Search Engine Optimization

This is a second part of the Googlepoly paper review released by Scott Cleland. To see the full picture please read part 1.

• Avoid fair representation of Google’s multitude of financial conflicts of interest; Author does not provide any specific examples. Though I am not excluding the probability, I would like to see example to be convinced.
• Hide anti-competitive self-dealing in its auctions; Google is known for milking money with quality score, so this is a valid point, however all search engines use this strategy, so it is not Google exclusive.
• Hide anti-competitive front-running in its auctions; Google uses its auction network to promote its own products, seems like a 100% valid thing to do. If I own something I have all the rights to use it.
• Hide monitoring of competitor’s actions and vulnerabilities; This makes 100% perfect sense from strategic perspective. If one has the ability to spy and monitor on competitors, one should utilize it to the maximum. Before going into war Pentagon uses satellites to spy on enemies. If I have the eyes that competitors don’t, I will use them.
• Hide abuse of privacy expectations and compliance; I would love to hear more on this issue, since Google knows more about me and you that any company in the world. What do they do with this data? Do they comply with predatory government requests disguised by “anti terror” acts or just keep it for behavioral targeting.
• Deny competitors access to key market information, thus inhibiting competitors’ ability to control quality or even offer a competitive product or service. I mentioned this above, if the company has gained this knowledge purely through market dominance (pretty fair in Google’s case – by word of mouth) than why in the world share it with competitors?

Read part 1.