Is your site overly SEO'd?

[namealot]

Google can't devalue EMD that much or some people wont even rank for their own biz name and google would be getting sued.

They don’t have to list anyone… Google is no different than the old “yellow pages” was... There isn’t anyone near them and unlikely to be so for the next few years they have the monopoly.. They don’t care about generics, emd or biting the hand that feeds them if they don’t capitalise on it that wouldn’t be good business.. If they do there likely to quicken the rise of a competitor but there be leaving with pockets stuffed full of cash…

 

[namdas]

I don't really know much about SEO but I've read quite a lot of articles and forum posts that seem to suggest Google hates feed driven affiliate sites and wants rid of them but I don't understand why that would be. Surely if the content is relevant and the searcher finds what they're looking for then the search engine has done it's job, the only reason I can see to want to get rid of these type of sites would be some kind of corporate jealousy or vindictiveness?

Essentially if you are an affiliate, you are Google's competition. You are leveraging the organic results to (get paid) sending traffic to merchants, which is strictly Google's business. If it wasn't for people like you, all those merchants would have to cough up and buy more Adwords - not just leading to more ads but higher CPCs and more profits all round for the big G.

Unless you're a big, branded afffiliate like Tripadvisor, in which case Google will scrape your site and start displaying all the good bits to users so they never have to visit and instead hang around and click more Google ads instead http://www.tnooz.com/2011/01/24/news/tripadvisor-google-abusing-its-power-with-google-places/

 

[cc976a]

Sorry to deviate here but Apple don't have a monopoly. Their desktop machines (MacBook, iMac etc..) have around 10% market share compared to around 85% for Microsoft Windows (did someone say monopoly) and Android phones hold the majority share of the smartphone market with the highest selling phone flip-flopping between the iPhone 4s and Galaxy S2. The only market that Apple leads at present is the tablet PC market.

Sorry I think my post was unclear. I understand Apple are not the only provider of computers or smartphone / tablets.

Apple do ensure many (monopolised in my view) barriers to entry for accessories, add-on's, hardware and the ability of ensuring only Apple's offerings are compatible.

For a ever growing brand (No 1 globally recognised brand I've just heard) with revenue and reach they have there should be permissible entry barriers to reduce inflated prices in operation to it's customers (compatible media, hardware etc....)

As an example when Apple decide not to release a certain song on iTunes as a single at 99p because it's so popular, so every single track of this on any album instantly becomes an Album Only title (Sinnerman by Nina Simone springs to mind) so Apple, after I've paid hundreds for the operating hardware, ensure through limited and restricted competition to iTunes that I will have to pay a full album price in order to download the song only.

 

[MASSEY]

They don’t have to list anyone… Google is no different than the old “yellow pages” was... There isn’t anyone near them and unlikely to be so for the next few years they have the monopoly.. They don’t care about generics, emd or biting the hand that feeds them if they don’t capitalise on it that wouldn’t be good business.. If they do there likely to quicken the rise of a competitor but there be leaving with pockets stuffed full of cash…

It is very naive to think like that. They get sued all the time. Around a year or so ago people were in uproar because google were promoting their own stuff over other people. Having the monopoly is the issue.

"competition commission".

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/about-us

 

[namealot]

It is very naive to think like that. They get sued all the time. Around a year or so ago people were in uproar because google were promoting their own stuff over other people. Having the monopoly is the issue.

"competition commission".

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/about-us

"Competition Commission and google" You'll see thats been going on for years . Usa Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
FTC Investigation, European Union’s Competition Commission, france's national competition authority Varity of commissions world wide India I think is there latest.... have they stopped whatever practises , whitelist etc blacklist?

Most are instigated by one big company that has been accused of monopolizing the market so many times before and is now accusing Google of similar *ironic that .... even provided eu commission with how "g" algo's work nice of them lol "G" won't stop doing what there doing,,,, "the competition is just a click away." works for them

 

[divebod]

The music and video side of their business is heavily influenced by the music and tv companies themselves and would be far more draconian if they got their way. I remember the stand-off between Apple and record labels a few years back when Apple wanted music to remain 99c per song but the studios wanted a new $1.50 price bracket for new releases. Apple refused to back down to the studios demands and there was talk of labels withdrawing (I think one of them did) bit eventually a compromise was reached and a new pricing structure of $1.29 for a new release but also a new lower 69c price was also introduced for older music.

Is this where the big music groups (even fewer now that EMI's been swallowed up) finally meet a body that has the power to stand up to them? Mind you, with Apple taking a fixed percentage of each sale on itunes, the 30c increase won't impact their bottom line too much.