sense you mean it is not a section of Lower Manhattan, but instead the collective body of investors. "Wall Street" didn't descend on Google like a vulture. Google chose to become a publicly traded company and held an IPO for the sole purpose of raising capital by selling shares to "Wall Street" (i.e. you, me and everyone else that bought those shares). Google benefitted handsomely from the hype and mystery which they've cultivated and which has driven up their stock price to astonishing levels. Until recently Google had greater market capitalization than many major and established companies. Is Google really worth more than Cisco, or IBM, or Merck, etc? If so, people want some solid evidence to justify the stock price. If Google refuses to give it, people will conclude that Google is just a fancy advertising company facing stiff and increasing competition. People will lose confidence, sell, and the stock price will fall. Google won't have the $10's of billions they'll be needing to pull off that Earth Shattering, Life Changing "Thing", whatever it may be, that many have believed them poised to do. Google has been playing "Wall Street" like a fiddle. "Wall Street" appears to be waking up...

    4. Re:Fuck Wall Street. by satchmodian · · Score: 1

      Excuse me??? If it wasn't for wall street Google would not have the billions of dollars that they have to spend. Let me explain to you how wall street works since obviously you have a one sided and narrow view of the world. If a company with significant potential but lack of funds wants to grow, they can sell a stake in the company in exchange for cash money to spend on growing the business. Google has done this twice, both with the IPO and with a secondary offering. To say that Google doesn't play the wall street game is simply stupid. They are already playing it because they agreed to let other people take an ownership stake in the company. Now other people have a say in how Google is run but the management at Google (programmer entrepreneurs with a lack of business sense) don't like being told what to do... ever. If you look through Google's financial statements for the past couple years, you will see that they have poor spending restraint. Their assets only grew in the last year because wall street gave them another 1.2B dollars. Also, with the number of options they are giving out to employees what is essentially happening is that they are taking shareholder money from the open market and giving it to employees, which I have no problem with when taken to a certain degree, but Google is handing out options like candy and therefore affecting the ownership stake of all other shareholders of the company. Additionally, they are showing the same spending irrationality that is attributed to the average American consumer without the corresponding increased return on investment. Most recently, the stock price is beginning to reflect how juvenile the company's operations are.

  24. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by keilinw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually I don't see a problem with Goolge penalizing for using dishonest techniques... and quite frankly I'm happy that they did because I got to learn something new... and I have something interesting to write about :)

    You are right, the only people who really have a "beef" with Google are the stock brokers, web site operators, and anyone whos privacy might be at stake...but in the end, I still love the company.

    Matt Wong
    http://www.themindofmatthew.com

  25. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, Google bought and monopolize huge Usenet archive that goes back years and years. So it would such if google dried up and died. Actually, since they're really keen on all kinds of other publishers 'giving it up for the public good' they should do as well. I would think a ten volume DVD-ROM set would probably cover the Usenet archive (minus binaries) up 'til about 1998 or so... So google should release that, to anybody who wants to buy a copy. At a reasonable 'people friendly' price... What does a Ten DVD box set cost at WalMart again???

  26. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gp said "cool new features"

    you complain that they are just old apps despite google's improvements (thus they gave them new features)...

    there is a big difference between new features and new apps, so it begs the question, why did you post and arguement if you were agreeing with the gp?

  27. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by keilinw · · Score: 1

    You're absolutely right.. in fact, I'd probably have more free time if I didn't waste so much time in front of the computer.... if I'm not on Google or using one of their tools, then I'm talking about it... oops.. and so are you!

    But, don't forget that even if the world would continue on its path...we still enjoy the products the company produces... I mean, after all if we took away cars we still have bikes right?

    --Matthew Wong
    http://www.themindofmatthew.com

  28. Okkaaaayyyy by Coppit · · Score: 0

    Yes, Google will hire a mouthpiece as soon as they get tired of swimming in money. Sheesh. If the market wasn't happy with them, their stock price wouldn't be astronomical.

  29. If Google's Hiring it's their new place in Fremont by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    nope, that's for people in Fremont, the fun part of Seattle, where they are buying a property about a block from my house, near the Fremont Fire Circle.

    pay no attention to the marketing folks, they aren't of concern.

    It was on one of the Microsoft blogs today. With a news item in the business pages of the soon to be web-only Seattle PI.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. Naive by XMilkProject · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's sort of naive to assume that these things are 'gaffes'. There is no reason to believe that they are not all intentional.

    The article is saying these gaffes are hurting google, but personally, I'm not seeing google hurt at all... Maybe they are alot smarter than they are getting credit for.

    --
    Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
    Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
  31. Let's change it up then.... by Drogo007 · · Score: 1

    One comment with 750 "don't be evil."'s

    ******
    Lameness filter encountered.
    Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
    ******

    Ok, ok - so that was going to be 750...

  32. Chief Marketing Officer? by BalkanBoy · · Score: 1

    but why? And who is to say or can claim with any degree of certainty that these "gaffes" were bona fide, that is truly inadvertent? Yeah, let me think, a 100MM dollar company with 5000+ employees, committing public "gaffes"... well, they must be drinking gasoline at Google! Please... I'd treat it more as mooning than anything else.. they're trying to get attention. Maybe they're expecting a worse (downward) plateu than they were hoping for in their stock price.... All those paper millionaires would like to cash in too, ya know, if they can get a cold chance....

    --
    'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
  33. You realize by RedHatLinux · · Score: 1
    that they are a corporation, whose some purpose is to make money, right? Look, I am aware that they put out some fantastic spin on the issue, such as alerting Chinese users that they are being censored.

    But that will only last as long as the PRC regime decided to allow it. Then, Google will bend over, and sell out again.

    1. Re:You realize by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Their purposes are clearly stated in their charter. Feel free to look it up, and reply with a report on what you find. (I honestly don't know, but I suspect it isn't as clear cut as "making profits")

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    2. Re:You realize by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Is it spin to say at least google is making a noise intead of quietly rolling over like the other two have in both China and the US. They are not saints but they are certainly the least "evil" of the big three.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  34. Chief Marketing Officer by Traa · · Score: 0

    I hate marketing guys too, but suggesting that Google should have a Chief Marketing Officer to officialy lie to the public about what they do is laying it on pretty thick as to what that position is really all about.

    As far as I am concerned the people at Google should continue to do the best they can without the help of trained professionals in the art of making stuff sound better then it is.

  35. Twice revisited by threedognit3 · · Score: 1

    Eric, oh Eric. Your time is up. A $350/share stock is just not acceptable.

  36. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by AlterTick · · Score: 1
    There is a company that wrote code that a person can insert into their websites in order to "show the location" of who's browsing their sites. This code had a cleverly embedded keyword in it that made a vague reference to "MySpace.com." As a result of including such code on my site, I was getting A LOT of Google hits.. and people were asking me how they could do the same thing. I answered by posing a copy of the code on my website... and then I got hit by a Google Site Ranking Penalty... something that I did not know even existed! Now, I am trying to recover my site's ranking and I'm not even sure how to do this.

    You need to make your page relevant to recover your ranking. The penalty you received was google's way of saying your shouldn't be ranked that high. If your ranking is even lower than it was before the "myspace" thing boosted it, well, then maybe that's the price you pay for saying "hey guys, here's how to sucker pagerank" instead of "hey google, pagerank is being suckered by something on my page".

    --
    Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
  37. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by shawb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    like their relentlessly protected the interest of their chinese users?

    Google made compromises which they felt were in the best interest of the Chinese Users. Their options were 1)be banned by the chinese government or 2)censor the results. Now google censors the results, but at the very least tells the users that results are being cesored per Chinese Law. This is information that, as far as I know, other search engines do not reveal. Letting the Chinese people know which information is being censored is the first step in getting that censored information to them, as it will spark curiosity in the rebelious who know that something is wrong with the system, and now have actual evidence.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  38. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

    I think the thing is that Google doesn't publish what they consider right or wrong. This dude didn't lose anything, but imagine that your business hinges on whether people can find you via google.

    Competitors do LOTS of things via google to fuck over your company. They click your ads (this is more prevalant in yahoo, though, where people can see what you pay per click), they get pissed and report you if your webpage is higher on search rankings.

    I work for a firm that gets all its business from our Google ranking. We have spent dime zero on advertising, instead we have a well described webpage.

    Google's hypocracy is that they DON'T want you to do anything to get higher on their search results, yet people who DO get higher are rewarded with better business and therefore , a higher ranking.

    And the thing is, we got booted off, and we weren't using any deceptive techniques. Not that we'd know what google would consider 'deceptive', since google doesn't publish its standards. Yet google respects blogs attacks on information by doing nothing about googlebombing blogs. If google wants the most accurate search results, they sure have a weird way of showing it: No open documentation on standards, allowing tainted results to be displayed, and using capricious methods to reset pageranks.

    --
    Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
  39. Blah, blah, blah, profits, blah. Blah. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    A company can declare itself a for profit organization only to differentiate itself from other kind of organizations for a myriad of different reasons.

    The goal of the company may not necessarily be to make a profit, but it may be convenient to define itself as capable of doing so.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Blah, blah, blah, profits, blah. Blah. by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      The goal of the company may not necessarily be to make a profit, but it may be convenient to define itself as capable of doing so.

      It is purely academic though isn't it. The original point was that their far overriding goal is to make money (like 99% of other companies).

  40. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think cool new features is a very accurate statement. Thanks to Google, now every significant webmail provider has increased storage. Thanks to Google, instant messaging is starting to become more open. Thanks to Google, web based maps are a lot more usable with many new features (hybrid maps with both satellite and road overlays). Thanks to Google, there's a more viable video distribution method available now. Most importantly, all of them are offered for FREE.

    Google proved that Yahoo, MSN, etc. could do many of the advancements (since now virtually every Google feature is copied), but they didn't because they did not have real competition amongst each other yet. Whether or not you like Google, they have pushed others significantly to actually innovate.

  41. Read the prospectus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I googled (love using it as a verb)"

    hey, you fucking ignorant moron (love using it as noun!) - read the prospectus. Google's voting stock is owned by the company's executives, it's not public, and so they're not accountable to anyone.

    That would have taken 30 seconds of research

    You must be a blogger.

  42. Seems like someone needs a job... by guruevi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Earlier this week suggestions that Apple needs a Security Czar, now that Google needs a CMO. Next week: Microsoft needs a good CEO, CTO, CSO and CMO, RedHat needs a Chief Hackers Officer and Novell a Kernel Czar.

    I am also looking for a job, but I'm not suggesting new (unnecessary/redundant) jobs to any company's I would like to work at.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  43. Stock Investing by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    Stick with it. Google stock may not continue to rise at an astronomical pace, but it's still a growing, profitable company. In the long run, it will be worth it.

    I find that as a stock investor as long as you invest in healthy, profitable companies, stocks may falter from time to time, but you will do well in the long run. Google stock may be out of fashion right now (good time to buy), but I have confidence that its continuing profitability will pay off in the long term. BTW, by "long term" I don't mean a year or two, but five years or a decade.

    The time to bail is not when a stock price plummets, as that can be caused by undisciplined investors acting on whims, but when the entire company is in serious financial trouble (GM).

  44. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by JacksBrokenCode · · Score: 1
    Prior to this experience I thought Google was great... but it appears to me that much of their company is "automated" and that my site somehow tripped some automated flags and hence automatically punished me... for something someone else did.

    Wrong, dude. Nobody else put the code on your site, you did. The fact that you didn't check the code first to understand what it was doing is not Google's fault. Instead of being pissed at Google for this, you should learn to double-check code that you get from other people

  45. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by LegendLength · · Score: 1
    ... with technology advancements cool new features.


    ... let's not pretend these ideas are "new".

    Not only are they 'new' to Google (very acceptable usage of 'new' by the GP post), they are also new to search engines in general.

    everything google does is available elsewhere, and in a form such that the quality of our lives would not significantly change if google dried up and died.

    Did anyone come close to claiming such a thing? Certainly not the post you replied to.
  46. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    so, you feel it necessary to use profanity because because someone typed a word incorrectly. yep, you made your point alright.

  47. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by farble1670 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    right. okay. it was about helping the chinese users. it wasn't about keeping their access to an advertising market where they stand to make billions of dollars. nothing like that at all.

    if google cared about freedom of speech, they'd have said f-u to china and their censorship. of course, i would not have in any way expected them to do that considering that they are a for-profit corporation with investors that expect them to make money.

  48. You know by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 1

    It's occurred to me that everytime I use google, it can't help me find the one thing I want online; common sense.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!
  49. What is it with BusinessWeek? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Is their standard response to any problem that the company in question should hire a new figurehead, and call him the "Chief (whatver) Officer"?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  50. You should work for BW by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Earlier this week suggestions that Apple needs a Security Czar, now that Google needs a CMO.

    You beat me to the punch. I saw this article and thought, "What, is it Backseat Driver Week at BW?" Since you're looking for a job, maybe you could head up their Redundancy Detection Department. Apparently they need one.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  51. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "I think cool new features is a very accurate statement. Thanks to Google, now every significant webmail provider has increased storage. Thanks to Google, instant messaging is starting to become more open."

    I don't think either of these examples could be considered features, new or otherwise.

    "Google proved that Yahoo, MSN, etc. could do many of the advancements (since now virtually every Google feature is copied)..".

    Let's be fair. Google has copied more features from other companies then others have copied from Google. That's to be expected, of course. They were late to the game and they're only one company. I think it's misleading to suggest that Google has been more creative than other companies, however. They've just been at the top of their game the last couple of years and have been getting nothing but positive press until recently.

  52. Giraffes? by mh101 · · Score: 1

    At first glance, I thought the title was Gauging Google's Giraffes ...

    --
    Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
  53. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Your hatred for all things corporate is blining you to GP's point, how can censorship be overcome in China if the people don't know it is happening? Simarly with the justice dept, googles refusal to comply is what brings the media attention to the issue. In both China and the US the other main players (Yahoo and MSN) simply rolled over for the authorities. Who would you choose from the big three search engines, one of the two that are quiet and submissive about government demands or the one who says f-u in their own subtle style.

    Unless you want to go back to the jungle, you cannot un-invent or destroy commerce and trade, nor can you divorce bussiness from politics. Even in the jungle an attractive wife for the chief is likely to cost quite a few pigs. You would be well advised to learn something about money and politics in the concrete jungle before it eats you alive.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  54. Stop with the chief officers already by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let me see... in the past few days BusinessWeek have suggested that Apple's recent security problems mean they should hire a security czar. And now if Google have public relations 'gaffes', obviously the answer is to hire a chief public relations officer. It's pretty clear how to create new BusinessWeek editorials:

    - Pick a company X;
    - Suggest the company has had vaguely defined 'problems' in field Y;
    - Therefore, X must hire a chief Y officer!

    I look forward to many more of these editorials linked from Slashdot in the future!

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  55. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I think you underestimate the power of the simple unblinking slot as an interface to the complexity of the web, one legend has it that it was inspired by the HHGTTG. Googles main page is synonomous with search like coke is synomous with cola, marketing gurus would sell their soul to have that sort of "creativity".

    OTOH: If people can't reasonably trust the independence of the slot's answers or privacy of the questions it will eventually loose out to a more trustworthy slot, even if it is hidden by a screenfull of ads. It is in googles interest to comply with the law, it is in googles long term intrests to publicly highlight "big brother" threats by erecting censorship notices and fighting court battles to keep data private. Amongst the major search engines there are none that resist political shenanigans anywhere near as forcefully as google does, personaly I wont even consider the other engines until they stop rolling over to the authorities and start doing something constructive to deter big brother from getting a foothold.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  56. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must be one of those human rights activists comments.

    First, Google isn't a non-profit organization contrary to popular belief. FYI, when the google shares went public, just about every person working at Google must have made millions. Last time I checked, "do no evil" does not mean, "make no money".

    With regards to "do no evil", people are making a huge deal out of this catch phrase. Actually, I find it humorous because before China, I had never even noticed that this was google's slogan. This coming from someone that uses google multiple times each day. I'm sure the majority of google users are just like me. Prove me wrong.

    Second, google received the most attention over China because it is the largest search engine out there. Also the company making the most money from searches. Notice, not non-profit. Their competition right now is Yahoo and Microsoft. Both of which gave in to China's demand without a fight. In fact, they basically bowed before every demand that China made. Then you have Google who could have easily done the same and made money in China, yet they decided to tell people when they were being censored. Why is that? Boggles the mind. Microsoft and Yahoo didn't do this. Does this mean you're going to use their search engine over google? Are you telling me that because Microsoft and Yahoo aren't as big as google and didn't put up a fight that you're going to use their search engine instead? Doesn't really make logical sense imho.

    Remember, Google is making it easy for the Chinese to see when they're being censored. It was a condition that it be allowed before Google moved in to China. Where were the conditions from Microsoft and Yahoo?

    Please don't bring up the "do no evil" catch phrase here. I'm sure that the chinese users don't feel that it was evil for Google to enter their market or to tell them that they were being censored, and exactly when they're being censored. You could argue that this is "doing good" by google in China. In China, things are censored, and that's how things are. They have a different culture, and a different government. Only to Americans would Google be considered as doing something evil. Then again, any country that isn't a democracy, where the people don't speak English, and where the entire country doesn't bow before our every whim would be considered "evil" in our eyes. Remember, we elected George Bush twice. Shouldn't we be considered the "evil" ones.

  57. Let me get this straight... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

    ...Google has problems, and instead of calling upon Google to fix them, Businessweek suggests they hire a Chief Marketing Officer?!

    If even the people who target CxOs admit implicitly that all a Chief Marketing Officer does is try to put spin on problems, then what does that say about Marketing in general?

    Mart
    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  58. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by AlmostJaded · · Score: 1

    Don't be fooled by warm and cuddley. Everything GOOG does is for the protection of their revenue stream: advertising. Look at the original business model for Gmail before the State of California took action. Silence enables abuse.

  59. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    hmmm. do you think the chinese people would figure out that they are being censored if they could not access the biggest search engine on the internet? my guess: probably. please don't try to tell me that china can completely hide the existence of the internet's largest and by far most prolific search service even in a censored internet.

    google's saying f-u to china? everything google is doing on google.cn is reviewed and approved by china. can you please explain how exactly that is an f-u?

    i don't hate google. i use it every day. but you have to be pretty blind to think that google agreeing to censor information has anything to do w/ them trying to help the chinese people or saying f-u to the chinese government. they agreed to censor because if they didn't, they'd be locked out of the fastest growing advertising market and therefore revenue stream.

  60. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to my post. Perhaps you intended to reply to someone else.

  61. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Off course thay are making money, what the fuck is wrong with that? The point is google does not have to put up notices, the censors would prefer them to simply roll over like Yahoo and MSN. The philosophy behind this is "you have to be in the system to change it". I use search engines like everyone else, but I wont use MSN or Yahoo until they at least attempt to fight censorship in China and government prying in the US.

    "google's saying f-u to china? everything google is doing on google.cn is reviewed and approved by china. can you please explain how exactly that is an f-u?"

    First of all everything is not reviewed and approved, the censors ban sites with black-lists and keywords. Second google redirects enquires about blocked sites back to the censors by posting a notice. The other major engines simply remove the offending results so the user does not even know they are being censored.

    "please don't try to tell me that china can completely hide the existence of the internet's largest and by far most prolific search service even in a censored internet"

    Take away the words "don't", "completely" and "even", or to put it another way, how would the american public know the justice dept is snooping if it were not for google jacking up about it?

    "but you have to be pretty blind to think that google agreeing to censor information has anything to do w/ them trying to help the chinese people or saying f-u to the chinese government"

    They have a choice, it's either censor or get out, they chose a compromise, comply and point out those who are enforcing the censorship. You have to be naieve to think money is the only factor driving corporate strategy. Money brings power and from what I can see google is using it's power to promote freedom of speech and privacy. MSN and Yahoo do not, and are willing to hunt down curious users for government censors. Google may not live up to your idea of "do no evil" but they are light years ahead of the others when it comes to informing and protecting their users.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  62. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "Silence enables abuse"

    Exactly, I choose google over the others because they protest the loudest when it comes to complying with government censorship and snooping. Looking out for their users interests with issues like free-speech and privacy is what gives them a firm grip on market share, protects their revenue stream and ensures long term viability. And yes, they make a shitload of money following that strategy, so what?

    I do not for second belive google is run by saints but to be blunt it's not hard to appear "warm and cuddly" when compared to the slugs at Yahoo or MSN. The reason I know this is because google protested loud enough for news media to become curious about the silent practices of search engines. As for GMail, I have not used it but I know they scan the contents for targeted marketing. The reason I know is google advertised the fact as loudly as it advertised the 1GB limit. My question is, what do MSN and Yahoo do with the information and who are they sharing it with? Not to mention my past experience with the MSMessenger/Outlook Express symbiosis was no different to fighting a stubborn information sucking virus.

    "Everything GOOG does is for the protection of their revenue stream: advertising"

    And for "advertising" to be intrested in google, google needs users. Google actions on censorship, privacy and revenue forcasting have pissed off some powerfull groups in both bussiness and politics, so tell me, how does getting the puppet masters of mass media conglomerates offside protect their revenue?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  63. It wasn't "I mean you no harm"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was "I come in peace." The movie was Dark Angel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099817/ - the 1990 movie, not the 2000 tv series starring Jessica Alba). Notably, in the Final Confrontation (as all Iconic Struggles from movies of the 80s and 90s had), the following exchange ensues:

    Bad Alien: I come in peace.
    Jack Caine (Dolph): Then you go in pieces, asshole.

  64. Re:Google's Philosophy: a love and hate relationsh by AlmostJaded · · Score: 1

    Query: What is the difference between the public library system and Google? How many differences can you cite? I'll give it an amateur's go: trade secrets? It's not my privacy rights GOOG is trying to protect. It's "crown jewel trade secrets" so they say and public image.

  65. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, they are just not saying what their revenue is going to be in the future, they left that black art to the market analysts and financial planners.

    RTFA. The main objection is that Google did not responsibly inform its shareholders about a $90 million dollar settlement in a click fraud case; and in general, that Google isn't treating inquiries into the topic of click fraud seriously enough so as to satisfy shareholders' interest in the matter.

    This is a completely different issue than resisting pressure to provide guidance to analysts (a topic which, in fact, the article barely even alludes to). Click fraud is something that cuts into Google's profitable advertising business. Definitely something to look into iif you're a shareholder.