Most reasonable people would agree that it doesn't make sense that the companies who own or take part in a network of interlinked websites should rank higher than those who don't. And why should the websites that have people "writing" boatloads of blog comments outrank their competitors who have no desire to spam others' blogs? If you're commenting because you'll possibly get some link value rather than because you feel the need to add to the conversation, it adds unnecessary clutter and should be considered spam by the search engines (in my opinion). I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of blog and forum comments fall into that category, as do most articles submitted to article directories. - Jill Whalen,CEO of High Rankings, Boston MA
I read this today and the ambivalence I felt represented Jill's occupational integrity and courage in calling out one of the biggest of the big boys responsible for the show we call the internet on how the facts don't match up with their spin. Understanding how the trail that leads up to Google's door is one of the most lucractive and expensive ly maintained cyber paths you can find today, the defacto cargo which that road carries, there can be no mistake about, liquid capital, money for short. The western advise for deconstructing any commerical enterprise called "Follow the Money," is a key factor in analyzing internal Google policy and operation, because of its primary place in their economy and in conjunction with the skew between factoids of function and statements of policy. Thus when asking the question about black box results not justifying policy one has use money in the first variable to find the closest or smallest angle of attack in generating an explanation.
The skew then becomes less about error and more precisely about money and its leverage between functional results and how far Google's statements can veer or appear to still obtain poilcy if the questions regarding greyness in those results can be dismissed in light of a minimum set of cold hard facts obtained. Another word for this corporate spin control between operations having a skewed skew or derived skew has historically been propaganda. The way Google avoids this kind of reputational negative has to do more with the fact that Google's royalty and huge such that they acquired a form of monarchial power to their base. Thus, spin with the purpose of persuading or convincing or generating more support, necessary and part an enterprises strategic planning for competitive response no longer supports or impacts corporations economic health since the days of acquiring larger market share or over.
What the challenge is now to succeed IS in NOT giving any critical mass of content leading to dissatisfaction and rejection based on the sense of being lied to or not adequately supported or you name anything involved in a perceived lack of integrity or lack of innovative pace and speed and the challenge now is containing that everything in that box from getting out and becoming visible to the client.
Jill's article may lean a little bit in favor or her own personal and corporate bias, and such managers of critical review content must be careful about their rhetoric, carefully qualifying their assessments and editing out bias to be successful in their jobs journaling on an industry where every event and operation exists only because someone was courageous enough to invest in a new paradigm of design from which to generate solutions current programming was too weak to address, just looking at this from a pragmatic and economically viable angle. Risks are taken both out of a commitment to vision or excellence but more rroutinely because of the possiblility of bigger pay check or payday that such efforts on new development are justified by given the massive organizational support and retooling that often comes with them.
What Jill has given me pause so I could revisit my mostly cynical attitudes towards eCommerce applications which dominate the internet as well as Search Engines, which as I have already described exist at the most expensive locations where nothing but money travels and clients get treated to the back doors and alleyways so that all resources for transfrering and accounting for money are state of theh art. These doorways are gigantic perversions of infrastructure you can find at the pinnacle of business today. Shocking realities which are quiete rarely seen in public media and reporting (the real propagandists) and kept free and clear of the trouble makers like Jill by simply censoring all who travel their letting only qualified money carriers enter and exit with some very esoteric encrypted passkeys.
So there's the money, and the skew, and the logical connection with the concluding inference that money is buying the skew, and paying the owners to CONCEAL results thus maintaining the public impression that the company's purpose is not being manipulated and thus the public's vote and their choices limited and/or monopolized, worst of all that market share has been coopted and now owned instead of competed for OR that god forbid what the public is being told is a fabrication and misrepresentation hiding these facts due to the likelihood of sales revenue fueling a competitor or competing market, NOT that general revenue is at risk since its dominated these days by the advertising dollars which form the basis of why the skew exists in the first place.
It's a fascinating phenomenon of corruption to consider and credit must be given to any reports which suggest or organize the intel which expresses the truth for less sophisticated laypersons, naturally existing in positionsn of regulation and governmental oversight, people most vulnerable and given into schmoozing buyoffs and bribery tactics, backroom dealings and their own form of compromise and spins aimed at more ideological pursuits instead raw profit.
Next ... What's really going on here!
No comments:
Post a Comment