It appears the Scotsman online has been brought to its knees by flowers.
No matter how incredulous it seems to an IT ignoramus such as myself, it appears the Johnston Press broke Google's search engine rules.
Google don't financially penalise such misbehaviour, but do it electronically. A full explanation of why the Scotsman (and other Johnson Press papers) will no longer be highly rated is here.
I wouldn't be sad to see the Scotsman bite the dust. Since the Johnson Press took over the quality of journalism has slowly slipped into mediocrity. That is not a reflection upon the few excellent journalists who do contribute, but a comment about the lack of aspiration from management.
If this was the death knell for the Scotsman would there be room for another Scottish paper here? I think not. The days of newspapers are coming to an end and people read news online. A couple of quality online Scottish papers, such as the Caledonian Mercury, have struggled against the rise of English papers which offer Scottish editions, or perhaps they were ahead of the time. Nevertheless, they continue and that can only be to our benefit.
Posts
7 comments:
By reading the explanation by MediaChimp of why Google has taken the action it did, improves Google's credibility with its users.
Putting to one side any valid discussion about the current quality of journalism now appearing in any of today’s newspapers.
There is a far greater and very much more worrying set of circumstances surrounding this ‘floral’ debate.
Here we have a giant international conglomerate, who holds a disproportionate degree of influence over how the content of the world wide web is accessed, using its power and influence to effectively punish an individual website.
Simply because, this website has the audacity to use a business model to generate advertising income which may be in competition with, and certainly does not have the approval of, the giant international conglomerate.
This is Google inappropriately exercising power in a totally restrictive manner and should be condemned outright, regardless of what we think of the Scotsman.
For if such a practice is established re: advertising, does it stop there, or in future will we see political or critical comment of which Google may not approve, be equally black-listed?
I have to disagree JRB
The other side of the coin is:-
"Here we have a giant international conglomerate (Interflora), who holds a disproportionate degree of influence over how the content of the world wide web is presented to potential flower-buyers, using its financial clout to effectively squeeze-out individual florists."
Floristry is one of the few retail sectors consisting of thousands of small, local, individual businesses.
Here's a test for SR's readers: Off the top of your head, name a competitor of Interflora?
Seems to me, what Google is saying is if you want to be at the top of the ratings,do it the honest way, by the posted rules.
Exactly as you are required to do in the Olympic Games.
Athletes using drugs are banned,for breaking the rules.
In this case Johnston Press have been made aware their rule breaking was noticed and penalties have been applied. As also has the flower company involved.
The Corporate responsibility for dreaming up this attempted scam has
nothing to do with Google, but with the instigators, they are professional businesses,and can be expected to know the rules, so its their own fault! Did they seriously think it wouldn't be noticed.
Indeed it does Joe.
I disagree JRB. All businesses have their terms and conditions and expect their customers to abide by them. The Johnson Press could have gone to Yahoo or elsewhere but decided to try to usurp Google.
I think they thought they've get away with it Apogee.
Post a Comment