What philosophy drives Google's engine? Search me.
Harrison Keely Managing Edittor

There is a time in every reader's career when they have read so many books that they feel like they could write one.

Internet search giant Google has reached a similar point, discontent to sit on the sidelines, sifting through data created by everyone else. Google wants game.

Ever since the high-profilecompany began its acquisition rampage, signs pointing to its overwhelming internal desire have become more and more evident as time goes by.

2006 was the year that changed everything: The Google monster began chomping up companies that would enable online writing, 3D modeling, video sharing and finally, JotSpot, which enables website origination.

Each facet allows and promotes content creation on clients' behalf. In other words, Google is using users to achieve a library of its own content, be it video, graphic, text or site.

Social networking website Facebook has taught its users a lesson as distraught Facebookers have attempted to delete any trace of their presence on the site. The lesson: Those involved in the network's massive social graph no longer own what they upload.

For instance, even a user who shuts down their account can return again at any time and regain all content as if it was never gone.

Google, too, takes liberties with content users provide. For instance, something as simple as the corporation's G-mail messaging software sucks in data like a black hole.

An e-mail deleted today will still be on Google's servers tomorrow.

The implications of a search giant owning the content it searches are tremendous.

Take a bookstore, for example.

The owners of a prominent bookstore have a history of authorship. Which books will likely appear at the front of the store?

But would a search engine really promote its own content over everything else?

Just try searching "Google" in rival Yahoo!'s search engine. Ahead of every result listed is a box pushing users to "search the Web with Yahoo!"

But would a search engine really promote its own content, especially if that material is created by lowly users?

Why not? The links direct traffic to its own sites, boosting numbers and advertising revenues which, after all, drive that engine in the first place.

It's an American business model of course. Search engines are companies, no different than any other, and if they weren't out for profit and business they would fail.

Still, there are those who can compare the modern search engine to a newspaper, atlas, encyclopedia or even a dictionary. Google is just a means of accessing content in an era where technology lords over print.

Shouldn't reference sources be neutral? Readers don't want to look up "dictionary" in their Merriam- Webster and finda price list for the latest editions available.

Newspapers strive for balance. Stories don't promote, they provide. Google, in a sense, is the modern-day newsroom.

What if, however, Google was actually benefitingsociety through its self-promoting tactics?

After all, seeking to offer the most relevant data up front, despite its source, is a dated method.

When the first advertisement in the "sponsored links" is the only one with aGoogle Checkout button, perhaps Google is aiming to make things easier for users.

The engine knows that web surfers don't want to repeatedly enter payment information on obscure sites. So instead, it promotes the single online store that permits a more streamlined process through its own Google Checkout system.

If people are searching Google for a video they know resides on You- Tube, do they really want any other results? That is the question being considered at the Googleplex.

It's becoming obvious that a user searching the term "Amazon.com chocolates" probably doesn't want search result #42: "Altoids Curiously Strong Dark Best Price..." Or for that matter, search result #41, #40, #39, etc.

But something else is at stake here.

There's a difference between relying on something you use and relying on something that uses you.

If the entire Internet were to fail permanently today (recent happenings in the Middle East gave a shocking glimpse of the possibility) society would have a difficulttime functioning.

The same result would occur, albeit on a much smaller scale, if Google were to die.

The difference that Google has imposed, however, is that it takes the user with it.

Consider Wal-Mart for example. The super store would be a pretty harmless place if all it did was showcase items on its shelves and help visitors locate them and take a look.

But Wal-Mart takes an active part in acquiring products from various businesses, and those business would face a major dilemma if Wal-Mart closed the doors of every outlet.

Tack on the radical number of people who would lose their source of income in the event of a chain-wide closing.

Take it a bit further and consider the families who relied on the store for low prices to put food on the table.

Think of the economic downturn rural counties would see as result.

Becoming too attached, therefore relying on the investments and resources of one entity, is a scary thing.

That's precisely what has become of the Internet.

When search giants like Google invite ordinary people to put their bags in the trunk and ride along, one can only hope for a safe driver, because the one at the wheel is the only one who has control.

To comment on this article, e-mail Harrison at hkeely@smokymountainsentinel. com.

Reader Comments

No comments have been posted. Be the first!

Other Stories With Comments:
Article	Comments
Land transfer tax-- let the voters decide	1