God, Hope & Helping Others
Google has established itself as the number one search engine. In a practical sense it has an absolute monopoly on search requests with well over 80 percent of all searches going through Google. However, this fact does not necessarily make Google the best choice to find what you are searching for through a search engine. There are several reasons for this:
1) Google is the leader of the "Big Boys Club",
2) Google naturally leans towards big boys for answers to queries. Examples are WikiPedia, Google Plus ( Owned by Google), and YouTube( owned by Google ).
So even if the information offered in the suggested articles are irrelevant, maybe containing the keyword in a different context, or are just a poor source of information, Google still lists them towards the top of the page. Most often these appear at the very top of the search results ( first 3 or 4 spots ). Then searchers will click on them because while Google has listed them at the top. The actual relevance of these top pages is unknown to the searcher. The fact that the searcher clicks on them despite a lack of relevance, helps those links to keep appearing at the top. Irrelevant links may remain at the top because they are read before the searcher realizes that the page is irrelevant.
3) Google being a major corporation with stockholders, has a financial duty to its investors to operate the company in a profitable manner. Because of this fact, Google has a natural bias towards its stock holders and other financial supporters. Such are the money providers for Google.
The majority of the big money on the Internet comes from pharmaceutical industry, including big fund charities such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), insurance companies, etc. It is a well established fact that the pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful and profitable of all industries in the world. Big fund charities such as the ACS also provide big money on the Internet. These companies have sites that continuously rate well because of their financial position and power. They receive preferential treatment for their sites, above others with less financial influence. A good example of this is in reference to alternative health topics such as cesium chloride and cancer treatment. Cesium chloride is considered, among alternatives, to be an effective alternative cancer treatment. In searching on cesium chloride and alternative cancer treatment topic, continually pulls up the ACS website as one of the top relevant sites in the search. The fact is the ACS site has low relevance for this search topic and for almost all alternative cancer therapies. It is a well established fact that the ACS is supported by main stream cancer treatment industry of poison, slash, and burn, otherwise known as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. This is further supported by the fact that the information provided on the ACS site consistently states that the claims for this product are unsubstantiated or unproven, showing a negative bias toward any alternative remedy. The ACS site is really irrelevant for anything related to alternative health or therapies as they have never invested a dime into them except to produce biased, negative publications intended to lead people away from the potentials of these therapies.
Another site often seen is Quack Watch. designed to attack natural and alternative therapies. Quack watch has been successfully sued in California and in this suit it was revealed that Quack Watch is not an independent and unbiased site but is in fact operated and funded by the pharmaceutical industry ( Big Pharma ).. This site is a poor choice for these searches.
A very serious issue is the long arms of the US government and its various agencies(i.e. FTC, FDA, etc.) having enormous power on where websites appear on search engines. In other words, they may be putting their fingers on the scales in favor of one website over another. So, if the FTC is against your site, or the FDA, they can suppress the appearance of a site on Google and this can be done without due process just by sending a letter to Google. The recent actions of U.S. government agencies such as the IRS suppression of Conservative groups should erase any doubt that this is happening.
There are certain things that a search engine should do in regards to searches. One is to observe the popularity of click through relative to position. No matter how well Google's algorithm selects sites to show, when the site on position 5 has a higher percentage of click through than positions 1,2,3, and 4, then it obviously should be moved up. If a site that only appears on page 23 of the search, has a higher percentage of clicks than those on page 2, that site should quickly move up. Google does not do this very well and this in itself indicates that Google puts its own financial interests above the people who use it to search for things of interest to themselves. Google pays very little attention to the actual relevance of the site in regards to the necessarily search phrase.
One additional item is Google's use of images to derate a site. Google can take an unattractive image from a site and put it on the images section of the first page of search rather than show text about the site. These images are not often clicked on, so Google can say "we put you on page one and nobody clicked on you". An example of this is when a person is searching for a product but Google puts up a schematic of the product that no one would understand or care about. First page exposure without getting clicks can seriously de-rate a site's ranking. On top of that changing the image to a better one gets the image removed from exposure. Our company found that out when we replaced a schematic diagram with an attractive image.
Google was only taking our schematic of a very popular product and using it as our first page exposure while showing the product images of competitors as well as text from foreign competitors. When company members realized that this was happening, we modified the schematic image so that it showed an attractive image of our product and the schematic. Our clicks immediately went up but within a few days, Google swapped over to a different schematic image that we had posted on a different page. We fixed this image too and as soon as the clicks started to increase, that image was removed too.
The odd thing is that our product is, first a premium made in the US product, and if not the number one product in our niche, it is very close to it. Yet, we have gone from being placed in position one on page one to being in position 200 or worse for our main search word. Our sites are not alone in this respect. Google has gone so far as to suppress entire types of products that have been very popular, even to the point of not even providing a hint of those products existence, except as “paid advertisements”.
Regardless as to whether or not Google's algorithms have changed, when they do not serve up the best results for what the user is searching, Google has lost its relevance
As an example, I will use a search term that is familiar to me, zapper, specifically Hulda Clark zapper.
From the year 2000 up to approximately 2014, if you searched Google for the word zapper, about 90 percent of the returned examples were versions of “hulda clark zapper” or similar. In the suggested search phrases were parasite zapper, hulda clark zapper, clark zapper, along with bug zapper, etc.
At some point after this, Google started removing these results and replacing them with multiple dictionary sites, Ebay, Amazon, and a new site for 'zapper e-commerce' as well as some sites that while popular, have zero relevance for the word zapper. To this point, except for 'paid advertisements' Google no longer shows any Hulda Clark Zapper sites, or any alternative therapy sites related to the word zapper.
“ParaZapper” and the various sites that promoted it such as paradevices.com , petzapper.com , huldaclarkparazapper.com , and huldaclarkparasitezapper.com , used to be at the top of the first page results and were relatively high traffic sites for that particular search word.
Not only has the parazapper sites disappeared from the first 10 pages of search for the word zapper, almost all competitors have also disappeared unless they are using paid advertisements. In addition to that, all leads have been removed from the related search terms such as clark zapper, hulda zapper, parasite zapper, Hulda Clark, and hulda clark zapper. This is an obvious Orwellian tactic of whiting out relevant information, thereby misleading and confusing consumers.
It is the right of the public to find open and honest information on topics considered to be of importance to individuals and Google, along with Youtube has and is abridging that right.
To learn more about zappers, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGTf8aCjGbs
Google needs to be split. The search engine should be completely independent and in no way communicating with the advertising.
Google should be required to rank sites in order of relevance to a particular word rather than giving precedence to more popular sites that may be completely irrelevant to a word.
Google should not be allowed to limit or restrict keywords because this is a restriction of the right to free speach.
© 2023 Created by Glenn Canady. Powered by
You need to be a member of Project Nsearch to add comments!
Join Project Nsearch