Conventional wisdom asserts that being in the Google database is a good thing, and having a high Page Rank (i.e. showing up as close to the top of the search results as possible) is also a good thing. Whole companies and untold millions of person-hours are spent "optimizing" web pages for Google.
But the value is a two-way street. Google provides free marketing to your pages, but your pages also add value to Google. Without its perception as comprehensive source, Google loses its shine. What if web sites had to opt-in to get their pages indexed? That would make search engines like Google look a lot different. Of course that's a meaningless hypothetical. But here's a more realistic one.
What if I created a bunch of extremely valuable content on the web, but then forbade Google from indexing it? A license to access and republish my content would include the clause that they could not pass it onto Google. Other search engines like Yahoo and Live would have access to it. But people searching Google wouldn't see it. Since the content is so valuable, people would eventually find out about it. And they'd either start searching both places, or they might be swayed enough by this deficiency in Google to switch search engines.
Of course I'd be happy to license my content to Google. For a fee. How about a 50% revenue share on all advertising on any search results page that includes a link to my content? Large established knowledge sites out there like Wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers could do this. I wonder why they don't? Is there any legal precedence that could enforce such a targeted content embargo?
This issue becomes even more important as Google gradually blurs (crosses?) the line from providing utility to providing content.
But the value is a two-way street. Google provides free marketing to your pages, but your pages also add value to Google. Without its perception as comprehensive source, Google loses its shine. What if web sites had to opt-in to get their pages indexed? That would make search engines like Google look a lot different. Of course that's a meaningless hypothetical. But here's a more realistic one.
What if I created a bunch of extremely valuable content on the web, but then forbade Google from indexing it? A license to access and republish my content would include the clause that they could not pass it onto Google. Other search engines like Yahoo and Live would have access to it. But people searching Google wouldn't see it. Since the content is so valuable, people would eventually find out about it. And they'd either start searching both places, or they might be swayed enough by this deficiency in Google to switch search engines.
Of course I'd be happy to license my content to Google. For a fee. How about a 50% revenue share on all advertising on any search results page that includes a link to my content? Large established knowledge sites out there like Wikipedia or Yahoo! Answers could do this. I wonder why they don't? Is there any legal precedence that could enforce such a targeted content embargo?
This issue becomes even more important as Google gradually blurs (crosses?) the line from providing utility to providing content.
Sounds a bit like blackmailing Google for money. The thing is that content is not always unique and Google will sooner or later realise it doesn't need you. Besides, blackmail goes against regular business ethics.
One wouldn't necessarily be in it for the money. In fact, if Yahoo were to do this, I think they'd rather have the exclusivity of content and a more comprehensive search engine.
But really the point I was trying to make is that there is value Google gains by indexing content, and it's not always clear that the value they receive ≥ the value they provide.
Just out of curiosity, what is a distinct variety of business ethics that are not "regular"? "Special" business ethics? What are those?
You may have a point about some companies (like Yahoo, Microsoft) might want their content to be exclusive to their search engines, but it's not worth it from their point of view. Google adds a lot of value to their service by ranking their pages very high and giving them potentially millions of visitors. Nobody loses this way.
If some companies wanted to keep their content away from Google, they'd be giving up a huge market. It's just not worth it.
You seem to have studied some form of marketing, as I have. You'd probably understand that most companies follow some sort of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) — this also covers responsible ethics and practices.