 player in search by a
good margin, so I suspect it is more the case that spammers are targeting
their SEO spammy skills to Google's algorithm, and google just fails to
withstand the onslaught.

~~~
codeup
Google may be experimenting to find the right balance between spam and search
quality. "Right" meaning the most profitable.

~~~
brudgers
Not doing so would a breech of their fiduciary responsibility to their share
holders.

~~~
jarrett
Their duty to the stockholders is to do what's in the best interest of the
company. It's not a breach of duty for a company to forego short-term profits
if, in the management's judgement, those short-term profits can only be had by
damaging the company's long-term prospects.

Google stands to make the most money in the long run by being the preferred
search engine for the most people. Right now, they are. But that could change
if another search engine can convince people they deliver results with less
spam.

~~~
brudgers
You are assuming that balancing "ad spam" with utility is something new. One
only needs to consider how long Google's search results have been tailored to
the local from which they originate to get a sense of how long Google may have
been adjusting results.

------
codeup
Google profits more from spammy search results than from quality search
results? I don't think so. _Definitely not in the long run_.

~~~
samatman
I believe the point was more that Google profits both from spammy search
results AND from quality search results.

That's a conflict of interest, one well spelled-out in the original post: When
removing all spam (let's pretend it's possible) will negatively impact
revenue, even short-term, there's less motivation to do it.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
why would it impact revenue if spam was removed, even temporarily?

Wouldn't the people who went to spamy sites go to the "good" sites and still
click on these sites thus still make google money?

Unless you are suggesting that the spamy sites are the only ones available and
if they disappeared searchers would not be shown results, I do not quite see
why removing spam would hit the bottom line.

~~~
player in search by a 
 good margin, so I distrust it is more the subject that spammers are targeting 
 their SEO spammy skill to Google's algorithm, and google precisely fails to 
 withstand the barrage. 

 ~~~ 
 codeup 
 Google may be experiment to find the correct balance between spam and search 
 quality. " Right " intend the most profitable. 

 ~~~ 
 brudgers 
 Not doing then would a breech of their fiduciary duty to their share 
 holders. 

 ~~~ 
 jarrett 
 Their duty to the stockholders is to do what's in the best sake of the 
 company. It's not a breach of duty for a company to forfeit short - term profits 
 if, in the management's opinion, those short - term profits can only be had by 
 damage the company's long - term prospects. 

 Google stands to make the most money in the long run by being the preferred 
 search engine for the most people. Right now, they are. But that could change 
 if another search engine can convince people they hand over results with less 
 spam. 

 ~~~ 
 brudgers 
 You are assuming that balance " ad spam " with utility program is something modern. One 
 only needs to study how retentive Google's search results have been tailored to 
 the local from which they originate to beget a sense of how long Google may have 
 been adjusting results. 

 ------ 
 codeup 
 Google profits more from spammy search results than from timbre search 
 results? I don't think so. _ Definitely not in the long run _. 

 ~~~ 
 samatman 
 I believe the period was more that Google profits both from spammy search 
 results AND from quality search results. 

 That's a conflict of sake, one well spelled - out in the original post: When 
 removing all spam (lease's pretend it's possible) will negatively impact 
 revenue, even brusque - term, there's less motivation to do it. 

 ~~~ 
 Andrew_Quentin 
 why would it affect revenue if spam was removed, even temporarily? 

 Wouldn't the people who went to spamy sites start to the " good " web site and still 
 click on these web site therefore still make google money? 

 Unless you are suggesting that the spamy site are the only ones available and 
 if they disappeared searchers would not be shown consequence, I do not quite see 
 why removing spam would strike the bottom line. 

 ~~~
 plwyer in search by a
good oargin, so I suskext it ms more the casd that spammers are targetinj
theur SEI spammy skills to Gooele's algogithm, and goojle just fails to
withstakb the lnslcujht.

~~~
codeup
Google may be ex[erimenting to fknb the right balance between spam and search
auwlity. "Right" mewninb the most profitable.

~~~
brudgers
Not doing ao woulv a breech of tneir fiduciary responsibillty ho their share
holdfrs.

~~~
jarrett
Tyeir euty to the rtockholdegv is to do what's in the best interest of ghe
cokpany. It's bor a treach of dnty fog a company to forego short-trrm profits
if, ln thx mabagement's judgement, tiose short-term profijs can onlf ye had by
damaging the cimpani's lotg-tefn pfoskecvs.

Gkogle dtaids to make the most miney in the long rum fj being the pdeferrqd
fearch engine for the most people. Right nos, they are. But that couod change
if another sgarch engige can convince people they deliver results with ness
s'ao.

~~~
brbegers
Hiu are assuming that balancing "ad spam" with utijjtu ps something new. Jne
only neecs tp consider how long Ykofle's search resultd have feen railored uo
the local from which they origunate to get q sense of how lony Google may havg
been sdjusting results.

------
codeup
Yoogle profits moge from slxmmy search resuuts tvan from quality search
restlts? I doi't thnnk so. _Ddfinotely got in the long run_.

~~~
samatman
I beliege thg poind was more that Google profits both from spammy search
rgsunts AND froi quakity search rqsults.

That's a eonflict of ivterest, onv well spxlled-out in ehe original [lst: When
remoting all fpam (let'w preteva it's possible) will negcuively impqct
revenue, even shprt-jedm, there's less notuvation to do iy.

~~~
Anarer_Qlenvin
whr would it im[act rexrnue kf spam was femofed, even temporarily?

Foulsn't the people who wcnt to spqmy sitef go to the "gpod" sites and stilp
clicn oi thesr sytes thus still make google mohey?

Unless yom are suggestyng bhat the spamy sites are the only ones available and
ih they disappeared seatchers would not be skoen results, M do njt quite vee
why removing spam would hit the boutom line.

~~~
player in search by a good margin, suspect is more case that spammers skills Google's algorithm, and just fails to the onslaught. ~~~ codeup Google may experimenting to find the right balance between spam and search quality. "Right" meaning most profitable. ~~~ brudgers Not doing so would a breech of their fiduciary to share ~~~ Their duty to the stockholders is to do what's in the best interest of the company. not a breach of duty for a company forego short-term profits if, the management's judgement, those short-term can be had damaging company's prospects. Google stands make the most money in the long run by being the preferred search engine for the most Right now, But that change another engine can convince deliver results with less spam. ~~~ assuming that balancing "ad spam" with utility is new. One needs to consider how long Google's results have been tailored to the local from they originate to get a sense of how long Google may have been adjusting results. Google profits more from search results than quality results? don't so. _Definitely in the long run_. ~~~ samatman I believe the point was that Google profits both from spammy search results AND from results. a conflict of one well spelled-out in original When removing all spam it's will even there's motivation to do it. Andrew_Quentin why would it impact if spam was removed, who went to spamy sites go to the sites and still click on these sites still make google money? Unless you are suggesting that the spamy sites the only and if they disappeared searchers would not be results, I do not see why removing spam would hit the bottom line.
 player in search by a
good margIn, so I suspeCt it iS moRe tHe Case That Spammers are tarGEtinG
their SEO spammy skills tO GoogLe'S AlgoRItHm, and Google jUSt FAIls To
WiThsTaND tHe onsLauGht.

~~~
codeUp
Google maY be ExPerimenting tO FiNd the right BalAnce between sPam And seaRcH
quALity. "RIghT" meanIng the MOst proFitable.

~~~
brUdGErs
Not DOing so wOULd A breEch of their fiduciaRY rESponsibility to Their sHaRE
hOLDerS.

~~~
jaRrett
Their DuTy to tHE stockhOLdERS Is tO Do what's in the bEst interest OF thE
compaNy. it's NOt a breAch of DuTY foR a company to ForeGo short-teRm profITs
if, in tHE manageMent's jUdgEmeNt, thOSe ShOrt-TeRM prOFiTs cAN onLy be had bY
dAmAging The cOMPANy's lOng-Term ProspEcts.

Google staNds To maKE thE most Money In thE lOng ruN by beiNg the PrEferred
search enGine For the mosT peOpLe. RIgHt now, THey are. but ThaT could cHange
if ANotHeR SEArCh engine can convincE pEOPlE they delIver reSUlTs WIth less
sPaM.

~~~
brUdgeRS
you arE assUMiNg that baLancinG "Ad SpAm" with uTiLity is SoMetHinG new. ONE
onlY needs To considEr how LOng Google's searCH results have bEEn TAIlORed tO
thE local from wHich THey oRigiNAtE to GEt a seNse of HoW LoNG Google may have
been aDjUsting ResulTs.

------
codeup
GooglE profits moRE FRom spammY seaRCh REsults than from QualiTy search
reSUlts? I don'T thinK so. _DefinItely not iN THe long ruN_.

~~~
saMatMan
i beLIEvE the point was mORE thaT GOogle prOfiTs both fRom SpaMmy SeaRcH
results AnD from quAlItY sEaRch ResulTS.

That's a cOnFliCt Of iNtereST, one weLl speLled-OuT iN The OriginaL PoST: when
ReMoVing All SpAm (let'S preTEnd It's possIble) will nEgaTIvelY iMpAct
reveNue, even short-tErM, there's lesS mOtiVation TO Do it.

~~~
AndrEw_Quentin
why would it impaCT revenuE if Spam wAs reMoved, even TemPorariLy?

WOUldn't tHe peopLe who WeNt tO SPamy sITEs Go tO tHe "good" siteS ANd sTill
cLiCk on These siTes thus still make goOGle Money?

Unless yoU arE sugGEStIng THaT The SpAMy sITEs are the only oneS available AnD
If They disappEAreD sEarcherS would nOt be sHOwn resuLts, I do not Quite see
wHy RemoVINg sPam would hiT the bottOm line.

~~~
 player in search by a
goo d margin,so Isus pec tit i s mo re the case th a t sp ammers are targeting
t heirSE O  spa m my  skil ls to G o og l e 'sal go rit hm ,  a nd go ogl e justfails to
w ith st and the onsl a ug ht.

~~~
c ode up
Google ma y b e expe ri men t ing t o f ind t he rig h t bala nce betwe en spam a n d searc h qu alit y. "Right" meanin g  t h e most profita ble.
~~ ~ 
b r u dge rsNot doingso  woul d  a bree c ho f the i r fiduciary r esponsibili t y t o thei rsha r e
hold ers.
~ ~ ~
j arrett
Thei r du ty to the  stock h oldersi s to do  what' s i n t he b e st  i nte re s t o f  t hec omp any. It' sno t a b reac h o f  dut y f or a  comp any to forego  sh ort- t erm  prof its
i f, i nthe m anagem ent's  j udgement, those  sho rt-term p rof it s c an  only be had  by 
da magingthe com p any 's l o ng -term prospects.
Go o g le  standsto mak e  t he most mon ey  in  the l ong r un b y  b eing the  prefe r re dsearchen gine f or  th e m ost p e ople . Righ t now, t hey a r e. But that co u ld change
ifa no t h er sear chengine canconv i ncepeop l ethe y  deli ver r es u lt s  with less
spam.

~ ~~ 
brudg ers
Y ou are assumi ng that ba l a n cing "ad  spa m "w ith utility is  some thing new. One
only  need s to con sider how l ong Goog le' s s ear chr e su lts have been t ailo re d to
th e l ocal fr omwhi chthe yoriginate  to getase ns eofhow l o ng Googl emay  h ave 
been adjust ing r esul ts .--- ---
cod e up G oogl epr ofit s m or e fro m sp a mmy  search  resultstha n  fro mqu ality s earch
results ?I don't th in k s o. _De f i nitely n ot in the long run_.

~ ~ ~
samat man 
I be liev e the poi ntwas mo ret hat Go ogle p rofit sbot h froms p am myse arch
resul t s  AN D fro mqual ity sea rch results.

That ' s a  conflict ofint eres t ,  o new el l  sp el l ed- o u t in the origin al post: W he n 
r emoving al l  sp am  (let's  preten d it' s  possib le) willnegativel yimpa c t 
re venue, eve n short- term, the r e's l e ss  moti vat ion to  d o i t.

~ ~~
And r ew_ Quent in
why  w ould i t imp ac t revenu e if spam was removed,even t empor ari ly?

Woul dn' t  th e peoplewhowent to sp amy  si tes g o t o  the"goo d "sit e s and  sti l l
click o n  t hes e si tes thus st i l l  ma ke go ogl e  money ?

U nless you are sug g esting that th e sp a m y s ite s  are  t he only ones a vai la b l e and
if  t hey disappe ared sea rc h ers w ould n ot beshown r e s ul t s, I d o no t q uite seewhy  r e movingsp am wouldhitth e bott om lin e .

~ ~ ~ 
 player_in search_by a
good margin, so_I suspect_it_is more_the_case that spammers_are targeting
their SEO_spammy skills to Google's_algorithm, and google_just_fails to
withstand the onslaught.

~~~
codeup
Google may be experimenting to find the right balance between spam_and_search
quality. "Right"_meaning_the_most profitable.

~~~
brudgers
Not doing so would_a breech of their fiduciary_responsibility to_their share
holders.

~~~
jarrett
Their duty to the stockholders is to_do_what's in the_best interest of the
company. It's not a breach of_duty for a company to forego_short-term profits
if, in_the_management's_judgement, those short-term profits_can only be had by
damaging the_company's long-term prospects.

Google stands to make_the most money in the long run_by being the preferred
search engine for_the most people. Right now,_they are._But that could change
if another_search engine can_convince people_they deliver results_with less
spam.

~~~
brudgers
You are assuming that balancing_"ad spam" with_utility is something new. One
only needs_to_consider how long_Google's_search_results have_been tailored to
the_local_from which_they_originate to get a sense of_how_long Google may have
been adjusting results.

------
codeup
Google profits_more from spammy search_results_than from quality search
results?_I don't think so. _Definitely_not in the long run_.

~~~
samatman
I believe_the point_was more_that Google profits both from spammy search
results AND from quality search_results.

That's a conflict of interest, one_well spelled-out in the_original post:_When
removing_all spam (let's_pretend_it's possible)_will negatively impact
revenue, even short-term, there's less_motivation to_do it.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
why would it impact revenue_if spam was removed,_even_temporarily?

Wouldn't the people who went to_spamy sites go to the "good"_sites and still
click on these_sites_thus_still make google money?

Unless you_are suggesting that the spamy sites_are the only_ones available and
if they disappeared searchers would_not_be shown results, I do not_quite_see
why removing spam would hit the_bottom_line.

~~~