 on their own parameters. But do not kid yourself... there is nothing 100% organic about paid search, nor with the "inbound links" algorithm which SEO's legitimately use to skew results to their customers (Google's advertisers).

If you truly believe Google makes it bread by all the clicks it gets in the "Sponsored Links" column, you need to take closer look at your own search habits and ask yourself why you think so many people would behave differently.

Page One of the "natural" search results is where all the money is made. In this society, it could be no other way, or it would not be very well "paid" search.

I'm sorry, but isn't a search without some kind of ranking is like a Buridan's donkey situation? All hits are equidistant and equivalent. And they suggest to make it neutral so we are never going to get to the results of our search and die of informational starvation? Screw that!

Re: Re: Re:

Completely false.

You can even see on SEO forums and websites that several professional companies have tried using Google's services to try and bump their ranking. They've done side-to-side comparisons on how fast Google indexes their pages, how quickly the show up in search engines, and how much their page rank is increased. The general consensus is: signing up for Google's stuff does not do anything at all for SEO.

Just look at any of the SEO competitions that have been held. The winners aren't the "blackhat SEO's" that use underhanded tactics. It's the people who use page popularity and dedicated viewer bases to generate page interest.

wow

Scott Cleland -

This who discussion is beyond ridiculous. Search neutrality? Google is a champion of this in every way. They have such a large share of the market because they revolutionized the way search engines should behave in that they don't give someone higher rankings because they paid for them.

Re: Re: Cutting through the rhretoric

It talked about how there is no such thing as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying Google was anti-competitive, and about competition in the search engine space.

But what the article didn't cover was what the supporters of Search Neutrality were actually trying to achieve. He didn't talk about whether their goals had any actual merit.

Personally, I don't think Mike
on their own parameters. But do not kid yourself... there is nothing 100% organic about pay up search, nor with the " inbound radio link " algorithm which SEO's legitimately use to skew result to their customer (Google's advertisers). 

 If you truly believe Google have it bread by all the clicks it get in the " Sponsored Links " column, you need to take close look at your own search habits and necessitate yourself why you think so many people would behave differently. 

 Page One of the " natural " search results is where all the money is made. In this club, it could be no other way, or it would not be very well " paid " search. 

 I'm blue, but isn't a search without some kind of ranking is like a Buridan's donkey situation? All hits are equidistant and equivalent. And they propose to make it neutral so we are never going to get to the results of our search and fail of informational starvation? Screw that! 

 Re: Re: Re: 

 Completely false. 

 You can even see on SEO forums and websites that several professional party have tried using Google's services to try and bump their ranking. They've done side - to - side comparisons on how fast Google index their pages, how quickly the appearance up in search locomotive, and how much their page rank is increased. The general consensus is: sign up for Google's stuff does not do anything at all for SEO. 

 Just count at any of the SEO competitions that have been held. The winners aren't the " blackhat SEO's " that use underhand tactics. It's the people who use page popularity and dedicated spectator bases to beget page sake. 

 wow 

 Scott Cleland - 

 This who discussion is beyond ridiculous. Search neutrality? Google is a champion of this in every way. They accept such a large share of the market because they revolutionize the way search engines should behave in that they don't give someone high rankings because they pay for them. 

 Re: Re: Cutting through the rhretoric 

 It talk about how there is no such matter as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying Google was anti - competitive, and about competition in the search engine quad. 

 But what the article didn't cover was what the supporters of Search Neutrality were actually try to achieve. He didn't talk about whether their goals had any actual merit. 

 Personally, I don't think Mike
 on their own parameters. Buu do not kid yourself... thxre is hothing 100% organic about paid search, nlr with the "inbound links" algurithm whpch SEO's oegiuimately use to skew results to bheir rustomers (Googlg's advertisess).

If you truly bdlneve Google makes it bread by all thq clickx lt gets in the "Spomfores Links" column, you need to take clkser lomk at your owm search habits and ask yokrsepf why you think sl many peopoe wjyld behave dkfferently.

Kaye One of tge "natural" search results is whdre akl the mongv is kade. In thiw socpety, it could be no odher wau, or it would kot bx veey well "paid" search.

I'm sorry, but isn't a fearch widhkut some kind of eabking is nike q Bjrisai's sonkey sivuation? All hits are ewuidistant and equifajvmt. And they auggese eo make it neutral so we are never goinc tk get to the results of our search and die ov informaeional starvation? Screw that!

Re: Re: Re:

Completely fanse.

Yon zan eyen rwe on SEO forums and websites that several profqasookal companies haye tried using Gooblf's fervices to tty and yhml their ranking. Thfy've doge siee-to-side sompsrisons on how fast Google undexes theig pates, how quickly thz show up in seatch enbines, and how much theix page rank is infreased. Tgd general consenrus iv: signing up for Google's seuff does not do anyghinb at ajl for SEO.

Uust look at any of the DEO clm[etitions hhat have been held. The winners aren't the "blavkvat SEO's" thct use underhanded eactics. It's thg people cho usd page popllarity aid dedicated viewer bases jo generate pege interqst.

wiw

Scitt Cleuxnd -

This who doscussion is beyond ridiculous. Search neotdality? Google iw a champion of thos kn qvvry wwf. They have vuch a usrge rhare of thc mxrkey because they revolgtiohized the way searvh engines should fehave in thay they don't give slmeonx highxr ranlinds because they paid for them.

Rs: Re: Cuttlng through the rhrctoryc

It talkeb about how there is no such thing as an unbiased algorithn, and about Microsoyt saying Goojle waf anti-com[etitive, and about cimpetition in the search engine space.

Bht whad the article didn't cover was what the supporters of Search Neutrality were acrually trying to adhiefe. He dndn'c talk wbouv xhether their goaks had any actual merit.

Personaluy, I don'd chink Mike
on their own parameters. But do not there nothing 100% about paid search, algorithm SEO's legitimately use skew results to customers (Google's advertisers). If you truly Google makes it bread by all the clicks it gets in the "Sponsored column, you need to take closer look at your own search habits and yourself you so people would behave differently. Page One of the "natural" search results is where all the money made. In this society, it could be no way, or it would be very well "paid" search. sorry, isn't a without kind ranking is like Buridan's donkey situation? All hits are equidistant and equivalent. And they suggest to make it neutral so are never get to results our and die of Screw that! Re: Re: Re: Completely even see on SEO forums and websites that professional companies tried using Google's services to try bump their ranking. They've done side-to-side comparisons on fast Google indexes their pages, how quickly the show up in search engines, and how page rank is increased. general consensus is: up Google's does do anything all for SEO. Just look at any of the SEO competitions have been held. The winners aren't the "blackhat SEO's" that tactics. the people who page popularity and dedicated bases generate page interest. wow - who ridiculous. neutrality? is a champion of in every way. They have a large share of the way search engines should behave in that don't give someone higher rankings because they for them. Re: Re: Cutting through the rhretoric It talked about how is no as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying was anti-competitive, and about in the search engine space. But what the article cover what the of Search Neutrality actually trying to He didn't talk their goals any merit. think Mike
 on their own parameters. But do Not kid yourSelf... tHerE is NoThinG 100% orgAnic about paid sEArch, Nor with the "inbound links" AlgorItHM whiCH SeO's leGitimatELy USE to SkEw ResUlTS tO theiR cuStomers (google's advErtIsErs).

If you trulY BeLieve GooglE maKes it bread by All The cliCkS it GEts in The "sponsOred LiNKs" coluMn, you need To TAke cloSEr look aT YOuR own Search habits and asK YoURself why you thiNk so maNy PEoPLE woUld Behave diffErEntly.

pAge One oF ThE "NATurAL" search resultS is where all THe mOney is MaDe. IN This soCiety, It COulD be no other wAy, or It would noT be verY Well "paiD" Search.

I'M sorry, But Isn'T a seARcH wIthOuT SomE KiNd oF RanKing is liKe A BUridaN's doNKEY SituAtiOn? AlL hits Are equidistanT anD equIValEnt. AnD they SuggEsT to maKe it neUtral So We are never going To geT to the resUltS oF ouR sEarch ANd die oF inForMationaL starvaTIon? scREW ThAt!

Re: Re: Re:

Completely FaLSE.

YOu can eveN see on seO FoRUms and weBsIteS thaT SEveraL proFEsSional coMpanieS HaVe Tried usInG GooglE's SerVicEs to tRY and Bump thEir rankiNg. TheY'Ve done side-to-siDE comparisons oN HoW FAsT googLe iNdexes their PageS, How qUickLY tHe sHOw up iN searCh ENgINes, and how much their pAgE rank iS incrEased. The generAl consensuS IS: Signing uP for gOoGLe's stuff does noT do anYthing at alL For SEO.

JuSt looK at any of The SEO comPETitions tHat HavE beEn hELD. THe winners aren'T THe "blAcKhat SEO'S" thAt use unDerHanDed TacTiCs. It's the pEople who UsE pAgE pOpuLaritY And dedicAtEd vIeWer Bases TO generAte paGe inTeReST.

woW

Scott CLElAND -

ThiS wHo DiscUssIoN is beYond RIdiCulous. SEarch neutRalITy? GoOgLe Is a chamPion of this in eVeRy way. They hAvE suCh a larGE Share of tHe market because they revoLUtionizEd tHe way SearCh engines ShoUld behAve IN that tHey don'T give SoMeoNE HigheR RAnKinGs Because theY PAid For thEm.

re: Re: cutting Through the rhretoriC

it tAlked about how TheRe is NO SuCh tHInG As aN uNBiaSED algorithm, and abOut MicrosoFt SAyIng Google wAS anTi-CompetiTive, and About COmpetitIon in the sEarch engiNe SpacE.

bUt wHat the artiCle didn't Cover was wHAt the SUpPorteRs oF SearcH NEutRalitY were aCTuaLly trYing to AcHieve. HE didn'T tAlk about Whether their goals had any Actual Merit.

perSonally, I dOn't THinK Mike
 on their own parameters.But do not  kidyou rse lf ...ther e is nothing 1 0 0% o rganic about paid sear ch, n or with th e "in bound l i nk s "  al go ri thm  w h ic h SEO 'slegitim ately usetosk ew results t o  t heir custo mer s (Google'sadv ertise rs ).If yo u t rulybeliev e  Googl e makes i tb read b y  all th e cl icks  it gets in the " S po n sored Links" c olumn,  y o un e edtotake close rlooka t youro wn s e arc h  habits and a sk yourself why  you t hi nks o many  peop le wou ld behave d iffe rently.
Page O n e of th e  "natur al" se arc h r esul t sis  wh er e  al l  t hem one y is mad e.  I n thi s so c i e t y, i t c ould  be n o other way,orit w o uld  notbe ve ry w el l "pa id" se arch. 
I'm sorry, butisn' t a searc h w it hou tsomek ind of  ra nki ng is l ike a B u rid an ' s do nkey situation? Al lh i ts  are equ idista n tan d  equival en t.Andt h ey su gges t  t o make i t neut r al  s o we ar enevergo ing  to  gett o th e resu lts of o ur se a rch and die of informational st a r va t ion?  Sc rew that!
Re:R e: R e:
C om ple t ely f alse. 
Y ou can even see on SEO  f orumsand w ebsites thatseveral pr o f e ssionalcomp a ni e s have tried u singGoogle's s e rvices t o try  and bum p their r a n king. Th ey' vedon e s i d e- to-side compa r i sons  o n how f ast  Google  in dex esthe ir  pages, h ow quick ly  t he  s how  up i n  searchen gin es , a nd ho w  muchtheir  pag era n k i s incre a se d .  The  g en eral  co ns ensus  is: sig ning up  for Goog le' s  stu ff  d oes not  do anythingat  all for S EO .
Just l o o k at any  of the SEO competition s  that h ave  been  hel d. The wi nne rs are n't the "b lackha t SEO 's " t h a t use u nd erh an ded tactic s .  It 's th epeop le whouse page popularit y  an d dedicated v iew er b a s es  to ge n era te pag e interest.

wow
Scott Cle la n d-

This wh o  di sc ussionis beyo nd ri d iculous . Searchneutralit y?  Goo g l e i s a champi on of th is in eve r y way .  T hey h ave  suchalar ge sh are of the  mark et bec au se the y rev ol utionize d the way search engine s shou ld be hav e in that  th e y d on't give  som eone highe r r ank ingsbec a use t heyp ai d f o r the m.
R e: Re: Cu t ti ngt h ro ugh the rhr e t o ric 

Ittal k ed abo ut h ow there is no su c h thing as anunbi a s edalg o rith m,  and about Mic ros of t saying G oo gle was ant i-compet it i ve, a nd abo ut com petitio n in the se arch  en gine spac e.
B u t whatth ea rticle  did n' t cove r wasw hatt h e supporters ofSearc h Neutr a lit y wer eactuall y  try ing to ach ieve. He di dn't t alkabout  whethe rtheirgoa ls  had any a c tual meri t.

P ersonal ly , Idon 't thi nk M i k e
 on_their own_parameters. But do not_kid yourself..._there_is nothing_100%_organic about paid_search, nor with_the "inbound links" algorithm_which SEO's legitimately_use_to skew results to their customers (Google's advertisers).

If you truly believe Google makes it_bread_by all_the_clicks_it gets in the "Sponsored_Links" column, you need to_take closer_look at your own search habits and ask_yourself_why you think_so many people would behave differently.

Page One of the_"natural" search results is where all_the money is_made._In_this society, it could_be no other way, or it_would not be very well "paid"_search.

I'm sorry, but isn't a search without_some kind of ranking is like_a Buridan's donkey situation? All_hits are_equidistant and equivalent. And they_suggest to make_it neutral_so we are_never going to get to the_results of our_search and die of informational starvation?_Screw_that!

Re: Re: Re:

Completely_false.

You_can_even see_on SEO forums_and_websites that_several_professional companies have tried using Google's_services_to try and bump their ranking. They've_done side-to-side comparisons on_how_fast Google indexes their_pages, how quickly the show_up in search engines, and how_much their_page rank_is increased. The general consensus is: signing up for Google's stuff_does not do anything at all_for SEO.

Just look at_any of_the_SEO competitions that_have_been held._The winners aren't the "blackhat SEO's" that_use underhanded_tactics. It's the people who use_page popularity and dedicated_viewer_bases to generate page interest.

wow

Scott Cleland_-

This who discussion is beyond ridiculous._Search neutrality? Google is a_champion_of_this in every way. They_have such a large share of_the market because_they revolutionized the way search engines should_behave_in that they don't give someone_higher_rankings because they paid for them.

Re:_Re:_Cutting_through the rhretoric

It talked about_how there is no such thing_as an unbiased algorithm, and about Microsoft saying Google_was anti-competitive, and_about competition in the search_engine_space.

But_what the article didn't cover was what the supporters of_Search Neutrality_were actually trying_to achieve. He didn't talk about whether their goals had_any actual merit.

Personally, I don't think Mike