Looking over an email from Web Pro News I received I read the following headline, “Google Says You Are In Charge.” Yes, Google is vastly dominant in search and some people have some worries about it. I for one have made some analytical and not always positive comments about Google.

That Google is so dominant makes it almost a monopoly. Is Google’s near-monopoly bad. Most people will judge Google’s performance by the SERPs. If the search engine report pages don’t meet their expectations then those people will have “bad” things to say about Google.

SERPs for SEO are read at least two ways: 1) by the searcher who wants results that are specific to his/her particular interests 2) by the website owner, designer, or webmaster that looks for some “good” high rank in the keyword search results form Google.

Speaking from a mini-research project that I conducted over the last few weeks I would say Google does roughly 85-90% of all searches done on the internet. Yahoo! pulled into second at about 4-8% and MSN got about 2-4% of search business, with all other searches by all other engines at about 3-5%.

So if you think Google is a near-monopoly - you are correct. If this worries you it is most likely because your expectations have not been met recently. Very understandable, and I was not so happy several months ago myself.

Recently however, in a few comparisons that I have conducted in the Big 3 search engines for SEO algorithm styles - I prefer Google. I do not prefer them to be categorically far superior to the other 2 of the Big 3, but I do prefer them in some searches.

Google has a general goal of personalizing its services to the individual, which is a rightfully good way to guarantee more user satisfaction and continued dominance as it could be applied to search. The idea is that Google wants to learn your search preferences. This personalization could be very good or not so good.

No matter how well you are known you need a break even from your most devoted and intuitive lover. And sometimes that super attentive lover might catch your drift before you get to have a new thought. Anticipting your next move, sometimes wrongly. Something new to worry about and some more grist for the Google mill.

“. . . along with its land-grab of DoubleClick’s data mined consumer information, are really just an illusion. Editor’s Note: Google believes its web history policies protect their users and enhance their lives through making search more effective. Even with control of your Google history, are you comfortable with the way they can make search more personally relevant to you? Discuss it with us at WebProNews. . . ” Thank you Web Pro News, my sentiments exactly.

But I must say, so far Google is doing a B+ job in my eyes. I will say that all the drop-downs and pop-ups that other overly attentive websites want me to see have frosted me severely. Like the little Snap utility that blocks your view of text to show you a mini-view of the website your cursor got near. In the way and sucking at my bandwidth - that lover was too attentive!!!

What about Google’s high-handed approach that constantly guides you into the limited choices of more of their various other offerings - Gmail.com, Blogger.com, Google.adsense.com, Paypal.com, etc., etc., etc. Granted they have some excellent enterprises with some excellent services but they are sometimes rigidly unresponsive to user desire for variation, user questions, user security, and user support in most of these enterprises.

“Personalized search is the key to freedom when it comes to using Google. The company’s Peter Fleischer, global policy counsel, said the search giant’s policy’s put the user in charge of what they share with the company. His op-ed piece appeared in the Financial Times, where Fleischer discussed the function of personalized search, and the challenges in finding a middle ground with its services.”

“He discussed the concept of context as it applies to how people search. Fleischer cited the example of searching for Paris; one searcher may searching for a romantic European getaway, while another could be looking for love life gossip about a certain hotel fortune heiress.”

“The more personalization people permit Google to have, the greater relevance their search results will have for those users. That’s where the quandary takes place, according to him: The question is how do we deal with this challenge? Stop all progress on personalized search or give people a choice? We believe that the responsible way to handle this privacy issue is to ask users if they want to opt in to the service.”

“That is why Google requires people to open an account and turn on their personalized search functionality. Though people can turn personalized search off and on as desired, the option to do so is what has been questioned: Why should Google keep data for any reason?”

“Fleischer said there is so much information coming online each day, ‘more targeted and personal results can really add to people’s quality of life’.”

Okay Big Google, okay! Just, please don’t love us to death.

Just Another Love Object,
Arthur Browning