A while back, my attention was drawn to the Google Watch Web site (<
http://www.google-watch.org/ >) by postings on various online discussion forums.
As the name implies, Google Watch is a self-appointed Google (<
http://www.google.com/ >) watchdog. What is not immediately apparent is that
Google Watch is owned and operated by Public Information Research, a non-profit
corporation in San Antonio, Texas, a fact that is largely overlooked in an
article that Farhad Manjoo wrote about Google Watch for Salon.com. (<
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/29/google_watch/ "Meet Mr.
Anti-Google.">. Rather, Manjoo's article focuses on the personality of Daniel
Brandt, the primary force behind Google Watch.

To be sure, Daniel Brandt is a webmaster who has a personal beef with Google,
and that beef has mushroomed into a series of articles that are highly critical
of Google. The original beef has to do with problems that Brandt has
encountered with getting one of his Web sites indexed by Google. The Web site
in question is NameBase (< http://www.namebase.org/ >), an online database of
citations to articles featuring public figures, which is in fact indexed by
Google, but because of the relatively low PageRank of the 100,000 plus URLs on
NameBase, Google doesn't pay much attention to the deeplinks on the site.

Enter Google Watch Watch (< http://www.google-watch-watch.org/ >), a two-page
Web site published by Chris Beasley, a self-appointed Google apologist, who says
that he created Google Watch Watch. . ."[b]ecause I love Google. Google is a
great company, a good company, a responsible company. They are in a position of
tremendous power and they do not abuse it. They never sacrifice their vision for
the sake of making a buck. They are benign innovators, if only other companies
(here's looking at Bill), were this good."

Unfortunately, Beasley's response to Brandt is an _ad hominem_ attack that
focuses on the motivations of Brandt in targeting Google for criticism. When
Beasley gets through with his _ad hominem_ attack, he uses this as a lead in to
a gross oversimplification of Brandt's criticism of Google as being a criticism
of PageRank as a method of ranking the importance of Web pages. Even if
Brandt's criticism of Google were nothing more than a criticism of PageRank,
that would be a well-founded criticism. To which Beasley responds, "PageRank
isn't perfect, but it is the best thing we have."

To be certain, I have no hidden agenda when it comes to a discussion about the
merits and drawbacks of Google, and I think that Google Watch has done a very
good job in exposing many of Google's shortcomings, including the limitations of
PageRank. And unlike Beasley, I do not "love Google," nor do I believe that
Google is any better or worse than any other company, and I am astonished that
there is anyone who believes that any company funded by venture capitalists is
interested in anything other than a financial bottom line. Everything else,
including self-aggrandizing rhetoric, is simply a means to that end.

Humbly Yours,

XODP Moderator netesq