This recent thread at Jimworld discusses some growing Google weaknesses,
mainly having to do with Google running out of "docIDs":

<<
http://www.jimworld.com/apps/webmaster.forums/action::thread/thread::1091693
159/forum::google/ >>

My websites seem to draw more traffic from Yahoo, rather than Google lately.


----- Original Message -----
From: "David F. Prenatt, Jr." <netesq@...>
To: <xodp@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 10:08 PM
Subject: [xodp] Google, Google Watch, and Google Watch Watch


> 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
>
>