(1)
Eric Lander doesn't like Google's business practices. In a recent post, he explains that Google is sacrificing relevancy for profits -- because well, money seems to do most of the talking. Eric explains that he's been getting a lot of reputation management clients who are sick and tired of seeing bad results in the top positions in the SERPs. Those companies who typically have that tainted reputation are still trying to promote ethical business practices, but it's almost "required" of them now to hire an outside consultant or company to push down those negative comments on RipOffReport and other consumer advocacy site results. Eric writes:
You’re in a position where you are being trusted to provide *factual* results and information to your users based on their search behaviors. And lately, all you care about is making that click and earning that ad revenue. ... At what point do you cross the line, create an indelible conflict of interest and eventually implode under the pressures of the investigative eye?
He has a great point. As forum members point out, Google is influential and one wonders if their goal is truly altruistic. Other forum members are a bit upset that Google has hurt them while they helped promote Google to begin with.
Is this type of behavior going to last forever? Some say it's going to end eventually. The question is "when." I'd also like to know "how."
Forum discussion continues at Sphinn.
