Search Neutrality: Good or Bad for the Web?
Getting onto the first page of Google for most keywords is pretty tough. And marketers complain all the time about Google smacked them for this and slapped them for that. And some of them outright curse about Google's performance in regard to marketing. I get that. I really do. Who of us hasn't felt the disciplinary eye of Google at one time or another?
Because of Google's incredible power on the Web, and their recent peccadilloes regarding the algorithm, some people are suggesting that the Web should employ the doctrine of "search neutrality," meaning no algorithms would be used to put web pages in their rightful place.
I think this is a ridiculous idea! I mean, I'd love to be on the first page of Google for every keyword in my basket, but without some type of hierarchy — think about it — what there would be is just well… CHAOS!
Imagine the spammers having a field day without Google there to block them out of search results. Everything on the page would be the same crappy result, and that's not what you want to see when you're searching for something, eh? You want to type in a term and have exactly what you want come back to you almost instantly. Google is very good at that.
I remember back in the 90's when the Internet was just starting to catch on. You could search in 10 different search engines and still not come away with the result you hoped for. As an historical researcher, I can attest to the fact that Google is still the best solution around. Before that it could take hours to find what might take you seconds to find now. Oh, some of the engines weren't horrible. I used Alta Vista a lot then, but Google was still better, and when it came along, I switched and never looked back.
Getting rid of search algorithms would make all search engines pretty much the same, too. Yahoo, Google, Bing… same, same, same. Nobody likes conformity, except condominiums and communists. I don't know about you, but I like to choose. Think about how much it would suck if only one search engine was around. If search neutrality became a reality (which I really don't think it can), there may as well only be one search engine, period.
Danny Sullivan a well-respected search authority, brought up a good point about Yahoo. In the late '90's, Yahoo was considered the "gatekeeper" of the Web, and that the very same things were being said about them as are being said about Google today. But things progressed and improved in search, and this is mainly because of the quality of Google's algorithm. They keep the other search engines on their toes, too, just to stay quai-competitive. (I mean, let's face it… there really is no solid competition for Google.)
Let's face it… Google, Yahoo, Bing, and all of the other search engines MUST have a way to figure out what the best search results will be for their customers. It's not just their right, in my mind, it's their duty to consumers. Without the algorithms that make the search engines work in a way that gives us results based on relevance and popularity, the search process would be exasperating.
I really have to wonder if the folks crying out for 'search neutrality they a) know anything about how search works, and b) if they ever use the Internet at all.
No, Google is not the ghod of the Internet, and sometimes, it's a little freaky to think about all of the things they are into, but things change. Who knows what could happen tomorrow. For now, I think that Google is our best tool for finding things we want to see online, and use it at least 20 times a day, if not more.
How about you? Would you like to see search neutrality? Why is that, and if so, what would be your solution for ranking web pages? If an algorithm is odious, what would be divine?
Interested to hear any and all suggestions.
For more on this topic, visit these links:
Google's Public Policy Blog: "Our Op-Ed, What Is Best in Search?"
Danny Sullivan's post: "The New York Times Algorithm & Why It Needs Government Regulation"
