If Google was so evil, why would we purposefully send traffic to sites where we only get a percentage cut of the revenue?
EDIT: I realize I needed to explain this statement a little bit more. If we show ads on google.com we get 100% of the revenue. If show ads on reversephonelookup.it they get majority of the revenue. There is a limited amount of advertiser demand. Instead of manipulating the organic search results, it would be more profitable for google to just show more ads on the search page or inflate the ad price or something.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to open this can of worms, did it have something else printed on its label?
Phone number lookup sites are almost certainly a) easily detectable; and b) low traffic. If Google only gets a percentage cut of this, why index them for fractions of pennies per year?
Keep in mind that Google is not a product company, they are a data company. They work on the biggest most impactful items, and don't have a lot of time for one-offs.
Finally, it might not be clear at all that these sites should be removed from the index.
Those results are organic, at least they were not marked as ads. That's even worse, it means the regular crawler is preferring generated phone number sites over blogs. That's the real money waster right there.
> We need to crawl all the pages that serve our ads so that we can show ads that are relevant.
Why? I though Google's business model was tracking users to show relevant ads to them. You say it's more like DuckDuckGo, or the old magazine ads: film magazines get blockbuster trailers, gardening magazines get compost ads.
Either the ads are personalized, so the surrounding content doesn't matter, or the ads are "static", so why track everyone all the time, then?
> If we show ads on google.com we get 100% of the revenue. If show ads on reversephonelookup.it they get majority of the revenue. There is a limited amount of advertiser demand. Instead of manipulating the organic search results, it would be more profitable for google to just show more ads on the search page or inflate the ad price or something.
As your sibling comments imply, this works like a protection racket. The profit is closing the market to webmasters that don't allow ads at all, or that use non-Google networks.
Would you risk loosing 10, to get 1 ?
Also, the search index would gain all the sites that are in the AdSense index so search results would potentially improve. However, it would give an unfair advantage to google publishers.
Can you explain this? Not sure if it's your phrasing or what, but I'm not getting what you mean.
Google is converting the world into a content production factory FOR Google and they pay literally pennies for the work.
If even pennies. Consider how much content Google search now includes from Web pages where you don't even need to click into the page. Weather. Answers to questions. Some links I click keep google.Com in the url and Google processes the page and shows me what Google wants.
I don't even know anymore how much of what I see is what the creator wanted me too see our what Google wants me to see our not see.
Imagine they remove competitors ads with that. Who knows what they do in the name of making the Web better.
You can't go public, answer to no one accountable, who only thinks of MONEY and do no evil.
If Google wants to do no MORE evil. Take yourself private and live up to your credo.
You comment now comes up first, but the rest of the results all try to contact googlesyndication.com, so ads? Google will not exclude sites that literally give them money.