Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsullivan01 | Hacker News Reader

Let's call what it is not about: user privacy. Adwords, that I guess gobbles most clicks on a lot of searches, still transmits the data.

This is the latest from a desperate Google. Why is Google desperate? Virtually all their money is being made via ads, their original business plan. Asteroid mining and other BS "We're curing death" press releases aside, Google is dependent on adwords so they need to keep turning knobs to force sites to advertise. Their PE is 25+ so they need to show huge increase quarter to quarter to keep the scheme going.

This month Google also made the Keyword Tool for advertisers only. And in another major coincidence after Page took over, Google has made major algo changes (Panda, Penguin) giving sites virtually no way to come back in ranking but that greatly improved Google's revenue. Shocking, huh? Of course they can advertise to make up for the lost traffic, like the sites that rank high (brands.)

So do I have a smoking gun memo? Nope, but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Ever wondered why Wikipedia ranks #1 for "computer"? IMO, it has to do with forcing Dell, MS, HP and others to advertise and to increase clicks on ads. I doubt most people want to know what a "computer" is when searching Google on a computer.

That Gmail "promotions tab"? Google attacking another free source of sales and marketing.

P.S. I expect a gazillion down votes from you know who. I don't care.

View on HN

What paranoid tripe, complete with mass downvote conspiracy theory pandering. I never thought I'd hear someone on hacker news actually complain about search engine results not being commercial enough.

Most of the changes you describe enhance the user experience. Do you honestly prefer to wade through a few dozen promotional emails to find messages from your boss, friends or family? Is your argument seriously that google should make their products more inconvenient so companies have to spend less money on adwords? Not to mention the idea that there's some kind of zero-sum trade off between email marketing and adwords is ludicrous.

Similarly, wikipedia ranks high for keywords when they are associated with queries for information, not product offers. Your example of the keyword "computer" is a terrible example for making your point: for me at least, only two ads show up for this keyword, but there are dozens for "laptop". This is a strong indicator that "computer" by itself is not what people google when they're buying computers. By contrast, type in "new computer".

Finally, the keyword tool has required a (free) google ads account for a long time, so I really don't know what you're going on about here.

Everything he said was spot on, he just used a bad example at the end.

At Google, you better believe that when search changes are made - those changes are ran through a test to see if they have a positive or negative effect on revenues and profits - aka Ad clicks. And that test result heavily outweighs any accompanying change to the search result's relevancy score.

Maybe it did not start out like this, but now that Google is a publicly traded company, and now that they own the market, and now that their revenues are still completely dependent on Ad clicks, things work differently. It's not about improving search results, it's about improving revenue numbers.

If you can't see how this business process biases Google's algorithm to produce less-relevant search results on page in favor of the Ads having a higher chance of getting viewed and clicked, you have drank the kool-aid.

Bing is just as good as Google-search for most people, yet most people have made up their minds about the search engine to use. This market behavior allows Google to not be worried about making algorithmic changes that worsen the results in trade for more revenue ... as the users will keep sticking with them... Because this change has no effect on their userbase numbers (current, and growth #s).

Aside from higher CTRs, those changes (that return less relevent search results) will also improve the number of searches done and the number of Ads shown by great margins - as the users will keep at it, performing another search in hopes of getting something relevent back . It's a win-win for Google.

>At Google, you better believe that when search changes are made - those changes are ran through a test to see if they have a positive or negative effect on revenues and profits - aka Ad clicks.

This is absolutely false, and I wish people would stop repeating it. Google does not make ranking decisions based on revenue. We don't even collect that data for making ranking launch decisions.

If you believe that, you live in the GoogleMatrix! There's some MBA looking over your shoulder, maybe without you knowing and that MBA is giving feedback to your VP. Look on the bright side, you may be gullible and are destroying many small businesses (those free loaders don't buy adwords!!) and lives but at least your stock options are worth double or triple with this revenue enhancing method.

When you're desperate to increase CPC, issue mass penalties on small businesses sites, and your ad clicks increase after each major updates, what are we to make? Believe some Google corporate crap or trust your judgment?

There are many valid reasons to criticize Google, from their massive contribution to the destruction of online privacy to the Kenya scam, but ruining lives because they make it harder to game their engine? Give me a break.

but ruining lives because they make it harder to game their engine? Give me a break

Gaming??? What if they are penalizing sites or cutting off free traffic to force sites to advertise via Adwords?

Yelp supposedly pulled the same scam with bad reviews

So your thesis is that google is killing your small company by sending people interested in your business to wikipedia instead? Has it occurred to you that perhaps people are more interested in wikipedia than your business?

So your thesis is that google is killing your small company by sending people interested in your business to wikipedia instead?

No it is not. Please read the thread again and again if needed, it's a waste to repeat it or to cut and paste. Many others have made the same point over and over. When in doubt, follow the money and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Point me to a particular comment, because as far as I can tell Occam's Razor suggests that if Google, Bing, and DDG are all returning the "computer" page on wikipedia for searches for "computer", then it probably isn't some sort of industry conspiracy to make Dell shell out more money to appear on the top, while also somehow involving small businesses... or whatever your personal angle is.

There is no reason to "follow the money" here because there is nothing here to doubt. It isn't fucking strange that wikipedia is featured so prominently.

People should totally believe your conspiracy theory over the words of someone who actually works at Google (disclosure: so do I).

> Staff software engineer at Google. I work on making infrastructure fast.

Do you really believe that your job would be involved, or even have access to, the business process that weights the effect of algorithmic changes to Ad CTRs? And then approving or disproving those changes based on those factors?

Think about it -

You're telling us that if a algorithmic change improves the relevant search score by 3%, but at the same time has the effect of decreasing Ad CTR by 3%, it will go through!.. Because no one tracks this, and no one cares.

That might be an engineer's take on this, but no one at a higher business level (that deals with money) would be so naive about it.

I also don't see how this could even remotely be classified as a conspiracy theory considering it's about as standard of operating procedures as it gets... You don't fuck yourself nor your revenue numbers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting you or your job. I just don't think you are seeing the bigger picture and the place Google is right now (search market domination), and how this affects the direction they have to go to keep the desired revenue growth projections, stock prices, etc.

> Do you really believe that you would be involved . . .

I wouldn't tell you that even if I knew, and I don't. My point is only that someone who DOES have reason to know commented about it above. I believe him over someone who argues that Google is messing with the results for money, especially if the guy's evidence for the conspiracy consists solely of Google ordering the results for a query the same way everyone else does (see my other comment in this tree).

My disclosure is just so that someone wouldn't go fishing in my profile and accuse me of withholding my association. It is not like I am an authority on the way Google ranks stuff -- there are probably thousands of people outside the company that know more about it than I do.

> considering it's about as standard of operating procedures as it gets

How would you know what the standard operating procedure is? As far as I can tell, it's just a presumption on your part, and you think that somehow this counts as evidence that it's not a conspiracy theory. Sorry, that doesn't work.

I'm assuming the #1 S.O.P. (dealing with changes) for any business is you don't implement changes that negatively impact your revenue numbers.

I'm also assuming that Ad CTR (or some portion of it) is dependent on the user not getting what he/she wants in the organic search results section.

I don't think that is a safe assumption. There are plenty of documents, e.g. our IPO document, that indicate that we play the long game of providing the best results, and if the short game of getting the most revenue is harmed by that, well, tough. We play that way because the only way to keep users is to please them, and good results are critical to that end.

To be clear, I don't think you are completely unreasonable for believing what you do. Other companies are crappy, so why not Google? But you don't have any evidence, and I think you are way overstating your case.

Let me be a fly in the wall when Huber, Singhal or whoever is Searches' chief is speaking to others and especially Larry Page and I'll have proof. The proof so far is in the pudding, we read your quarterly earnings statements and see your search pages.

Ah yes, unimpeachable evidence, you said so 10 years ago and it was true then and it is true today. Debate ended.

we play the long game of providing the best results

Long term = all ads I suppose http://www.click-conversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/g... . The best results money can buy. Let's me disarm you defense: Of course, your don't do that on terms you don't have ads for.

Oh my god, ads in the ads section? What is the world coming to?

> and see your search pages

You mean the ones that are the same as the other search engines' for the specific query you complained about? Or some other ones you forgot to mention in this comment tree?

>> Oh my god, ads in the ads section? What is the world coming to?

You are real funny. The entire page is essentially ads, and 100% of what most users see /scroll to. How many users don't know that they are ads http://www.seobook.com/consumer-ad-awareness-search-results ? The brightest at Google are working on tricking users to click on ads without knowing. The truth is that you work for a money hungry, duplicitous company that engages in fraud, all sorts of fraud. The fact that you have bought the US enforcement agencies http://mashable.com/2012/04/24/google-record-lobbying/ doesn't make it right.

You mean the 640x480 crop of the page, which shows only the ads section, is 100% ads? Holy. Crap. Call the police.

>Do you really believe that you would be involved, or even have access to, the business process that weights the effect of algorithmic changes to Ad CTRs? And then approving or disproving those changes based on those factors?

Yes, I regularly watch the decisions get made. You can see an example launch meeting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtRJXnXgE-A

I've been making changes to search for 7 years. There are many metrics that I have to collect to justify a change. None of them involve ads.

> I've been making changes to search for 7 years. There are many metrics that I have to collect to justify a change. None of them involve ads.

I believe you.

What I don't believe is that the higher-ups don't track their own most important metrics.

Google is a company that gets 95% (or somewhere around that range) of its revenue from things that revolve around Ad clicks.

What some are suggesting here violates the laws of nature...

That changes made to search-results relevancy (a user getting back exactly what he/she is looking for) either does not impact Ad Click-through and Ad Impression rates, or is just not important [enough to affect the desision if those changes get made or not].

*I'm assuming that users going into the sponsored results (Ad) area has something to do with them not getting what they are looking for in the organic results area.

They track that number very carefully, but they don't track it for each change to ranking and the people who track that aren't the people who are making launch decisions for ranking.

> I'm assuming that users going into the sponsored results (Ad) area has something to do with them not getting what they are looking for in the organic results area.

I was thinking about this some more -

There is a further assumption in the above... That the users who click ads can distinguish between organic and sponsored results (or even if they care to).

Then, I remembered some time ago another study was done were it showed that the majority of ad clickers were the same 10% of the user base (give or take a few %). Or at least the same type of person (uninformed, bored, delusional, etc).

This of course would mean that changes to relevant search results will have no impact on the majority of Ad clicks. They'll click anyways.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/12/03/who_cli... http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2009/10/comS...

I am classifying it is a conspiracy theory because he is not rejecting his pet theory when even a basic amount of experimentation (done by @jamesaguilar elsewhere in the discussion) reveal results that do not align with the predictions his theory makes.

"People should totally believe your conspiracy theory over the words of someone who actually works at Google (disclosure: so do I)"

Oh yeah, that's all do, trust those accused of scamming. The same goes on Wall Street, SEC, FTC, IRS /taxes etc. If the employees of said company swear on internet forums that they are not manipulating anything, it's over.

I'm all for believing that there's a scam when there's evidence of a scam (as opposed to this, where the results are indistinguishable from what they would be if Google were acting in good faith, and no other evidence has been presented).

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=computer

http://www.bing.com/search?q=computer

It's a conspiracy, and we've even managed to rope DuckDuckGo into it.

How Google is Killing Organic Search

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5971560

Forrester: Consumers Prefer Organic Search, Not Search Ads, For Discovery

http://searchengineland.com/forrester-consumers-prefer-organ...

> Arbitrary claims without evidence. Accusations of drinking the kool-aid. Pandering.

This is such a frustrating mindset to argue with. Multiple people have already explained that wikipedia entries are often a very relevant result to return. Just to hammer in the point, a cursory search using Google's keyword tool shows that the term "new computer" has almost 4x the CPC and competitiveness of "computer". The former returns dell as its first organic result.

You say that this is just a bad example. Pray, then, what is a good example? If you're going to make outrageous claims, you should support them with evidence.

Of course google is optimizing for long term revenue. But the argument that it's sabotaging its other products to create more demand for adwords is an absurd notion.

Looks like Google's been reading http://donttrack.us/

> Ever wondered why Wikipedia ranks #1 for "computer"? IMO, it has to do with forcing Dell, MS, HP and others to advertise and to increase clicks on ads. I doubt most people want to know what a "computer" is when searching Google on a computer.

If I am searching a single noun, it is almost certain that what I really want it a link to Wikipedia. If I am looking to buy something I always add "buy" or "purchase" to the front of my search. I don't think I am particularly weird in that regard.

I don't, but if I type in "desktop" or "laptop" or "tablet" I get Amazon and Best Buy as the top organic results (admittedly, with very prominent sponsored links). "Computer" is probably less common as a search from shoppers.

To be honest, I am most likely to type a particular brand/model that I want, in which case I almost always get non-wikipedia pages (which in those cases are exactly what I want.) "honda accord" for example gives me honda.com search results before the wikipedia page.

Now if I just search "sedan", I of course get the wikipedia page first. Is this google just putting wikipedia at the top there to try to force Honda to buy ads for "sedan"? Somehow I highly doubt that. If I search "sedan", chances are I am looking to read about sedans, not jump right to buying an as-of-yet undetermined sedan.

You are a sophisticated user. You probably use Ad blockers too or try very hard to tell an ad from content. That's not what "regular" users do. How many people search for Facebook.com and Twitter.com on Google?

> You probably use Ad blockers too

Nope.

> or try very hard to tell an ad from content.

Not particularly. For the purposes of this discussion? Yes, but not during everyday use. If the ad is what I want, I click it.

> You are a sophisticated user.

Absolute bullocks. Wanting to read the Honda Accord page on honda.com and googling "honda accord" to do it is not sophisticated. Wanting to read about sedans and googling "sedan" is not sophisticated. This is just regular old google usage, exactly how regular users do it.

How many people search for "twitter.com" on google? My guess is "a metric fuckton". That is probably why twitter.com is the first is the first result for "twitter.com". That is almost certainly what they want. If they google "microblogging" then guess what? They probably want the wikipedia page, not a link to twitter. Guess which one they get? That's right, the wikipedia page.

It's not a fucking conspiracy that Google search results tend to be what people are actually looking for.

Fine. You do that. But you think major computer companies are dumb to advertise and probably risk $5 a click for "computer" when users want a link to Wikipedia?

Because if you want to learn the history of computers you are unlikely to be worth $5 a click or whatever it costs now. And ad links are barely different from other links (most will probably just see ads unless they scroll.)

"Now so you think major computer companies are dumb to advertise and probably risk $5 a click for "computer" when users want a link to Wikipedia?"

I am not sure what that sentence means, but to be clear I do not think they are dumb for buying ads on "computer". Those ads surely see many eyeballs, and many of the people who google "computer" likely see those ads, probably think "neat", and click them.

Seriously, what the hell is your angle exactly? You are all over the place with your accusations. Is your complaint that they put ads at the top now? I thought your complaint was that links to Dell/etc were not organically in the top results... Do you want links to Dell.com at the top of the page or not?

You used your search logic and tried to suggest that all do that (anecdote, logical fallacy). As a counter example I suggested that major computer companies with dozens of SEM and MBAs probably know better since they keep advertising for a quite a bit of money.

> You used your search logic and tried to suggest that all do that

Well no, I suggested that I do not believe I am odd in my preference for wikipedia links when I am searching non-trademarked single nouns. I did not suggest that nobody searches "computer" with the intent of buying one, so the fact that companies pay money for those ads is not a refutation of my point at all. Nor am I implying that I am correct because of a single experience, rather I am implicitly requesting that readers of my comment consider their own search habits. From what I see, I am hardly the only person that searches google expecting a wikipedia link.

You still haven't answered my question though, what exactly is your complaint? Is your complaint that a OEM doesn't have the top result for "computer"? You think that signals some sort of systematic manipulation? Why don't I see the same for "honda accord", or "lenovo", or "thinkpad", or hell, even "cars"? Why is it that what I am actually looking for (except in the particularly notable case of "cars"), always seems to be at the top?

And no, it is not because I am a "sophisticated user", I am typing fucking nouns and names into google, this isn't poweruser shit.

I'm not even sure this post is in english, or the point you're trying to make, but for the record, the word "computer" has a CPC about 1/4 that of "new computer".

On top of all these other changes, Google's "Knowledge Graph" and other Google-owned properties are taking up more and more of the search results than ever before. Google Shopping, YouTube, Google+ and Adwords all take up more screen real estate with every Google update and design tweak.

Look at this query for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=telescopes

I see 20 links to ads and Google owned properties and only 2 to actual 3rd party websites. That's insane. (edit: That's above the fold, on page load...more 3rd party listings if you keep scrolling but most users don't)

It's not surprising that commercial queries produce ads.

"what are telescopes", "astronomy", "skywatching", "how to use a telescope", "telescope construction", and "telescope history" on the other hand are all web results and no ads.

Hand-picking a highly-commercial query and using it to generalize about all queries is kind of BS.

Looking at my past weeks worth of search history there are very few commercial intent queries. And when I was doing commercial intent queries (buying some rock climbing equipment) Google Shopping ads were actually pretty helpful in doing my research because it allows you to rank the results of different retailers together which is something I previously had to do by going to each individual site and checking their prices.

It misses sellers that haven't chosen to advertise on Google Shopping but all of my go-to online shops for gear (Backcountry, Moosejaw, REI, EMS, gearx, gear co-op, Campsaver, etc.) are doing it so it works quite well for me.

Google Shopping ads were actually pretty helpful in doing my research because it allows you to rank the results of different retailers together which is something I previously had to do by going to each individual site and checking their prices.

You browsed ADS, companies have paid to be included there and the price you paid in the end included the Google tax. A company that might have had the best price /shipping options maybe didn't want to advertise on Google or others included their most expensive /high margin items given the advertising cost. You got or will get screwed, because advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.

Also, don't you agree that in general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines?

note: some will get this post ;).

I know I was browsing ads. I said "Google Shopping ads were actually pretty useful". I also didn't say that was the only source I looked at. It just happened to have all of my go-to gear companies in a handy ranked list. Amazon isn't in that list -- I check them manually.

The prices are actually the same whether you get to the vendor through Google shopping ads or not. The company's prices in aggregate are affected by their revenue spent on Google advertising.

Whether I get screwed or not is my problem. I'm saying it was a useful tool to have in my research.

I'm confused, are you arguing that ads are too high on search result pages, or that non-ad informative pages are?

Is this just a case of "whichever is the case at the time, I can twist it to support my point."?

"new computer" (on top of the other examples of laptop and tablet that were already posted) also lists a non-wikipedia site first (Dell.com). I think you're really pulling at straws with the computer example, there seems to be a relatively high chance that most people shopping for a new "computer" don't only type "computer", and that the traffic to wikipedia (ie. it being the "correct" first result) is high.

First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something.

Second, if your theory were true, why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Wouldn't that be a more powerful keyword to force people to advertise for?

> why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"?

Browsing Google while logged out, using its ‘no country redirect’ option, the first non-ad result is Wikipedia.

(Even using those settings, Google will serve local ads – in my case, in Dutch)

http://i.imgur.com/UevuyEy.png

I'd guess that due to commonly used resolutions most users cannot see beyond the Wikipedia link so it's all set up perfectly to increase ad clicks: 3-4 relevant links (er, ads) or Wikipedia.

> First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something.

Think of it like being at sea on a sailboat. You've got a nice solar powered GPS unit, modern top of the line navigation. You've also got a box full of current charts, maps, a sextant and compass, and you've got an old OMEGA system too, just in case. While out at sea, you take a look at your maps only to realize with horror that you accidentally brought your box of AAA road maps of Nebraska! What a dope you are, but you're still doing fine. Then you take a look at your OMEGA system, but discover that it no longer works because they shut that down in 1997!

You've still got your GPS, it is still doing just fine but don't you think the failure of your fallbacks would make you a little nervous?

Or tablet, for that matter.

First, I don't think we agree what desperate means. Desperate makes it sound like revenues are shrinking or something.

You do not know how Wall Street works on tech companies with high PE. Even a 10% increase might shave Google $200 off their share price.

Second, if your theory were true, why is Wikipedia not #1 for "laptop"? Wouldn't that be a more powerful keyword to force people to advertise for?

I have a feeling that the fastest Googler reading this is about to get a promotion thanks to your tip.

I disagree. As a user, I don't want my queries passed on to the sites I visit for privacy reason. As an advertiser, I use the organic keyword reports to buy ads frequently.

It is very common that I would find organic searches where we got conversions, but were low on the page or on the second page. I would use that information to buy ads. For the last year or so, this technique hardly works because there is so much less keyword data available. Now it is completely gone as you can't match the webmaster tools data to conversions.

This change is going to cost Google significant revenue and growth over time.

What privacy reasons? As soon as you land on that site, they can geoIP you, evercookie you, browser thumbprint you, and if they participate in network-based cookie lookup systems, they can probably even identify who you are. Why does the keyword you searched matter at that point?

"Why should we care about NoScript users?"

SSL to SSL should still pass the HTTP referrers. If this is the case, this is a non-story. If it is not, then its interesting.

Answering my own question, they intentionally stripped the query out of the referrer:

https://nablux.net/tgp/weblog/2012/03/12/google-ssl-not-the-...

who is you know who? patio11? huh?

I agree with you - ads play a big part in this, although I would not discount giving the NSA a legally acceptable black eye. If the US is seeing a backlash over Prism, Google and Amazon will see it before the State department.

Google has a balancing act between delivering genuine results based on PageRank (ie relevance - what people use google for) and getting people to click on adverts. As a small business I value the nearly levelled playing field out there and would hate a world driven by ad dollars again.

But I struggle to see how Google can replace ads. And yet everything they do makes ads less necessary and organic (free) search more relevant.

However we are not at the ad-opocalypse yet. ads replace relevance for your internet presence. as every business everywhere gets better at SEO we shall see the SEO advantage disappear and the only way to beat your competitor is to advertise again.

it's probably got some analogue in evolution.

however everyone is not good at SEO yet and the number of people coming online probably will keep googles tills ringing for while yet.

A week ago, I'd read "Google" and "desperate" in the same sentence and smirk.

Then I saw a hey, you're using an ad blocker, could you just turn it off for our domains? kthx message on top of a search results page.

(I don't know if it's a new thing or it's been done for a while but my filters were hiding it.)

The crazy part is that it is Youtube that is driving most people to install an ad blocker. Breaking people's flow when they are listening to music at a party or while working is too janky.

Google is a saint, don't you know?

They are one of the biggest corporations, spy on you on every possible occasion, fuck over thousands of small businesses, extract every bit of wealth out of e-commerce ecosystem, but they are saints!

Never badmouth google again!

I can't wait what Larry will think of in the next 2 years. He has to increase the profits but can't be fucking small website owners indefinitely. What will he do then? Replace the first page of organic results entirely with ads? Remove any website that doesn't use Ad-Words? Replace all online shops with its own more pricey alternative? Offer selling your neighbour internet data for $199 per year?

Fuck Google, they are toxic to e-economy. Entities this big shouldn't exist.

Since you seem to agree with him, perhaps you can explain his complaint to me. Is he upset that Google displays ads? Or that commercial pages for particular products are not the top organic results for searches on generic topics? Is he upset that people pay for ads (shocker!)?

What people are upset is that Google siphons majority of commercial web-traffic and denies anyone else access. This kills small companies.

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean.

Is it because they have ads and large companies pay for them? Is it because they are sending people to wikipedia instead of your site? Is it because they are sending people to large companies instead of your site? Is it because they expect small companies to pay for ads too?

Yes,

Because large companies(with nice Ad-Words budgets) are treated extremely nice both by the Ad-Words folks and the organic search algorithm folks. They are being favorized at the cost of small businesses that spend too little or nothing at all.

With each passing algorithm update Google is removing more and more small business websites and replaces them with bigger companies ( so called "brands" ) that often times offer worse services but spend more on marketing ( AdWords ).

Hi. I ran a small service business with some expensive ass keywords.

Adwords was a fantastic customer acquisition tool for me and, in the early stage, drove 80%+ of my business for a relatively small cost of acquisition compared to traditional channels like direct mail. In fact, there is an entire industry dedicated to helping SMEs build and optimize their SEM. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but they make up a sizeable portion of Google adwords revenue.

So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you and the google conspironuts that are crawling all over this thread have no idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, if you disagree with this assessment, you're being naive. At minimum, making all searches encrypted is not a benevolent decision in the interests of privacy. Certainly locking down the Keyword Tool to advertisers only is a pretty obvious move, don't you think?

Literally everything Google does, aside from brand reinforcement PR, is centered around eyeballs and ad clicks. The primary vector for this is pushing Google Search everywhere.

I am continually surprised when people don't accept that the profit motive is weighted more heavily by companies than anything else. Even companies they believe "do no evil".

You forgot to say "Wake up sheeple!!1!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com