Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes? I'm happy to believe that Google did do evil, but I would like some evidence. This kind of change sounds short sighted.
That's not what I said at all...I was saying their costs were higher as a result. They detuned it to reduce the number of low quality sites appearing in Google search results. I am speculating on one particular side effect that had. I have no proof, because only Google would have the data needed to prove that.
Interestingly Google Search results have degraded heavily over the years, and for many topics almost entirely consist of bullshit SEO sites and arbitrary-keyword-generation sites (http://foo-shit.com/freude-des-schadens = automatically generated page about "freude-des-schadens").
I put this down partly to the "freshness" algorithm. You get shown the most appalling crap on the grounds that it appeared within the past few hours.
If you're a share cropper in the news blogosphere, it's stupid to spend an hour checking facts or making phone calls because then you'll be 50th to post. Post any old crap and you reap the financial rewards of "freshness".
I exaggerate only slightly....
Ah, thanks. Sorry I misunderstood what you'd written.
There is a sweet spot where results don't suck and are better than Bing so users don't leave and ad clicks increase. Personally, I am 100% sure Google has found it.
I think they may be at the point where the obvious dramatic optimizations are all played out. It also doesn't help that the high margin desktop traffic (versus lower margin mobile) is waning.
Eventually, that slows the trend where their ad revenue growth has been outpacing general internet growth.
The trouble is that investors are still expecting the same trajectory. Reverting to revenue growth solely driven by traffic growth will be a bitter pill.