Slashdot Mirror
Google's Stomach Pangs - Adjusting to DoubleClick
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net is reporting on some trouble Google is having integrating DoubleClick into their family of products. External problems, like antitrust allegations and privacy concerns, are bad enough. The worst problems might come from within, though, as a division within DoubleClick was essentially created to game the very systems the Google search engine is founded on. '"Google is treading in dangerous waters right now," writes Ross Dunn of WebProNews.com. Google's search results "are supposed to be unbiased and highly relevant," but with Performics, "Google is put into the conflicted position of trying to generate profits by providing result-oriented organic ranking services for its own unbiased organic search results." The worry, in other words, is that Google's search results could be compromised by operating a division with an interest in skewing those results in favor of clients.' The article goes on to say how this Performics division is likely to be sold off to make sure everything stays above board."
I agree, though, even better yet, keep them as a "red team" continuing to work on ways to subvert google's results, and keep on shifting tactics to stop them.
Ever since Googles dealings in China I think we can all agree that there "do no evil" mantra is ruined completely. The have proven once that they are will to do anything for both profits and relevance. I'm not saying that I'm against a company making large profits but at some point someone within such a large organization must have ethics. I have a feeling Google is about to cast a dark shadow on many people privacy concerns and it wont be to pretty.
Does anyone know just how underhanded Performics' SEO tactics are? Much as I hesitate to put faith in uncited Wikipedia 'facts', the article on Performics claims that they are a 'Google Qualified Company', and employ 'about two dozen "Google Qualified Professionals"'.
SEO =! underhanded tactics. Sometimes SEO can be as simple as a sane site structure and standards compliant bot-readable content. It's often lots of other spammy things, but it doesn't necesserily make sense to assume that's what's going on.
Wouldn't it make sense for Google to run an 'Optimised for Google(tm)' optimisation service? The more sites that Google can spider properly, the more useful it is.
Well yes, there still is a conflict of interest, but only if they sell the services of the Performics team. They can still keep this team, using them in much the same way companies use white hat hackers-to purposely game the system, then hand the results over to Google. It's a conflict of interest if they continue to offer Doubleclick's Performics services, but it's an invaluable tool if they use it properly.
Some time in the last two years, Google started becoming much more "SEO friendly". There are meetings at Google for SEO types. Google sponsors "Search Engine Marketing" conferences. It's getting a bit embarassing.
Google has to keep growing to justify their P/E ratio of 47 and keep their stockholders happy. That's hard to do when they already have most of their primary market. It's common to see dumb merger and acquisition activity in that situation. Search with occasional ads was a terrific business - doesn't take many employees, moderate operating costs, almost no cost of goods, good margins. The things Google has gone into since search (mail, video, office apps, etc.) don't have those properties, and are less profitable than search, if not outright money drains.
Seconded. If they were to sell them off then I would at least pick their brains for everything. How do they operate, code, money, etc.
C|N>K
SEO =! underhanded tactics. Sometimes SEO can be as simple as a sane site structure and standards compliant bot-readable content. It's often lots of other spammy things, but it doesn't necesserily make sense to assume that's what's going on.
Now that Google owns them, we will learn just how slimy they were. It's in Google's best interest to expose manipulation of their business model and show how they can fight it, preferably using the very same fraudsters.
Calling this a conflict of interest assumes first that bad things were going on and second they will continue that way. Doubleclick has a spammy reputation already, so the first assumption may be good. The second assumption is laughable. If Google wanted to sell out they would do so directly but doing so would destroy them.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Google was put into that position the minute they decided to buy DoubleClick. Before Google was a Big Deal, I had it set as my home page and it was my home page for almost a decade. I changed my browser home page the day I heard about the doubleclick deal. Google is on the inevitable path now that ends in a bad place. The way business works - especially a publicly traded business - they will have no choice but to adopt the evil ways of doubleclick. Shareholders will demand it.
I know they haven't done anything really bad yet, but that will change. Slowly. Maybe too slowly for the change to be perceptible on a month-to-month basis. The writing is on the wall. Google's motto was, "Do No Evil". Then they turn around and buy DoubleClick. It's not hard to figure out.
The article author ignores (or is unaware) that Performics is not just SEO. A large part of Performics is the affiliate marketing side, which has nothing to do with SEO. There are actually several other areas they work on as well.
How well vetted was this story?