This morning at Search Engine Land the team and I published a response to the Wall Street Journal’s story on Google Search. You can read my story named Misquoted and misunderstood: Why we, the search community, don’t believe the WSJ about Google search.
I am not going to repeat everything written in my story or the WSJ story. I tried my best to go through point-by-point and explain how Google Search really works in that story. The WSJ really did a horrible and sad job bringing up conspiracy theories without any evidence. The worst part, they quoted a bunch of folks who have said they were either misquoted or misunderstood – or both.
Let me now just go through the reaction to the story I published on Search Engine Land – so you can see the difference of opinions. But again, first go read my story at Search Engine Land please so this makes sense.
Barry did a great job of providing a foundation for his expertise, which the WSJ failed to do completely.
— Bill Slawski ⚓ (@bill_slawski) November 18, 2019
Ugh. I was interviewed for this WSJ piece. The reporter seemed fixed on proving that Google was manually inserting big brands at the top of the results.
She was disappointed when I shared with her that in the example she gave the top organic result had hundreds of good links. https://t.co/zBzqkUWxOi
— Marie Haynes (@Marie_Haynes) November 18, 2019
I believe this is a reflex of how much the common user understands search, and search engines.
While most of the piece is slanted or biased, many professionals will know what the editor meant, or what’s implicit.
For the common user, some exaggerations might not be as clear. https://t.co/jXTL9NxRPa
— Pedro Dias: ~/pedro$ (@pedrodias) November 18, 2019
I love how we get tweets of veterans saying how Google “may” do auto-complete. WSJ article was out of line & inaccurate on most things.. what it should have said is how tech issues are overlooked for big brands while startups and SMEs have to meet tech guidelines to the dot
— Thomas Agius (@GozitanTommy) November 18, 2019
— Lubin Bisson (@Qzedia) November 18, 2019
Yep, they really missed the mark with this one. “In the end, the WSJ’s report is an embarrassing piece of “journalism” and a missed opportunity” -> Misquoted & Misunderstood: Why We Don’t Believe The @WSJ About Google Search by @rustybrick via @sengineland https://t.co/NVYX7iOrTo
— Brodie Clark (@brodieseo) November 18, 2019
— Online Marketing Bureau Stramark (@stramark) November 18, 2019
— Kristine Schachinger (@schachin) November 18, 2019
Bollocks. Plenty of us think the WSJ article, while flawed, makes many damn good points. I have more issue with this broad generalisation of what ‘the search community’ believes. https://t.co/n2VIy4JxGK
— Barry Adams (@badams) November 18, 2019
With all respect for your work, but “we” are not representing the search community. Chosen one sindrom guys.
— Goran Majic (@Goran_Majic) November 18, 2019
Some parts were right, some were wrong/misinterpreted. The article is still a net positive (for users) in my opinion.
— SEOwner (@tehseowner) November 18, 2019
Anyway – I think it is important for you all to read what the WSJ published and the response and make up your own mind.
Forum discussion at Twitter.
This marketing news is not the copyright of Scott.Services – please click here to see the original source of this article. Author: email@example.com (Barry Schwartz)
For more SEO, PPC, internet marketing news please check out https://news.scott.services
Why not check out our SEO, PPC marketing services at https://www.scott.services