Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
I access from the UK so I can't tell if they do or don't now. I know they used to, but things have changed a bit since then.
We'll have to see the results of the new investigation, I imagine.
The trouble is in this instance, is that the people who have the decision making power (you, in this instance) aren't the same as the people who are being abused (the provider of the thing you're searching for). To say that it's okay because you have the power to change what you do, doesn't change the fact that you won't change because you're not the one being screwed.
I don't really understand - it's googles product (phones, search, etc) why can't they do what they like with it? I'm sure people would go elsewhere if other products were any good?
Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.
- Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
- Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
- Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.
Company B's previous recourse was basically, to live with it - Google have control over the entire stack, top to bottom. Companies can't go elsewhere because Google index them, not the other way around, and Google keep how they calculate popularity hidden, so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally). It's therefore up to the searchers to go elsewhere to get search results, but because Google are trusted to provide the correct answers, why would people do that? It's not the user's fault that Google dishonestly reports their results as the best even if others are better, it's Google's.
Anyway, in Europe it's against the law for Google to act in that way considering their position as provider of 66% of searches, so it was challenged. Google's solution in response to that legal action was to allow companies to pay Google to be promoted to top spot, but companies (naturally) thought that it was unfair that they would have to pay for equal consideration when Google do it to themselves for free. Now they have to come up with another idea.
Today, and Business Insider are all running stories about the big dip in Apple stock, close to the eve of the iPhone 6 rollout. Huffington Post's Headline is "Apple Stock Getting Killed" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
There are two different explanations given for the tanking Apple stock. To be sure, potential liabilities over The iCloud photo scandal and leaked celebrity nude photos gets its share of the blame. But and a note from Pacific Crest analyst Andy Hargreaves telling investors to sell Apple shares seems to carry more weight.
"Last week, the company was flying high as anticipation built for the iPhone 6, and the iWatch, which are expected to be announced next week. The stock was hitting new all-time highs...It all came to a screeching halt over the weekend for Apple, when nude photos of celebrities hit the web. Apple's weak security on iCloud, where the photos were backed up, was blamed for the photos hitting the web."
Apple's new mobile payments feature, as well as health tracking data tied to the iPhone, may feel the pinch from the data security breach (although most of that data is likely to be stored right on the phone, not in the iCloud, BusinessInsider points out). Pacific Crest's Hargreaves says, "We recommend taking profits in Apple.""
Link to Original Source
"Never" is an awfully long time, especially when you are talking about the climate. What actual timeframe are you talking about?
There's not law that does what he says, so it's kind of a moot point!
And when it comes down to it, county commissioners, city planners, zoning officials, etc are neither bound by the availability of plans or the lack of plans. If anti-development commissioners are elected, they can vote against expansive development all they want, completely regardless of sea level rise estimates.
FWIW, I would be an anti-development commissioner!
Reference for where the state "bann[ed] any such consideration or planning for the future"? Not to a biased media source with no sources, please.
You're absolutely right. Things are always--necessarily--better when they are centrally decided and mandated. Fireproofing is an excellent example. Thank goodness for codes that required asbestos, Tris, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Too bad those contrarians just want to stand in the way of progress.
Talk about a biased article. I am NOT saying I agree entirely with what happened, but the reality is that there was a moratorium on relying on the previous (2010) sea level report which predicted 39 inches of sea level rise. New standards for prediction are to be decided upon by 2016. The new standards do not look past 30 years.
I personally do not believe that any climate predictions we have right now are worth shit 30 years out, so I don't have a problem with this.
The NC coast, being surrounded for the most part by outer banks (as opposed to sea islands) are an interesting case. Erosion has long been a problem, and will continue to be a problem. I dare say a bigger problem than sea level rise.
Oh well, I guess we'll see in thirty years!