Ramblings of an old Doc

 

This one really sucks. http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4

So what’s behind that? It’s Google’s desire and need to become a Social Media… why? To sell more advertising.

So, Larry Page, Google’s new CEO has told employees that 25% of their annual bonus will depend on Google’s social strategy in 2011.

When Google gave all of its employees a 10% raise and $1,000 bonus last fall, it was part of a move to abolish bonuses that had been based on an annual company multiplier – where employee bonuses were multiplied against some figure correlated to the overall company's performance. In 2011, the returned company multiplier will be somewhere between .75 and 1.25 – depending on how well Google does in social. That means employees' bonuses could shrink by 25% if Google doesn't perform. - http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4#ixzz1jugSNNk8

So now, why does that mean anything to you? Who cares if they get a bonus or how large or small it is? Because:

“If a large percentage of people are logged into Google and/or Google+ when they are searching for stuff, that means Google+ pages are going to rank well for those people. Hence, you [sic] really have no choice but to play Google’s game, and tend to my Google+ page, be I a brand, a person, a small business…. are you getting the picture here? If you decide to NOT play on Google+, you will, in essence, be devalued in Google search, at least for the percentage of people who are logged in whilst using Google.” - http://battellemedia.com/archives/2012/01/our-google-conundrum.php

“The gist is that people and organizations now have no choice but to maintain their Google+ presence, with the same kind of robust linking and content generation necessary for any aspiring web site, or be, in effect, penalized. Penalized because users logged into Google or a Google Apps account will see results from Google+ high up in their results, and if a person or organization aren’t navigating that topic on Google+, someone else gets the attention and clicks.” - http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/google-in-the-enterprise/google-search-plus-your-world-isnt-an-invitation-its-a-policy/778?tag=nl.e062

This really means those who choose not to take part in Google’s social network, or don’t throw a lot of attention its way, could be knocked back by those who invest seriously in Google+. That could really hurt your business, unless it’s a name everyone uses or knows of.

This is no more than blackmail, really. Google has become a verb in our language, so deep is its penetration. So, if you wish to make it to the first three places in any search, you’d better invest heavily in a Google+ presence.

There’s only one way out of this: Don’t search while logged onto G+, or use Scroogle. Unfortunately, Google has the leverage because of the massive usage of it.

So, as I’ve written before, you’ve become a commodity.


Comments
on Jan 19, 2012

Just for that I''m gonna unload the google link in my speed dial and replace it with Bing and screw google up the wazoo. Let them devalue me then the twits.

on Jan 19, 2012

I try to avoid using Google (use duckduckgo), don't use G+, have NoScript on. Not all Google free but as close as I can get.

Internet ads ... does anyone really take notice of them? I'm sure people are spending a lot of money on advertisement with little return, or am I just immune to them.

on Jan 19, 2012

Deleted my post.

on Jan 19, 2012

I just joined an anti-social network. It's great, nobody looks for anything and we all just leave each other alone.

on Jan 19, 2012

Doc, I'm sure it's just synchronicity but Google's dumbing down of their search engine a year or so back to the present "Bing-like" form really plays right into that too.  Why let people have full, raw search options when you intend to direct their searches anyway.

Apple's mantra is, "We'll tell you what features you need and decide if you can use them".  It seems "Don't-be-evil" Google's new one is, "We'll let you know what we want you to know and you're not going to see anything else."

You know, Hitler started out as a social engineer too I hear.

@Wizard..I'm using two alternative networks...the Goth and Emo search nets.  Not working out.  At the Goth network the pages and text are all black and when I search on the Emo network all I get are results about how sad people feel about the topic I'm researching.

Nice post Doc.

on Jan 19, 2012

Sinperium
Doc, I'm sure it's just synchronicity but Google's dumbing down of their search engine a yer or so back to the present "Bing-like" form really plays right into that too.  Why let people have full, raw search options when you intend to direct their searches anyway.

Absolutely. Forgot the "new search" thing. Meant to integrate in the OP. Looks like Google isn't the only one 'dumbing down'.

on Jan 19, 2012


Perhaps an opportunity to challenge google? Mayhaps alternatives with more raw searches will appear soon.

on Jan 19, 2012

Yes, that would be good (not "google").

on Jan 19, 2012

I used Google's raw search for years.  I fixed the electronics on my washing machine with it, taught myself computer repair and built a free graphics library for a business.

Over the past three years I have been doing extensive research on a book and a little under two years ago the well dried up.  The ability to find specific scientific papers or historical documents, to find archived photographs--especially from personal posting is almost impossible now.  Instead I get lots of "Yahoo Answers" results by teenagers paid pennies on Yahoo's "Digital Turk" and who have no idea what they are talking about and professional services and spam results. Finding information on personal webpages has become almost pointless to attempt.

What's infuriating is seeing Google's "X results out of 2.7 million" at the top of a search page and having no option to scroll through the other 2.6999 results.

 

on Jan 19, 2012


So, as I’ve written before, you’ve become a commodity.

Yay for capitalism!

on Jan 19, 2012

Wizard1956
I just joined an anti-social network. It's great, nobody looks for anything and we all just leave each other alone.

 

Do I need a referral to join?  Oh wait... 

on Jan 19, 2012

Wizard1956
I just joined an anti-social network. It's great, nobody looks for anything and we all just leave each other alone.

Dear Wizard1956,

Thank you for applying for membership in "We don't want you and you will be ignored [aka We Couldn't Care Less or, You don't matter]".

We currently have no open places for new applicants, not do we seek them. You might be a very nice person [we have investigated you] but that just works against you, we feel. We seek no one but an "ideal" applicant would live in a cave and know nothing about computers, and not help others.

You come close, but alas, no cigar. You care. Therefore: You lose.

Please don't feel badly about this rejection. In fact, don't care at all about it. We think your attitude should be more like ours, "Who gives a shit?". When your attitude changes, please let us know. We'll send Ex-Lax... or would if we cared, which we don't.

Anti-socially,

I. G. Nore

 Non-caring, loosely associated network of folks who aren't in a network and don't give a crap.

 

 

on Jan 19, 2012

Good one, Doc.

Social Outcasts League.

"Don't expect much when you're S-O-L." (TM)