??? Is Google Manipulating Search Rankings to Appease Advertisers ???


I once had a "page 1" Google ranking.

That was for a website about LASIK surgeons in Southern California.
Some of whom are leaving their patients wholely or partially disabled,
living with constant eye pain.

When people do a web search about LASIK eye surgery before the
surgery, very often it is because they are trying to find out if it's
REALLY as safe as the LASIK surgeons claim it to be.

For example, when a person living in San Diego does a web search using
the key-words "LASIK San Diego", I believe that they are entitled to
find out about the hundreds of persons in San Diego whose vision and
health have been harmed by LASIK and laser eye surgery.

At this point I've corresponded with well over a hundred injured
patients. Most of them have been injured by highly experienced
refractive surgeons with "sterling reputations."

I've gone to the courthouse and obtained copies of medical malpractice
cases, naming LASIK surgeons. I've put those cases on-line, blacking
out the names of the patients. As you can imagine, this has caused a
few ripples in the LASIK industry.

And, like I said, I even once had a page 1 Google ranking.

Until about October 2002. Until about that time, if you did a search
using the key-words "LASIK San Diego", the page 1 search results
consisted of information about injured patients. Along with ads from
LASIK surgeons, some of whom have demonstrated a profound skill at
lying to close the sale. In other words, they're not telling
prospective patients about the risks that those patients are trying to
educate themselves about when they do a web-search using the key-words
"LASIK San Diego".

What else happened in about October 2002 ? Google started receiving
paid ads from San Diego LASIK surgeons.

And my Page One Ranking disappeared off the face of the earth, for the
search keywords "LASIK San Diego". Well, not exactly "off the face of
the earth". Let's just say that the page ranking went from page 1 to
page 11 or more -- which in the Gestalt of the Web, is the same thing
as disappearing off the face of the earth.

I'm not the only website that has experienced this general category of
behavior -- possible censorship of verifiable facts to appease
advertisers who don't smell so rosy when the facts are known.

In my opinion, just recently, Oceana.org has encountered some
speed-bumps in their experience with Google. Oceana is concerned
about cruise-lines dumping their sewage in the ocean. And has even,
possibly, criticized the behavior of some of the cruise-lines -- that
advertise on Google.

Good-bye Oceana.org. Hello cruise-line advertisements.

There was a time when the Web was one of the most magnificent
embodiments of the democratization of technology, in recent human
history.

Not any more. The Web is no longer a level playing field. In my
opinion, it's now Pay-to-Play, as evidenced by Google's possible
manipulation of search engine rankings to appease advertisers.

There have been times in business history when the dominance of an
industry resulted in anti-trust investigations, and anti-trust
prosecution.

I believe it is time for an anti-trust investigation of Google,
because I believe they have been literally manipulating search engine
rankings -- and departing from their own stated "page-rank" web-search
algorithm.

In fact, I believe that Google has adopted a policy of muzzling
injured LASIK patients, because the statements of some of those
injured LASIK patients make it harder to sell ads to LASIK surgeons
who, in my opinion, can not be trusted to disclose the true risks of
LASIK surgery to prospective patients.

In my opinion, Google's rankings are not weighted only by page rank.
They are also weighted according to how much money Google is receiving
from certain advertisers.

Is Google aiding and abetting Fraud in the LASIK industry ?

Is Google aiding and abetting Fraud and Malpractice in a sector of the
medical profession ?

Based on my experience as an injured LASIK patient who has had the
chance to witness the relative timing of search engine rankings and
the appearance of paid ads, in my opinion, Google is literally
muzzling injured LASIK patients in order to sell more ads.

In my opinion, Google is literally muzzling injured LASIK patients in
order to pump up profits.

In my opinion, Google is literally muzzling injured LASIK patients in
order to have a bigger IPO.

Below, I have listed the URL's of some websites, to illustrate some of
the statements I have made above.

Sincerely,

~ Roger ~

Roger E. Bratt


I can be reached at the email below rodgerebratt@yahoo.com
(Note -- in order to use this email address, please remove the "d"
from "rodger".)


Copyright 2004 Roger E. Bratt ~ All Rights Reserved



Appendix # 1.
Websites that relate to Oceana's experience with Google

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=307

http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusi...GoogleBan.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News


Appendix # 2.
Google San Diego -- see all the LASIK ads ? In my opinion, Google has
been muzzling injured LASIK patients from publishing in this forum
since about October 2002.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...go&sa=N&tab=gw


Appendix # 3.
A few of the Websites about Injured LASIK Patients

http://www.surgicaleyes.org/

http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/

http://www.lasikdisaster.com/

http://www.lasiksucks4u.com/

http://www.lasikmemorial.com/

http://www.lasikSOS.com/

http://users.tns.net/~equity/lasiksos/

http://users.tns.net/~equity/LASIK_Casualties_SD

http://users.tns.net/~equity/LASIK_Casualties_LA

http://users.tns.net/~equity/LASIK_Casualties_OC


Appendix # 4.
"Honesty in Advertising"

I admit that, as a newcomer to the world of search engine rankings, I
once used grey letters on a grey background -- for about a month.
Then I realized that this is a "no-no" -- and quickly abandoned the
practice. This fact may be relevant to the issue of Google
manipulation of search engine
rankings.


Appendix # 5.
This is not an advertisement for Google.


Appendix # 6.
The contents of this letter are posted on-line at
http://www.geocities.com/gglcnsrshp

On 25 Feb 2004 05:59:15 -0800, GGL CNSRSHP <gglcnsrshp@yahoo.com> wrote:

A search for just LASIK brings this site up 6th.

Searches like "LASIK complications" or "LASIK injuries" brings up a bunch
of sites with relevant content. Google's job isn't to warn people about
the risks of a surgical procedure unless you search for the risks
*explicitly".

If I search for "LASIK San Diego" I expect to see clinics offering LASIK
eye-surgery in San Diego to come up first. It's logical, and impartial.
Google's update in 2002, as you say, simply removed sites ranking highly
for "LASIK San Diego" which weren't what one would normally expect for
such a search.

Finally, take into account the explosion of popularity of this procedure,
which would cause an increase in the total number of websites vying for
this set of keywords since 2002 and you have a classic case of no case.

Essentially, you're demanding that Google place something similar to a
"Surgeon General's Warning" (like on cigarettes in North America) on
certain searches despite what those searches are actually looking for.
Surprise surprise, a search for "cigarettes" brings up a list of sites,
most of which are places you can obtain cigarettes. Searches for
"cigarettes harm" or "cigarettes cancer" bring up an entirely different
list, all of which are still relevant.

You lost 1st place ranking for a term your site shouldn't've been ranked
on to begin with. All the sites which appear before yours are more
relevant (albeit maybe not as SE optimized) for the terms which you are
crying over. Somebody call the waaaaaaaaah-mbulance.

You say you have a legal beef with Google? It was *your* decision to have
your marketing strategy rely on your ranking at Google. So who's fault is
it *really*?

Grey

--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollory that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com - Orca RingMaker: PHP web ring creation and
management

GGL CNSRSHP wrote:

A top ranking in Google might be worth its weight in gold, but you also
have to think about what you paid for it. Zilch, nought, nothing, zippo.

--
Dylan Parry
http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk - FREE Web tutorials and references
Now playing: Yes - Silent Talking

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:12:30 +0000 Dylan Parry
<usenet@dylanparry.com> broke off from drinking a cup of tea at to
write:

A very pertinent point from young Dylan. One get's what one pays for,
and if one is not paying anything one shouldn't expect too much.

A business which wants good exposure should be prepared to invest in
quality advertising.

Matt

--
A massive matrix of concise, interlinked encyclopaedia information.
For when you just want to know, quickly and easily.
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com