Google Monster of Search Engines

Google has established itself as the number one search engine and in a practical sense it has an absolute monopoly on search requests with well over 80 percent of all searches going through Google. However, this fact does not necessarily make Google the best choice to find what you are searching for through a search engine. There are several reasons for this:

1) Google ads is even more monopolistic than Google in general.

2) Google is the leader of the “Big Boys Club”,

3) Google naturally leans towards big boys for answers to queries. Examples are WikiPedia ( definitely an Orwellian Enterprise ), Google Plus ( Owned by Google), and You-tube( owned by Google ).

4) Google also leans towards the big names in industry so that they are given preference of some sites that may actually be far more authoritative than the major company sites for a particular keyword.

So even if the information offered in the suggested articles are irrelevant, maybe containing the keyword in a different context, or are just a poor source of information, Google still lists them towards the top of the page. Most often these appear at the very top of the search results ( first 3 or 4 spots ). Then searchers will click on them because while Google has listed them at the top. The actual relevance of these top pages is unknown to the searcher. The fact that the searcher clicks on them despite a lack of relevance, helps those links to keep appearing at the top. Irrelevant links may remain at the top because they are read before the searcher realizes that the page is irrelevant.

3) Google being a major corporation with stockholders, has a financial duty to its investors to operate the company in a profitable manner. Because of this fact, Google has a natural bias towards its stock holders and other financial supporters. Such are the money providers for Google.

The majority of the big money on the Internet comes from pharmaceutical industry, including big fund charities such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), insurance companies, etc. It is a well established fact that the pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful and profitable of all industries in the world. Big fund charities such as the ACS also provide big money on the Internet. These companies have sites that continuously rate well because of their financial position and power. They receive preferential treatment for their sites, above others with less financial influence. A good example of this is in reference to alternative health topics such as cesium chloride and cancer treatment. Cesium chloride is considered, among alternatives, to be an effective alternative cancer treatment. In searching on cesium chloride and alternative cancer treatment topic, continually pulls up the ACS website as one of the top relevant sites in the search. The fact is the ACS site has low relevance for this search topic and for almost all alternative cancer therapies. It is a well established fact that the ACS is supported by main stream cancer treatment industry of poison, slash, and burn, otherwise known as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. This is further supported by the fact that the information provided on the ACS site consistently states that the claims for this product are unsubstantiated or unproven, showing a negative bias toward any alternative remedy. The ACS site is really irrelevant for anything related to alternative health or therapies as they have never invested a dime into them except to produce biased, negative publications intended to lead people away from the potentials of these therapies.

Another site often seen is Quack Watch. designed to attack natural and alternative therapies. Quack watch has been successfully sued in California and in this suit it was revealed that Quack Watch is not an independent and unbiased site but is in fact operated and funded by the pharmaceutical industry ( Big Pharma ).. This site is a poor choice for these searches.

A very serious issue is the long arms of the US government and its various agencies(i.e. FTC, FDA, etc.) having enormous power on where websites appear on search engines. In other words, they may be putting their fingers on the scales in favor of one website over another. So, if the FTC is against your site, or the FDA, they can suppress the appearance of a site on Google and this can be done without due process just by sending a letter to Google. The recent actions of U.S. government agencies such as the IRS suppression of Conservative groups should erase any doubt that this is happening.

There are certain things that a search engine should do in regards to searches. One is to offer a balance return when opinions or ideas differ on a subject. The objective should be to provide users with a fair and balance result.

A very good example of this is a popular search ‘cancer alternative’ which is expected to bring up alternative therapies that might help with fighting cancer.

In order to find out if the results were reasonable, I did a search in two search engines, ‘Google’, and an independent search engine ‘duckduckgo’. The differences in the information returned was not just significant but striking. I took the ‘non advertised’, organic links returned on each search and evaluated the tone or substance of that page to the topic on a scale of +5 to -5 where +5 was a highly supportive site and -5 was a extremely negative site in regards to that topic. From years of experience with this, I am aware of 2 of the most popular and authoritative sites on the topic have been https://www.cancertutor.com/ and https://www.chrisbeatcancer.com . There are also a number of others. One of the most negative sites is https://www.cancer.org/ .

In the Google search, there were 11 ‘non advertised’, organic links and duckduckgo had no advertising with 9 links returned. While in the Google search, every one of the 11 links had a negative rating with a total score of -20 ( extremely negative ) while duckduckgo had a score of +3 out of 9 links ( which is fairly balanced ).

The point with this is, no matter what you search for, you want a good representation of real information. What you do not want is Orwellian manipulation of the sites that you are referred to that mislead you to making poor or incorrect decisions.

Another thing that a search engine should do, while maintaining objectivity and fairness in search return, is to observe the popularity of click through relative to position. No matter how well Google’s algorithm selects sites to show, when the site on position 5 has a higher percentage of click through than positions 1,2,3, and 4, then it obviously should be moved up. If a site that only appears on page 23 of the search, has a higher percentage of clicks than those on page 2, that site should quickly move up. Google does not do this very well and this in itself indicates that Google puts its own financial interests above the people who use it to search for things of interest to themselves. Google pays very little attention to the actual relevance of the site in regards to the necessarily search phrase.

One additional item is Google’s use of images to derate a site. Google can take an unattractive image from a site and put it on the images section of the first page of search rather than show text about the site. These images are not often clicked on, so Google can say “we put you on page one and nobody clicked on you”. An example of this is when a person is searching for a product but Google puts up a schematic of the product that no one would understand or care about. First page exposure without getting clicks can seriously de-rate a site’s ranking. On top of that changing the image to a better one gets the image removed from exposure. Our company found that out when we replaced a schematic diagram with an attractive image.

An example of this is that Google was only taking the schematic diagram of a very popular product and using it as a first page exposure while showing the product images of competitors as well as text from foreign competitors. When company members realized that this was happening, they modified the schematic image so that it showed an attractive image of the product combined with the schematic. Their clicks immediately went up but within a few days, Google swapped over to a different schematic image that was posted on a different page. When that image was fixed and the clicks started to increase, that image was removed too.

The odd thing is that the mentioned product is, first a premium made in the US product, and if not the number one product in its niche, it is very close to it. Yet, it went from being placed in position one on page one to being in position 200 or worse for its main search keyword. That particular site is not alone in this respect. Google has gone so far as to suppress entire types of products that have been very popular, even to the point of not even providing a hint of those products existence, except as “paid advertisements”. This in itself borders on ‘racketeering.

Regardless as to whether or not Google’s algorithms have changed, when they do not serve up the best results for what the user is searching, Google has lost its relevance

As an example, I will use a search term that is familiar to me, zapper, specifically Hulda Clark zapper.

From the year 2000 up to approximately 2014, if you searched Google for the word zapper, about 90 percent of the returned examples were versions of “Hulda Clark zapper” or similar. In the suggested search phrases were parasite zapper, Hulda Clark zapper, Clark zapper, along with bug zapper, etc.

At some point after this, Google started removing these results and replacing them with multiple dictionary sites, Ebay, Amazon, and a new site for ‘zapper e-commerce’ as well as some sites that while popular, have zero relevance for the word zapper. To this point, except for ‘paid advertisements’ Google no longer shows any Hulda Clark Zapper sites, or any alternative therapy sites related to the word zapper. To be blunt, Google has essentially blocked these sites from appearing in reasonable search results. This is an obvious Orwellian tactic of whiting out relevant information, thereby misleading and confusing consumers.

What it all comes down to, is that Google’s advertising and financial interests interfere with the objectivity and fairness of its searches. That is a major reason why Google needs to have its search engine separated from its advertising interests.

It is the right of the public to find open and honest information on topics considered to be of importance to individuals and Google, along with You-tube has and is abridging that right.

I would like to present one of the e-books that I have written on a subject mentioned above. The book is ‘Zapper’ by David Etheredge and it is selling for only $0.99 at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YZJVDV9 . If nothing else, please read the description. That part is free and basically gives an introduction to a topic that may have life altering results.  

David Etheredge

https://huldaclarkparazapper.com