| ▲ | sdwr 4 days ago |
| On the other hand, search is not a commodity that can be dispensed in interchangable units. Those opaque tweaks that tank your business are the same ones that keep spam and SEO garbage down. |
|
| ▲ | __loam 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I agree that Google has an obligation to keep search results high quality but they're failing at that while also screwing over legitimate businesses. |
| |
| ▲ | nickff 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems like high-quality search is a very difficult task, largely due to their adversarial relationship with ‘spammers’. If someone else can do a better job, I’m sure their service will quickly capture the market. | | |
| ▲ | __loam 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The problem with monopolistic markets is that the new service won't quickly capture the market lol. That's why the DoJ is going after them, there are meaningful barriers to competition that creates incentives for Google to choose value for their business over maintaining a high quality service. | | |
| ▲ | nickff 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am not sure that web search is a monopolistic market, though it seems that Google is the dominant player. Google itself wasn't the first player, and managed to capture a large market share from established incumbents. Why do you think that competitors couldn't quickly capture the market? You seem to think this is an obvious fact, but I don't see why, as switching costs are very low. It seems to me that the important market is online ads (which is where other companies focus), and that Google is the only company willing to invest in web search. | | |
| ▲ | __loam 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Building a web index and search service to compete with Google requires huge capital expenditures and going up against a network effect that Google exerts on the market (often by paying other companies to be the default). The only company to marginally succeed is Microsoft, and virtually every other search service uses Bing's index on their backend. The cost of switching is low but the barriers to participating meaningfully in the market are high. | | |
| ▲ | nickff 3 days ago | parent [-] | | How is search a network effects business? It seems to me that each additional user would contribute less than the previous one, as opposed to Metcalfe's law (where each additional user adds more value than the last). How would paying to be a default be a network effect? Perhaps the capital cost to competing with Google is high, but if it were worth it, there are a number of firms which could afford it; it seems like it's just not worth it. | | |
| ▲ | __loam 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Maybe network effect isn't the right way to describe it but clearly Google has a ton of inertia here since their company is literally the verb for search. | | |
| ▲ | nickff 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree that Google has a lot of inertia in both search and search advertising. That still doesn’t answer why there aren’t more well-capitalized companies trying to win the search market. I suspect (but am not sure that) the answer is the market is more visible than it is worthwhile (somewhat akin to media and entertainment businesses). |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | YetAnotherNick 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not at all correct. Duckduckgo had 100 million searches a day[1], and its selling point was privacy friendly search, which has lot lot smaller market than better results. If someone develops better ranking, people would switch very fast. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221118045948/https://duckduckg... |
|
| |
| ▲ | NBJack 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only reason in many cases other search engines are 'better' at spam is the lack of attention given to it for SEO optimization. It is in many ways akin to saying Macs don't get viruses; rest assured, there are, and as Macs become more prevalent in the business sector for office use, there will be a huge incentive to accelerate it even more. |
|
|
| ▲ | bsder 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Those opaque tweaks that tank your business are the same ones that keep spam and SEO garbage down. Um, except that they don't? We had entire articles detailing how "Forbes" dominates search rankings with SEO garbage. Keeping SEO garbage down appears to be very straightforward. It's just incompatible with an ad-driven business model. |
| |
