Thread: Shoemoney vs Matt Cutts

Originally Posted by Shoemoney

The thing I find most ironic is that out of all the sponsored tweets I have done the first one that I disclose that I am getting paid for he unfollows me for.

So I should not disclose =P ?

That does seem to be the lesson here!

It all comes back to Don't Make Google Look Stupid.

You can sell all the links/tweets you want, as long as you do it quietly.

Google just wants to pretend that eCommerce doesn't exist outside of their little Adwords/Adsense world. As long as we don't awaken them from that dream world, they are happy enough to ignore us.

Originally Posted by Will.Spencer

I'm not sure I trust those results.

• Google Fight : Shoemoney VS Will Spencer
• Google Fight : Matt Cutts VS Will Spencer

dammit you win every time.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...&word2=coaster

AHA! there's one way to win XD

I think that Jeremy has a piece of it and Melissa has a piece of it. I'd like to tie in pieces from Michael Gray and John Chow and present a Grand Unified Theory.

Google has a huge cash cow right now with the AdWords/AdSense program. They hold an effective monopoly on Internet advertising. Like Standard Oil and IBM before them, Google's monopoly will not last forever. Google's current focus seems to be holding onto this monopoly as long as possible -- by any means necessary.

• Jeremy's selling tweets represents a new way for advertisers to reach customers -- a direct threat to Google's advertising hegemony.
• Michael Gray's Viral Conversation giving products to blogger in exchange for reviews represents a new way for advertisers to reach customers -- a direct threat to Google's advertising hegemony.
• John Chow's selling blog posts represents a new way for advertisers to reach customers -- a direct threat to Google's advertising hegemony.

Google wants to be the only effective method for advertisers to communicate with potential customers, and they appear willing to engage in predatory business practices to retain their dominance in that extremely important market space.

Anyone else remember the days when Google had no flaws, and everyone praised it regardless of what it did?

I'm almost not believing what I'm seeing/reading.

Yet, I suppose any company that makes money is really out there for one reason in the end.

Lol look like jeremy taking advantage with thos extra followers, but really! all and all pretty much a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Will.Spencer

Google has a huge cash cow right now with the AdWords/AdSense program. They hold an effective monopoly on Internet advertising.

In return Google gives us free organic listings. The sad day will be when Google decides that Organic shouldn't be free any more.

I think the better question should be how long will the "shoe" fit? and how long will the "cutts" last?

Originally Posted by bogart

In return Google gives us free organic listings. The sad day will be when Google decides that Organic shouldn't be free any more.

That will be fine, because people will stop using Google almost immediately. Google's traffic numbers will drop precipitously and they will effectively disappear from the Internet map.

But of course, Google won't do that -- because they need those jerry built "organic" search results to prop up their business model. Without our sites, Google has no effective raison d'être.

Originally Posted by Will.Spencer

Without our sites, Google has no effective raison d'être.

I was involved in a long discussion about that years ago when Google decided that they should control how and where webmasters link. The web existed before Google and will exist after it. Links created the web.

You are correct that basically publishers are selling paid links and Google is a link broker. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I think Google has gone overboard in slapping paid directories and paid links. The same webmasters that Goggle is bitch slapping are the people that made Google into a multi-billion company. In a way it's greed. Google has $17 billion in cash and they are worried about a guy selling a link for $10 a month.

It's kind of funny that Matt Cutts would unfollow Shoemoney because he sent out a paid tweet. Because the teet was paid doesn't diminish the message.

Originally Posted by bogart

I was involved in a long discussion about that years ago when Google decided that they should control how and where webmasters link. The web existed before Google and will exist after it. Links created the web.

You are correct that basically publishers are selling paid links and Google is a link broker. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I think Google has gone overboard in slapping paid directories and paid links. The same webmasters that Goggle is bitch slapping are the people that made Google into a multi-billion company. In a way it's greed. Google has $17 billion in cash and they are worried about a guy selling a link for $10 a month.

It's kind of funny that Matt Cutts would unfollow Shoemoney because he sent out a paid tweet. Because the teet was paid doesn't diminish the message.

Agree 100% bogart

It is incredibly naïve the arrogance and hubris that this company G utilizes either directly behind ‘smoke and mirrors’ because they do not have the guts – to come out openly and declare that this is this, instead they dish out penalties et al – executed by face less killers - slaying folks who are legally making money – they think they are culling seals

Well the business world and the players there in, can see through the crap that is flowing out of G, and eventually G will be to quote Shakespeare

Be hoisted by one's own petard (or to be hoist with one's own petard), which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap", literally implying that one could be lifted up (hoisted, or blown upward) by one's own bomb.

Good luck to Shoemoney, John Chow and all who are working to legally make money!