Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Google in Time  (View post)

Stephen [PersonRank 0]

Monday, February 13, 2006
14 years ago

WHY IS THE INERVIEWER SHOUTING?

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

14 years ago #

Haven't got the magazine yet, but I wonder if Larry meant the keyword "porn" specifically or the general subject? (I would bet that it's the keyword, but I'm still waiting to read the article to decide.)

b1-66er [PersonRank 0]

14 years ago #

if people were writing poetry, they'd google for porn even less:

bigpoem.blogspot.com/

Niraj Sanghvi [PersonRank 10]

14 years ago #

That's a disappointing article. They didn't ask anything insightful, and the answers weren't very in-depth. Basically, the google guys can't believe their success, they like being confusing, and Eric Schmidt does something for the company as CEO.

Prophet [PersonRank 0]

14 years ago #

Ok. Here comes the front page curse. 1 month. Watch the stock price of google dive within 1 month.

Jeff [PersonRank 0]

14 years ago #

Why the CEO seats between Brin and Page?

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

14 years ago #

Myterius, the interview is included in the link (yeah, they were talking specifically about people using Google to "look for porn").

Bill Kelm [PersonRank 1]

14 years ago #

I agree with Niraj that they didn't ask anything insightful except maybe: "YOU TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY IN THE BUSINESS. WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU ADDRESSING? =
SCHMIDT: With all the headlines we're making, we don't want our announcements to surprise or confuse anyone.

The recent BMW, Ricoh, and now Traffic Power incidents with Google have led me to ask for more "transparency" about whether or not these improved communications from Google (with the great help of Matt Cutts) are setting a "precedent" for Google?

So, while Matt did a great job of helping with Google communication, now that the Google lawyers have approved an open and honest disclosure about TP, was this an "exception to the rule" due to extenuating circumstances (incredibly justified, IMO, and serves many "greater goods"), or is this public "was banned by Google" disclosure an official Google precedent? In other words, will more SEO companies and their "innocent or not" clients be appropriately subjected to public humiliation based on well researched and evaluated, individual situations?

Sam Davyson [PersonRank 10]

14 years ago #

Stephen! That is exactly what I thought.

Lee Odden [PersonRank 1]

14 years ago #

They also made the cover of Barron's.
online.barrons.com/article/SB1 ...

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!