Google defends its own arse on Panda screw up

The folk at Google are becoming so arrogant that they think they can dictate how the internet will  be in the future. Google can’t. No computer company can. Journalism will out. Let’s start investigating, fellow journalists, rather than be dictated to by publishers who also know diddly squat about journalism.

That’s become apparent with the latest so-called “post” from the Evil Ones suggesting that it is competent to give guidance on what a high quality site is. Er, Google, webmasters are not journalists. And journalists should not be dictated to by webmasters. Nor by publishers anxious just to make another cent or two.

It’s all rather reminiscent of Microsoft in the bad old days, which launched its own magazine, the ill-fated Slate, and Oracle, which in 1993 reckoned it could write a better news story than a journalist based on an algorithm. Er, that’s not how it works, Larry, however much money you throw at the problem.

Of course, Google has totally screwed up on its Panda notion, as Tom Foremski’s site points out today. Worse than that, because Google claims it’s “not evil” it’s turned into a sanctimonious whited sepulchre that falls back on “secrets” to defend what’s plainly indefensible. Lest we forget, Google is being investigated all over the world for antitrust activities. And, lest we forget, it is not the Master of the Internet Universe, it is a multinational corporation with shareholders. It knows sod all about journalism, as Google News, daily, demonstrates.

Google has the nerve to say it wants to provide “additional guidance” on how it searches for “high quality sites”.

It even claims that search is a science.  A couple of things here – its algorithms suck, it is totally secretive about how it chooses things, and we have half a mind that there is some salesman looking for the extra buck to bolster its bottom line.

It tries to bamboozle people into thinking that its so-called “algorithms”, which are really money making ventures, can distinguish between good journalism and bad, but in reality it has got way too big for its boots and needs to be taken down a peg or two.

We refer our Googlesters to Intel’s Guide to the European Press to see how arrogant dragons will have cause to repent. And if Google really thinks it should be talking to publishers, rather than to journalists, it should kiss our arse.

We have repeatedly asked Google in the last two weeks to comment on its weirdness and it has refused to respond to our questions. The truth is Google wants bland, and we’re not bland.

Sure, Google thinks it rules the roost, just like Microsoft, IBM and Oracle before it. But it must not think that its diktat rules and that it wins. Its attitude is, quite frankly, appalling. Let’s hope the legislators who back Google ask what freedom of speech really means. It doesn’t mean some secret algorithm that is all hell bent on making sure sales remain high.

We don’t have an axe to grind here – we don’t rely on Google. But the company has really got a nerve saying it can decide what a high quality site is. It hasn’t a clue. It needs kicking in the googlies.

We have to tell the truth about Google. The Google Panda has two black eyes so far.