Thank you I explained this the other day. I also added that as a developer and I can speak for Google on this we think of the users experience and work backward. Thats how you provide the best experience . Thank you Google for thinking of us as users and developers
Once you started scraping sites and displaying that data as your own you stopped acting in anyone, but your own best interest.
The sentiment you are addressing her is common across users who also own websites. The quality of your search in pursuit of the info nugget had drastically declined. And your aggressive policies that used to be about punishing the spammer, now hurt the business owner and ultimately the user. A year between Penguin updates? Really?
This letter sounds defensive and so unlike the Google we once loved. You have gone from beloved innovator to scary data hoarder, site destroyer.
Face it. You jumped the shark a long time ago. Keep going this way and you'll lose any chance of recovering the positive sentiment once held about you.
To deny this may feel good now, but will ultimately be your expense. Oh and this sounds like it was written by a lawyer.
Sehr geehrter Herr Schmidt, wie auch immer Sie es drehen und wenden. Ihr Erfolg ist aufgebaut auf der Allmende des Internets, die Sie ausbeuten ohne den Webmastern Ihren Anteil an den Werbeeinnahmen zu erstatten, den Sie auf google.com, .de etc. pp. einnehmen. Und verschieben Sie ruhig weiter Ihre Gewinne in Steueroasen, Sie werden schon noch erleben, wie es ist, wenn alle Welt ihren Verein hassen wird.
Hi Eric. Google takes weather data from 3rd party websites, repackages it as its own, and sends less traffic to those sites that paid to research the weather forecast. Even if it's good for users, that's not okay.
Thank you Google for all you do. Furthermore, even if you were acting "anticompetitively" I would argue that any accusations were baseless simply because Google's own services are polished and in my experience far better than the competition anyway. It is always angering to me when a company does good work only for external entities to come in and tell them how to run their business.
To be blunt, because the publishing industry did not manage for over 10 years to come up with something users would embrace or at least see a feasible alternative to Google, they try to use the last measure: regulation. Even other players such as FB are also used, Google has a platform for search, social, news .. other companies cannot or do not provide.
Perception is greater than truth Eric. Google is now increasingly percieved to be rewarding a plutocracy rather than supporting a meritocracy. That's no longer cool and the hoardes that depended on Google are disillusioned. Like the complaining publishers, Google too are moving up to the top floor of their ivory tower. Answer me this, who in Google decides on the best single answer (your Holy Grail)? Life is not that simple - a range of answers and trusting the users choice will always be better for humans IMO. Stop with the extreme dream of over-simplification. If I am a journalist who has sweated on a story for three months and it is then distilled into a meaningless summary without nuance, I would be quite pissed off. Split information and commercial intent down to the atomic level of a webpage - Google will be better for it. Fancy some eggs to suck grandma?
A print magazine is unlikely to rearrange it's typesetting depending on the reader or circumstances. Even the law can't fix that for you, dear publishers.
(I had written a longer comment but I botched the submission, please excuse me.)
The world's first online weather service, Weather Underground is committed to delivering the most comprehensive, reliable weather information possible.
Home to more than 21 million users and weather provider to partners such as Google, The Associated Press and CBS, the company's state-of-the-art technology monitors conditions and forecasts for locations across the world. "
Don't you worry. Wasn't it the Belgian publishers who wanted their snippets removed from your search results and when you obliged they complained they lost so much traffic? If anything, then publishers should be grateful for the likes of Google. No one forced them NOT to build better offers, like maps etc. However, today it is often easier to find an specific article on an online newspaper website by doing a search in Google with KEYWORD and "site:dumpublisher.com" than using their proprietary search functionality. And of course, when Google is pretty quick in indexing something and I follow Google some rookie has had second thoughts about the article's title - changed it (no harm in that) - and with it the hyperlink. People who do such things definitely have little clue about what HTML and linking and finding is for!
Users are just a part of the business plan and it doesn't matter what your intent was 15 years ago. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders first and foremost, nobody else.
As Ian Miller said in his Keynote speech at BrightonSEO last week, "Google wants to be your cybernetic friend, that's the future of Google" (see http://newrisedigital.com/google-as-the-cybernetic-friend-why-seo-is-being-replaced-by-life-data-optimisation/ for his inspiring presentation on the future of Google).
Most of the arguments thrown at Google come from search engine marketers that have not kept up with the progress of the digital marketing space. LIfe Data Optimization is the new SEO.
Google's lack of transparency on how it ranks sites and even more than that the lack of transparency on when and how and if it punishes web sites shows it is working in its own interest, not consumers. It routinely damages small businesses with penalties that are not only justified but totally hidden so that a business can only guess it is being penalized. I have seen many businesses hurt after having done nothing perceptibly 'bad'. Moreover, Google is constantly changing what they consider bad and then retroactively damaging sites for having done what 'used to be ok' but is now considered 'not ok'. For Google, Businesses, and Customers the result is Win, Lose, Lose.
Just not what i expected from Google. I like what they do but i didn't think that they are in the straight direction. They can say everything but all of us know that most of the traffic to every single page on the web is from google.com For example they say taht most of the ppl go directly to the most popular news and business website , but still most of the people made mistakes in writing the exact domain name and they search in google for it... so still google is monopoly
Although I agree with most of what is being said here, I disagree with the question about how Europeans according to Smith is looking for reviews primarily on Yelp/Tripadvisor.
As I wrote the other day, contacts can spot my reviews on Maps / Local by being logged in and performing a relevant Google search. There is no easy way to track the effect it has as a glance of my review has been enough for them to visit the place - something they have told me in person. Thus I would argue this makes the functionality of social search a more powerful review tool than Tripadvisor or Yelp, despite the fact that it is too complex to show in direct numbers and I am talking from my own experience as #Cityexpert here.
"We built Google for users, not websites," wow! That's a statement that reflects the growing realization among websites, especially media websites, that Google has no regard for the economic health of anyone else. If you are a website owner Google is your competition! It is in competition for the "user" and uses the content of other websites to gain that first click.
Google's dirty little secret is that's it is not very good at monetizing content but since it doesn't have to pay for most of it, it can make lots of money on lots of volume. In this way, it devalues everything that it touches (republishes). Not only is it benefiting from the work of others but it then devalues that work in the digital market because it drives down ad revenues for others by providing enormous volumes of cheap advertising.
Does Google understand what its effect is? That it is killing the very industries it claims it is helping?
Like the scorpion stinging the frog on whose back it is riding to cross a river, without content to index or scrape, Google has no business. Like the scorpion, it can't change its nature.
I find it extraordinary that in this post, Google is admitting to placing its own site ahead of others, and says that it deliberately demotes other sites. This is not an algorithm's demotion, based on which site is most relevant but a deliberate ranking on the page to put itself ahead of the very sites that it is scraping data from. While Google does pay for some data, the lost traffic prevents the building of a loyal audience, and future direct to website traffic. which negates Mr Schmidt's earlier example of how people can skip Google altogether. Fat chance of developing a direct audience if you are but a bit data provider to Google's Big Data user experience.
6. It is not always a utopia in practice though. Google punishes and frustrates small business, while giving large businesses a get-out-of-jail-free card. Penalties are lifted within days/hours for well-recognized brands while often getting direct assistance from Google; while small business is punished for weeks and months with an intent to discourage/disuade, and no real help--only punitive actions. It's easier to knock out the little guys, then eventually the big ones.
It was Googles own guidelines that said "if it is a hotel affiliate then it is spam". I doubt most feelings at Google are written so clearly (much like your non-competitive hiring, a.k.a. wage fixing practices:
My favorite quote from you "“I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric”"
7. Unfortunately, partly due to spam, and partly due to the need to continually wipe out the weaker competitors, Google's authority focus often delivers less accurate results. I have searched Google almost on a daily basis since its year of inception. As a power searcher, I regularly search down several pages (sometimes > 100) so I am well versed in quality of search data. Just last week, I asked a super simple "how to" govt related question and in the top 100 results, all I saw was listings of govt sites, with an answer nowhere in sight.
8. In the long term, as the need for profit/power persists, taking action against larger and larger entities is the only viable option, although like some of the international newspaper vs Google News, it has failed. The drop in ebay traffic this year is another sign that this is happening more.
9. Ultimately, all business is a constant power struggle. As Google needs to grow, many businesses will be destroyed while power shifts to the new (Google in this case). While this may not be a legal or other problem, it does mean that power can often exponentially end up in the hands of a few instead of the masses. Do you suppose that if Google were 10x its current size, and the rest of the world was dying (e.g. newspapers, yellow pages, insurance, credit card comparison, book shopping, etc...) do you think that governments are just going to start saying: "well, Google runs 90% of the world, and thats just dandy"?
If it helps, here's a screenshot of Google in 10 years:
I think we can agree on the following facts. You are right for the most part, yet t raises several questions.
1. Google is driven by profit, which are increased by delivering a superior product than its competitors.
2. As margins decrease, there's increased pressure to maintain profits by creating new products/verticals that are injected into the results.
3. In some cases, this means showing less relevant results at the top as was the case of Google+ above Twitter, because the problem is, long term, Google needs to continue to capture the user, etc...hopefully gaining enough momentum to compete with Twitter, etc...
4. In many cases, Google's products are no better or worse than the competitions, yet they show their results inline so when you say "But because it’s good for users, we think that’s OK." it is true, but Google does not provide results from each website in the results--it is their own data essentially capturing more revenue for Google since Google becomes the destination.
Again, the goal is to make Google the destination so that in the long run, it can become less of a bridge, and capture more revenue. Google could show data created by other sites, but chooses not to.
5. "We try to show you different offers and websites where you can actually purchase stuff -- not links to specialized search engines (which rank lower) where you have to repeat your query." This is true. It is easier, but of course, there are hundreds of ways to shop for insurance, and your results that showed JDPower rankings was completely valueless to consumers. Most insurance sites like carinsurace.com and insurance.com are still far superior from an aggregators perspective, and that doesnt even account for the fact that each insurance company has different selling points/benefits.
Were you "thinking of the users" when you broke calendar sync for Outlook and Thunderbird? My favourite part is where no one at Google will even acknowledge there's a problem.
Or perhaps you had the users' best experience in mind when you forced HTTPS for YouTube streaming, but then didn't implement any modern ciphers, thereby preventing people from streaming videos unless they compromised their SSL configuration?
How about the "best experience" for your numerous business users? Designing Chrome to be impossible to manage centrally in a reliable manner DEFINITELY improved our experience. It improved it so much we couldn't handle the awesomeness of Chrome and went back to IE and Firefox. They are lesser browsers, sure, but at least there I can rely on my users' browsers being PCI compliant.
Oh and then there's the "make Chrome to always autoupdate, don't give the user an option, and do it parasitically by latching onto other browsers in a way that can't be disabled". Yeah, we REALLY loved that one. To hell with our right to control our own property--we get to have the latest Chrome without even trying. A little production breakage here and there builds character, right?
And who could forget the shoddy IPv6 on your MXes and returning 5xx code for transient DNS failures? It really makes my day when my users call about bounced email because your system couldn't do a PTR lookup fast enough, then rejected it outright claiming I don't have any PTR records. I can really see the effort you're putting into championing IPv6 on our behalf with that!
Oh and then there's the Google Now app, which is so full of memory leaks it crashes itself multiple times per hour, even when you're not using it! That's really an original way to remind the user that Google Now exists and they should be using it! Kudos on the creative marketing!
Seriously though, if you want me to buy the BS you just spewed about search results, clean up the rest of your operation. The evidence shows Google only cares about its customers when someone threatens its profit margins. The rest of the time we're ignored and mistreated. Google: just another big corporation caring about profits instead of humans.
You are welcome to comment here, but your remarks should be relevant to the conversation. To keep the exchanges focused and engaging, we reserve the right to remove off-topic comments, or self-promoting URLs and vacuous messages
Thank you I explained this the other day. I also added that as a developer and I can speak for Google on this we think of the users experience and work backward. Thats how you provide the best experience . Thank you Google for thinking of us as users and developers
ReplyDeleteOnce you started scraping sites and displaying that data as your own you stopped acting in anyone, but your own best interest.
ReplyDeleteThe sentiment you are addressing her is common across users who also own websites. The quality of your search in pursuit of the info nugget had drastically declined. And your aggressive policies that used to be about punishing the spammer, now hurt the business owner and ultimately the user. A year between Penguin updates? Really?
This letter sounds defensive and so unlike the Google we once loved. You have gone from beloved innovator to scary data hoarder, site destroyer.
Face it. You jumped the shark a long time ago. Keep going this way and you'll lose any chance of recovering the positive sentiment once held about you.
To deny this may feel good now, but will ultimately be your expense. Oh and this sounds like it was written by a lawyer.
Sehr geehrter Herr Schmidt, wie auch immer Sie es drehen und wenden. Ihr Erfolg ist aufgebaut auf der Allmende des Internets, die Sie ausbeuten ohne den Webmastern Ihren Anteil an den Werbeeinnahmen zu erstatten, den Sie auf google.com, .de etc. pp. einnehmen. Und verschieben Sie ruhig weiter Ihre Gewinne in Steueroasen, Sie werden schon noch erleben, wie es ist, wenn alle Welt ihren Verein hassen wird.
ReplyDeletePity no one will believe you.
ReplyDeleteHi Eric. Google takes weather data from 3rd party websites, repackages it as its own, and sends less traffic to those sites that paid to research the weather forecast. Even if it's good for users, that's not okay.
ReplyDeleteThank you Google for all you do. Furthermore, even if you were acting "anticompetitively" I would argue that any accusations were baseless simply because Google's own services are polished and in my experience far better than the competition anyway. It is always angering to me when a company does good work only for external entities to come in and tell them how to run their business.
ReplyDeleteTo be blunt, because the publishing industry did not manage for over 10 years to come up with something users would embrace or at least see a feasible alternative to Google, they try to use the last measure: regulation. Even other players such as FB are also used, Google has a platform for search, social, news .. other companies cannot or do not provide.
ReplyDeleteThey why do you run paid search results? Don't ask money from website owners, ask users instead.
ReplyDeletePerception is greater than truth Eric. Google is now increasingly percieved to be rewarding a plutocracy rather than supporting a meritocracy. That's no longer cool and the hoardes that depended on Google are disillusioned. Like the complaining publishers, Google too are moving up to the top floor of their ivory tower. Answer me this, who in Google decides on the best single answer (your Holy Grail)? Life is not that simple - a range of answers and trusting the users choice will always be better for humans IMO. Stop with the extreme dream of over-simplification. If I am a journalist who has sweated on a story for three months and it is then distilled into a meaningless summary without nuance, I would be quite pissed off. Split information and commercial intent down to the atomic level of a webpage - Google will be better for it. Fancy some eggs to suck grandma?
ReplyDeleteA print magazine is unlikely to rearrange it's typesetting depending on the reader or circumstances. Even the law can't fix that for you, dear publishers.
ReplyDelete(I had written a longer comment but I botched the submission, please excuse me.)
Thank you Google for what you do!!
ReplyDeleteAnd you "hungry bit_ches" SHUT_UP_AND_PIST_OFF!!!
Thank you Google, for what you do! We are with you!
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that Google pays for the weather data, they do not scrape it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wunderground.com/about/pr/news.asp?date=20120821
"About Weather Underground
The world's first online weather service, Weather Underground is committed to delivering the most comprehensive, reliable weather information possible.
Home to more than 21 million users and weather provider to partners such as Google, The Associated Press and CBS, the company's state-of-the-art technology monitors conditions and forecasts for locations across the world. "
Google are a monopoly, and therefore need to be treated that way by the law.
ReplyDeleteDon't you worry. Wasn't it the Belgian publishers who wanted their snippets removed from your search results and when you obliged they complained they lost so much traffic? If anything, then publishers should be grateful for the likes of Google. No one forced them NOT to build better offers, like maps etc. However, today it is often easier to find an specific article on an online newspaper website by doing a search in Google with KEYWORD and "site:dumpublisher.com" than using their proprietary search functionality. And of course, when Google is pretty quick in indexing something and I follow Google some rookie has had second thoughts about the article's title - changed it (no harm in that) - and with it the hyperlink. People who do such things definitely have little clue about what HTML and linking and finding is for!
ReplyDeleteUsers are just a part of the business plan and it doesn't matter what your intent was 15 years ago. Corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders first and foremost, nobody else.
ReplyDeleteAs Ian Miller said in his Keynote speech at BrightonSEO last week, "Google wants to be your cybernetic friend, that's the future of Google" (see http://newrisedigital.com/google-as-the-cybernetic-friend-why-seo-is-being-replaced-by-life-data-optimisation/ for his inspiring presentation on the future of Google).
ReplyDeleteMost of the arguments thrown at Google come from search engine marketers that have not kept up with the progress of the digital marketing space. LIfe Data Optimization is the new SEO.
Google's lack of transparency on how it ranks sites and even more than that the lack of transparency on when and how and if it punishes web sites shows it is working in its own interest, not consumers. It routinely damages small businesses with penalties that are not only justified but totally hidden so that a business can only guess it is being penalized. I have seen many businesses hurt after having done nothing perceptibly 'bad'. Moreover, Google is constantly changing what they consider bad and then retroactively damaging sites for having done what 'used to be ok' but is now considered 'not ok'. For Google, Businesses, and Customers the result is Win, Lose, Lose.
ReplyDeleteGoogle has made the world a better place. How could you argue otherwise.
ReplyDeleteGoogle ads will take a hit if Google keeps "innovating" to the point that advertisers are hurt by this. Does Google has a limit?
ReplyDeleteJust not what i expected from Google. I like what they do but i didn't think that they are in the straight direction. They can say everything but all of us know that most of the traffic to every single page on the web is from google.com For example they say taht most of the ppl go directly to the most popular news and business website , but still most of the people made mistakes in writing the exact domain name and they search in google for it... so still google is monopoly
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with most of what is being said here, I disagree with the question about how Europeans according to Smith is looking for reviews primarily on Yelp/Tripadvisor.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote the other day, contacts can spot my reviews on Maps / Local by being logged in and performing a relevant Google search. There is no easy way to track the effect it has as a glance of my review has been enough for them to visit the place - something they have told me in person. Thus I would argue this makes the functionality of social search a more powerful review tool than Tripadvisor or Yelp, despite the fact that it is too complex to show in direct numbers and I am talking from my own experience as #Cityexpert here.
"We built Google for users, not websites," wow! That's a statement that reflects the growing realization among websites, especially media websites, that Google has no regard for the economic health of anyone else. If you are a website owner Google is your competition! It is in competition for the "user" and uses the content of other websites to gain that first click.
ReplyDeleteGoogle's dirty little secret is that's it is not very good at monetizing content but since it doesn't have to pay for most of it, it can make lots of money on lots of volume. In this way, it devalues everything that it touches (republishes). Not only is it benefiting from the work of others but it then devalues that work in the digital market because it drives down ad revenues for others by providing enormous volumes of cheap advertising.
Does Google understand what its effect is? That it is killing the very industries it claims it is helping?
Like the scorpion stinging the frog on whose back it is riding to cross a river, without content to index or scrape, Google has no business. Like the scorpion, it can't change its nature.
I find it extraordinary that in this post, Google is admitting to placing its own site ahead of others, and says that it deliberately demotes other sites. This is not an algorithm's demotion, based on which site is most relevant but a deliberate ranking on the page to put itself ahead of the very sites that it is scraping data from. While Google does pay for some data, the lost traffic prevents the building of a loyal audience, and future direct to website traffic. which negates Mr Schmidt's earlier example of how people can skip Google altogether. Fat chance of developing a direct audience if you are but a bit data provider to Google's Big Data user experience.
ReplyDelete6. It is not always a utopia in practice though. Google punishes and frustrates small business, while giving large businesses a get-out-of-jail-free card. Penalties are lifted within days/hours for well-recognized brands while often getting direct assistance from Google; while small business is punished for weeks and months with an intent to discourage/disuade, and no real help--only punitive actions. It's easier to knock out the little guys, then eventually the big ones.
ReplyDeleteIt was Googles own guidelines that said "if it is a hotel affiliate then it is spam". I doubt most feelings at Google are written so clearly (much like your non-competitive hiring, a.k.a. wage fixing practices:
http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/)
http://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/
My favorite quote from you "“I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric”"
7. Unfortunately, partly due to spam, and partly due to the need to continually wipe out the weaker competitors, Google's authority focus often delivers less accurate results. I have searched Google almost on a daily basis since its year of inception. As a power searcher, I regularly search down several pages (sometimes > 100) so I am well versed in quality of search data. Just last week, I asked a super simple "how to" govt related question and in the top 100 results, all I saw was listings of govt sites, with an answer nowhere in sight.
8. In the long term, as the need for profit/power persists, taking action against larger and larger entities is the only viable option, although like some of the international newspaper vs Google News, it has failed. The drop in ebay traffic this year is another sign that this is happening more.
9. Ultimately, all business is a constant power struggle. As Google needs to grow, many businesses will be destroyed while power shifts to the new (Google in this case). While this may not be a legal or other problem, it does mean that power can often exponentially end up in the hands of a few instead of the masses. Do you suppose that if Google were 10x its current size, and the rest of the world was dying (e.g. newspapers, yellow pages, insurance, credit card comparison, book shopping, etc...) do you think that governments are just going to start saying: "well, Google runs 90% of the world, and thats just dandy"?
If it helps, here's a screenshot of Google in 10 years:
http://googlein10years.wordpress.com/author/googlein10years/
Eric,
ReplyDeleteI think we can agree on the following facts. You are right for the most part, yet t raises several questions.
1. Google is driven by profit, which are increased by delivering a superior product than its competitors.
2. As margins decrease, there's increased pressure to maintain profits by creating new products/verticals that are injected into the results.
3. In some cases, this means showing less relevant results at the top as was the case of Google+ above Twitter, because the problem is, long term, Google needs to continue to capture the user, etc...hopefully gaining enough momentum to compete with Twitter, etc...
4. In many cases, Google's products are no better or worse than the competitions, yet they show their results inline so when you say "But because it’s good for users, we think that’s OK." it is true, but Google does not provide results from each website in the results--it is their own data essentially capturing more revenue for Google since Google becomes the destination.
Again, the goal is to make Google the destination so that in the long run, it can become less of a bridge, and capture more revenue. Google could show data created by other sites, but chooses not to.
5. "We try to show you different offers and websites where you can actually purchase stuff -- not links to specialized search engines (which rank lower) where you have to repeat your query." This is true. It is easier, but of course, there are hundreds of ways to shop for insurance, and your results that showed JDPower rankings was completely valueless to consumers. Most insurance sites like carinsurace.com and insurance.com are still far superior from an aggregators perspective, and that doesnt even account for the fact that each insurance company has different selling points/benefits.
Were you "thinking of the users" when you broke calendar sync for Outlook and Thunderbird? My favourite part is where no one at Google will even acknowledge there's a problem.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps you had the users' best experience in mind when you forced HTTPS for YouTube streaming, but then didn't implement any modern ciphers, thereby preventing people from streaming videos unless they compromised their SSL configuration?
How about the "best experience" for your numerous business users? Designing Chrome to be impossible to manage centrally in a reliable manner DEFINITELY improved our experience. It improved it so much we couldn't handle the awesomeness of Chrome and went back to IE and Firefox. They are lesser browsers, sure, but at least there I can rely on my users' browsers being PCI compliant.
Oh and then there's the "make Chrome to always autoupdate, don't give the user an option, and do it parasitically by latching onto other browsers in a way that can't be disabled". Yeah, we REALLY loved that one. To hell with our right to control our own property--we get to have the latest Chrome without even trying. A little production breakage here and there builds character, right?
And who could forget the shoddy IPv6 on your MXes and returning 5xx code for transient DNS failures? It really makes my day when my users call about bounced email because your system couldn't do a PTR lookup fast enough, then rejected it outright claiming I don't have any PTR records. I can really see the effort you're putting into championing IPv6 on our behalf with that!
Oh and then there's the Google Now app, which is so full of memory leaks it crashes itself multiple times per hour, even when you're not using it! That's really an original way to remind the user that Google Now exists and they should be using it! Kudos on the creative marketing!
Seriously though, if you want me to buy the BS you just spewed about search results, clean up the rest of your operation. The evidence shows Google only cares about its customers when someone threatens its profit margins. The rest of the time we're ignored and mistreated. Google: just another big corporation caring about profits instead of humans.
So much for "don't be evil".