Calling out Danny Sullivan from SearchEngineLand.com
Anyone reading SearchEngineLand.com may as well be checking out Google’s own inside-search blog instead.
The fact is, Danny Sullivan has been a world-class search engine reporter for the last 15 years, but his reports and blog is dependant on maintaining a close relationship with Google and engineers such as Matt Cutts.
His blogs and news articles are not neutral or professional reporting, because he is incapable of properly criticizing anything Google does or say. So much has gone wrong with Google in the last year; yet all we ever hear about from Danny is the latest news regurgitated from Google, rather then professional criticism.
Why Danny Needs to Criticize Google Better!
Have a look at what’s happened to Google over the last year. They’ve forced users on to G+ in any ways possible – even if it means reducing the user experience of their of search results. This is a company that is under investigation by the EU and US government for promoting their own products in the search results (G+), plagiarizing content from other sites, plus other things.
SPYW is not beneficial to users. For example, do a search for Mark Zuckerberg and his G+ profile is displayed in the results on Search Plus Your World. Notice that Mark hasn’t updated or written thing on his profile since he created it. OK, maybe that’s a mistake by Google. But then Google obviously knows his profile has zero activity on it, so how can they still class it as a relevant result?
It says a lot about Google’s search results that Facebook, Twitter and Myspace have all teamed up to create a “Don’t Be Evil Tool”, which is a toolbar users can voluntarily install to add relevant Facebook, Twitter and Myspace results in the Search+ Your World column.
Recently, Google introduced the incredible, awe-inspiring Knowledge Graph; when any can see it’s a clear scrape of information from the non-profit organization Wikipedia. DuckDuckGo.com was already successfully providing Wikipedia excerpts on searches for people and places long before Google’s knowledge graph was launched, so I don’t know what Google have been wasting their money on to develop this.
Google fellow Amit Singhal previously criticized Bing for copying Google’s results in some cases a year ago, (know as the Bing Sting) stating it was unfair and wrong for Bing to make money off Google’s research. So why is it OK for you Amit to copy and scrape Wikipedia’s information in your knowledge graph and display it as your own? And why didn’t Danny bring this up on his blog or in his interview with Amit in person?
Google’s already under investigation for scraping user reviews on their recipes and hotel comparison products. I can’t see how the launch of the new knowledge graph (“Scrape graph”) is going to help with this, and it’s a clear statement of where Google is heading. Screw webmasters, we’ll scrape whatever we want if we think it’ll make us more money.
Google’s latest “sponsored ads” for credit card and insurance comparisons are clear proof of this. They don’t improve user experience (as Amit “claimed” they do), instead it’s just a strategy to generate more revenue for Google. Google is a company and I understand why they might do this and even lie about it, but then why hasn’t Danny criticized this point or even brought it up on his blog?
You don’t see Danny call out Google on any of these topics. He writes detailed articles about them and does the research, but always sits on the fence and avoids adding any personal criticism towards them when it’s due.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that Google’s search results have got worse over the last year, in a bid to force people on to G+. Instead of lamenting G+ however, and the fact it is blatantly copying Facebook and it’s share and like buttons, Danny argues that social networks should open up to Google. Oh really Danny, what a coincidence that you are sticking up for G+ and telling business owners to start G+ profiles. What I post on a social network is not public for Google to crawl Danny. Most of the stuff is private between my friends, hence why Facebook has a closed network.
At the end of the day, the real SEO information and analysis comes from the people in the trenches doing the hard work and figuring out results for themselves. It doesn’t come from a blogger who waits for Matt Cutts to tweet him about a new panda or penguin update, so he can then write word-for-word verbatim what he’s been told by Google.
You can’t be a professional search engine journalist and be Google’s best friend at the same time. That’s all I’m saying.