Not surprising Bing isn't affected, they don't crawl anywhere near as often as Google so wouldn't be affected by sporadic 404's since they wouldn't pick them up.
Why do you guys bother coming up with these elaborate conspiracy theories when Google encounters a bug in their system?
We've seen that Apple keeps web pages in their servers but merely deactivates their visibility. When they were first working on the password bug they hid the page but people were still able to access it if they knew the direct link address. Only after Apple noticed this they decided to shut down the server.
Everyone in here loves to hang Google for anything it does wrong but when someone calls out an Apple flaw, they're trolls, fandroids, etc.
Cracks me up. Site is Apple insider. And let's see, maps, mobile me, bumpers, Apple makes many mistakes and owns up to them. Google just get's caught, and it's never their fault. For me, it's a respect issue. I respect companies that behave well, and well, don't respect the ones that don't.
Cracks me up. Site is Apple insider. And let's see, maps, mobile me, bumpers, Apple makes many mistakes and owns up to them. Google just get's caught, and it's never their fault. For me, it's a respect issue. I respect companies that behave well, and well, don't respect the ones that don't.
What exactly did they get caught doing? Again on what page did the iTunes link come up on competing search engines?
Are you suggesting that Google wants popular results to be several pages deep? Does that not contradict the entire basis for their success in the web search industry? They got to the top by giving relevant results. Users would stop using Google if it didn't provide them with the best results first, so it's entirely within their future interest to keep users happy, even if it comes at the expense of showing fewer ads immediately.
Again, naive users would think they are getting the best results. Many of them don't know of any other search engine. "Google" has become a verb like Xerox. No one Bings it. Everyone Googles it.
Cracks me up. Site is Apple insider. And let's see, maps, mobile me, bumpers, Apple makes many mistakes and owns up to them. Google just get's caught, and it's never their fault. For me, it's a respect issue. I respect companies that behave well, and well, don't respect the ones that don't.
They never said it wasn't their fault, they explained the source of the problem. They can't say they messed up when they really didn't. Their system performs a certain function based on specific parameters. The fact that Apple builds their website a certain way that conflicts with those parameters shouldn't be Google problem.
LOL at people using the word "conspiracy". That's just as bad as the tactics conspiracy freaks (and I'm being nice) use. It's either A or B, and if you don't support A then you must be siding with B. Why does Google playing around with their search results have to become a full-blown conspiracy. It's not black and white.
Did everyone forget the numerous investigations going on against Google around the world for this exact thing (Google modifying results)? Or Google modifying code to specifically side step Safari (something Google said was an "accident" but was quickly proven to be intentional)? They ended up paying a $22 million fine for that.
And peoe still defend this company. Or outright deny they do anything to modify results to further benefit them?
They never said it wasn't their fault, they explained the source of the problem. They can't say they messed up when they really didn't. Their system performs a certain function based on specific parameters. The fact that Apple builds their website a certain way that conflicts with those parameters shouldn't be Google problem.
Well, first of all, your final sentence points is a bit ridiculous. That how people build their web sites affects their search rankings would seem to be a huge flaw in Google's, or anyone's, search algorithms. Basically, what you are saying is that, the fact that Google's algorithms can be gamed shouldn't be Google's problem. In fact, it's a huge problem for them, and points to a fundamental flaw in their methodology.
Secondly, no one believes that this was "inadvertent", simply because it's something Google does all the time, and because they are a company without ethics. In short, they've cried "inadvertent" too many times. They are either the sloppiest technology company in the world, which seems improbable, or liars.
Did everyone forget the numerous investigations going on against Google around the world for this exact thing (Google modifying results)
And peoe still defend this company. Or outright deny they do anything to modify results to further benefit them?
There's been and are numerous investigations of Apple's book sales too. Does that equate to guilt? Unless an investigation is now evidence of wrongdoing you must have some solid proof that Google manipulates search results to benefit themselves. Mind sharing it? They may or may not but I've not seen the proof that you have.
As far as sponsored results go, Google differentiates those as clearly as any of the other search engines, and much better than Bing does. Do a search for Sony TV parts on both Google and Bing and tell me which does a better job of letting you know which results are paid placement.
LOL at people using the word "conspiracy". That's just as bad as the tactics conspiracy freaks (and I'm being nice) use. It's either A or B, and if you don't support A then you must be siding with B. Why does Google playing around with their search results have to become a full-blown conspiracy. It's not black and white.
Did everyone forget the numerous investigations going on against Google around the world for this exact thing (Google modifying results)? Or Google modifying code to specifically side step Safari (something Google said was an "accident" but was quickly proven to be intentional)? They ended up paying a $22 million fine for that.
And peoe still defend this company. Or outright deny they do anything to modify results to further benefit them?
Exactly. Google's entire history is full of shady activities and endless "innocent errors" that always just happen to work in Google's favor and against their competition. You'd think that even the shills would eventually get tired of defending that behavior.
That isn't to say that there isn't some finagling going on make Google's result look more attractive — they certainly have done some very dubious things over the years — but to all of a sudden push Apple's results back a half dozen pages makes absolutely no sense for a business standpoint. It could be an asshole engineer that maliciously made a change on his own behalf and Google is covering up that fact to save some face in how easily results can be manipulated (just a scenario; I have no idea how easy it is to do that) but it's certainly not Google the company sitting around looking for ways to not include Apple in their search results.
I took some time to review the source code of many of the pages that appeared above the Apple app page link in the search results. Every page that I looked at was very well crafted from an SEO perspective. Although Apple's page was also well crafted they could use a better url naming scheme much like the url of this page is much more descriptive than just "app/Facebook/id12345".
As far as the Google placement, I'm sure their algorithm makes every effort to find relevant Google content first and put that at the top. I don't know if there is any legal accountability that Google must adhere to but other than avoiding bad press and public opinion, to me it looks like Google just bumped its own offering to the top and Apple's link was in fair competition with the other pages returned by the simplistic query.
That how people build their web sites affects their search rankings would seem to be a huge flaw in Google's, or anyone's, search algorithms.
Really? Do you have any idea how SEO works? How people build websites has a MASSIVE effect on their rankings, and Google provide guidelines on best practice. Would you rather have badly built and irrelevant websites appear at the top of searches, or well-built and properly structured sites with relevant content?
I'm not saying that this is the issue here (in fact, nobody on here actually knows what the issue is so all this discussion is normal internet baloney), but your statement is just plain wrong.
Really? Do you have any idea how SEO works? How people build websites has a MASSIVE effect on their rankings, and Google provide guidelines on best practice. Would you rather have badly built and irrelevant websites appear at the top of searches, or well-built and properly structured sites with relevant content?
Duh! What you are (rightly) saying has a "MASSIVE effect" is exactly the problem, and it's exactly what allows people to game the system -- i.e., use SEO techniques -- to push their sites higher in the rankings than they ought to be.
I'd rather have relevant results, and not a bunch of SEO propped sites appear at the top of the search results. I'd rather not have the search company, Google in this case, be manually tweaking results at all. And it is exactly these flaws in their systems that require them to do so, and allow abuse at times.
There's been and are numerous investigations of Apple's book sales too. Does that equate to guilt? Unless an investigation is now evidence of wrongdoing you must have some solid proof that Google manipulates search results to benefit themselves. Mind sharing it? They may or may not but I've not seen the proof that you have.
As far as sponsored results go, Google differentiates those as clearly as any of the other search engines, and much better than Bing does. Do a search for Sony TV parts on both Google and Bing and tell me which does a better job of letting you know which results are paid placement.
Utterly disingenuous and irrelevant response, as usual. Total red herring to distract from the real issue. Nice try.
Duh! What you are (rightly) saying has a "MASSIVE effect" is exactly the problem, and it's exactly what allows people to game the system -- i.e., use SEO techniques -- to push their sites higher in the rankings than they ought to be.
I'd rather have relevant results, and not a bunch of SEO propped sites appear at the top of the search results. I'd rather not have the search company, Google in this case, be manually tweaking results at all. And it is exactly these flaws in their systems that require them to do so, and allow abuse at times.
Sorry that is simply not the case. The reason search engines require properly structured code is because people were trying to game the system. Your site can easily get black listed if you try to spam the keywords such as listing your competitor's product name in your meta information. It is fairly simple to comply with the rules and if you don't, your rank gets dumped. SEO marketers are very aware of the pitfalls of deceptive coding practices. If you get black listed it can take years to regain your natural organic rank.
By your logic a site coded entirely in Flash or Javascript with no crawl-able data exposed to the search engine should be ranked according to the information that a human reader may be able to ascertain form viewing the site, which makes no sense at all. That is why everything needs to match on a web page. The title needs to match the url and the keywords need to match the words found in the body text and the description needs to match the content such as the <h1> tags. Only if all of that is accurate do the page back links have an effect.
As far as the Google placement, I'm sure their algorithm makes every effort to find relevant Google content first and put that at the top. I don't know if there is any legal accountability that Google must adhere to but other than avoiding bad press and public opinion, to me it looks like Google just bumped its own offering to the top and Apple's link was in fair competition with the other pages returned by the simplistic query.
I don't think anyone reasonable will say it's not possible that Google plays favourites with itself but that's a far cry from maliciously taking anything from Apple and sticking it a half dozen or more pages back. There is simply no benefit for them to do that. Case in point, all we've seen is bad press for Google on this and no word of people dropping their iPads for a Nexus 7 simply because Angry Birds showed up for Android and not for iOS. Don't you think Google is smarter than that? I do. If I wanted to finagle the results I'd Google's hits at the top and put Apple's hits a little farther down on the page, but still on the same page. Still, even that doesn't make sense as people aren't going to drop their iDevice for an Android device based on 3 hours of improper search data. They are much more likely to try a different search engine before that happens. And why are we ignoring the info about Google's own DNS not being able to find Apple yesterday during that time? Everything points to a hiccup with the system, not a devious plan by an evil corporation.
Comments
So what page did it show up on Bing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Why do you guys bother coming up with these elaborate conspiracy theories when Google encounters a bug in their system?
We've seen that Apple keeps web pages in their servers but merely deactivates their visibility. When they were first working on the password bug they hid the page but people were still able to access it if they knew the direct link address. Only after Apple noticed this they decided to shut down the server.
Everyone in here loves to hang Google for anything it does wrong but when someone calls out an Apple flaw, they're trolls, fandroids, etc.
Cracks me up. Site is Apple insider. And let's see, maps, mobile me, bumpers, Apple makes many mistakes and owns up to them. Google just get's caught, and it's never their fault. For me, it's a respect issue. I respect companies that behave well, and well, don't respect the ones that don't.
What proof do you have of that? Maybe it only gets reported when it happens to Apple.
What exactly did they get caught doing? Again on what page did the iTunes link come up on competing search engines?
Again, naive users would think they are getting the best results. Many of them don't know of any other search engine. "Google" has become a verb like Xerox. No one Bings it. Everyone Googles it.
They never said it wasn't their fault, they explained the source of the problem. They can't say they messed up when they really didn't. Their system performs a certain function based on specific parameters. The fact that Apple builds their website a certain way that conflicts with those parameters shouldn't be Google problem.
LOL at people using the word "conspiracy". That's just as bad as the tactics conspiracy freaks (and I'm being nice) use. It's either A or B, and if you don't support A then you must be siding with B. Why does Google playing around with their search results have to become a full-blown conspiracy. It's not black and white.
Did everyone forget the numerous investigations going on against Google around the world for this exact thing (Google modifying results)? Or Google modifying code to specifically side step Safari (something Google said was an "accident" but was quickly proven to be intentional)? They ended up paying a $22 million fine for that.
And peoe still defend this company. Or outright deny they do anything to modify results to further benefit them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
They never said it wasn't their fault, they explained the source of the problem. They can't say they messed up when they really didn't. Their system performs a certain function based on specific parameters. The fact that Apple builds their website a certain way that conflicts with those parameters shouldn't be Google problem.
Well, first of all, your final sentence points is a bit ridiculous. That how people build their web sites affects their search rankings would seem to be a huge flaw in Google's, or anyone's, search algorithms. Basically, what you are saying is that, the fact that Google's algorithms can be gamed shouldn't be Google's problem. In fact, it's a huge problem for them, and points to a fundamental flaw in their methodology.
Secondly, no one believes that this was "inadvertent", simply because it's something Google does all the time, and because they are a company without ethics. In short, they've cried "inadvertent" too many times. They are either the sloppiest technology company in the world, which seems improbable, or liars.
There's been and are numerous investigations of Apple's book sales too. Does that equate to guilt? Unless an investigation is now evidence of wrongdoing you must have some solid proof that Google manipulates search results to benefit themselves. Mind sharing it? They may or may not but I've not seen the proof that you have.
As far as sponsored results go, Google differentiates those as clearly as any of the other search engines, and much better than Bing does. Do a search for Sony TV parts on both Google and Bing and tell me which does a better job of letting you know which results are paid placement.
Searched for whatsapp on bing and the iTunes link showed up on page 3 for me, well below the link to the play store and blackberry even.
Watching the apple fanbois try to justify their hypocrisy and conspiracy theories in this thread is pretty amusing.
Exactly. Google's entire history is full of shady activities and endless "innocent errors" that always just happen to work in Google's favor and against their competition. You'd think that even the shills would eventually get tired of defending that behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That isn't to say that there isn't some finagling going on make Google's result look more attractive — they certainly have done some very dubious things over the years — but to all of a sudden push Apple's results back a half dozen pages makes absolutely no sense for a business standpoint. It could be an asshole engineer that maliciously made a change on his own behalf and Google is covering up that fact to save some face in how easily results can be manipulated (just a scenario; I have no idea how easy it is to do that) but it's certainly not Google the company sitting around looking for ways to not include Apple in their search results.
I took some time to review the source code of many of the pages that appeared above the Apple app page link in the search results. Every page that I looked at was very well crafted from an SEO perspective. Although Apple's page was also well crafted they could use a better url naming scheme much like the url of this page is much more descriptive than just "app/Facebook/id12345".
As far as the Google placement, I'm sure their algorithm makes every effort to find relevant Google content first and put that at the top. I don't know if there is any legal accountability that Google must adhere to but other than avoiding bad press and public opinion, to me it looks like Google just bumped its own offering to the top and Apple's link was in fair competition with the other pages returned by the simplistic query.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
That how people build their web sites affects their search rankings would seem to be a huge flaw in Google's, or anyone's, search algorithms.
Really? Do you have any idea how SEO works? How people build websites has a MASSIVE effect on their rankings, and Google provide guidelines on best practice. Would you rather have badly built and irrelevant websites appear at the top of searches, or well-built and properly structured sites with relevant content?
I'm not saying that this is the issue here (in fact, nobody on here actually knows what the issue is so all this discussion is normal internet baloney), but your statement is just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
Really? Do you have any idea how SEO works? How people build websites has a MASSIVE effect on their rankings, and Google provide guidelines on best practice. Would you rather have badly built and irrelevant websites appear at the top of searches, or well-built and properly structured sites with relevant content?
Duh! What you are (rightly) saying has a "MASSIVE effect" is exactly the problem, and it's exactly what allows people to game the system -- i.e., use SEO techniques -- to push their sites higher in the rankings than they ought to be.
I'd rather have relevant results, and not a bunch of SEO propped sites appear at the top of the search results. I'd rather not have the search company, Google in this case, be manually tweaking results at all. And it is exactly these flaws in their systems that require them to do so, and allow abuse at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's been and are numerous investigations of Apple's book sales too. Does that equate to guilt? Unless an investigation is now evidence of wrongdoing you must have some solid proof that Google manipulates search results to benefit themselves. Mind sharing it? They may or may not but I've not seen the proof that you have.
As far as sponsored results go, Google differentiates those as clearly as any of the other search engines, and much better than Bing does. Do a search for Sony TV parts on both Google and Bing and tell me which does a better job of letting you know which results are paid placement.
Utterly disingenuous and irrelevant response, as usual. Total red herring to distract from the real issue. Nice try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Duh! What you are (rightly) saying has a "MASSIVE effect" is exactly the problem, and it's exactly what allows people to game the system -- i.e., use SEO techniques -- to push their sites higher in the rankings than they ought to be.
I'd rather have relevant results, and not a bunch of SEO propped sites appear at the top of the search results. I'd rather not have the search company, Google in this case, be manually tweaking results at all. And it is exactly these flaws in their systems that require them to do so, and allow abuse at times.
Sorry that is simply not the case. The reason search engines require properly structured code is because people were trying to game the system. Your site can easily get black listed if you try to spam the keywords such as listing your competitor's product name in your meta information. It is fairly simple to comply with the rules and if you don't, your rank gets dumped. SEO marketers are very aware of the pitfalls of deceptive coding practices. If you get black listed it can take years to regain your natural organic rank.
By your logic a site coded entirely in Flash or Javascript with no crawl-able data exposed to the search engine should be ranked according to the information that a human reader may be able to ascertain form viewing the site, which makes no sense at all. That is why everything needs to match on a web page. The title needs to match the url and the keywords need to match the words found in the body text and the description needs to match the content such as the <h1> tags. Only if all of that is accurate do the page back links have an effect.
I don't think anyone reasonable will say it's not possible that Google plays favourites with itself but that's a far cry from maliciously taking anything from Apple and sticking it a half dozen or more pages back. There is simply no benefit for them to do that. Case in point, all we've seen is bad press for Google on this and no word of people dropping their iPads for a Nexus 7 simply because Angry Birds showed up for Android and not for iOS. Don't you think Google is smarter than that? I do. If I wanted to finagle the results I'd Google's hits at the top and put Apple's hits a little farther down on the page, but still on the same page. Still, even that doesn't make sense as people aren't going to drop their iDevice for an Android device based on 3 hours of improper search data. They are much more likely to try a different search engine before that happens. And why are we ignoring the info about Google's own DNS not being able to find Apple yesterday during that time? Everything points to a hiccup with the system, not a devious plan by an evil corporation.
"No Mr. Stone, I expect you to die."