I think google themselves are the ones that try to put an "ethical" face to their products by producing guidelines and woops another leaked document about how they are out to catch the baddies but my competitors are still NO1 on the front page even though they clearly read the guidelines and are in competition for who can bend/break the most (of course they carry a LOT of advertising and pay for a lot too).
Even google struggles to reconcile their own standards and objectives
Take RIP2IT...an automatic site generator, which generates nasty little "bill board" sites, which essentially exist to take traffic from organic keywords and divert it to google advertising.
When google says it wants the most relevant pages to come up - it is hard to square with these sites which carry little information - and are designed to get you to click paid ads. Hardly a good user experience.
There is anecdoatal evidence that these sites are getting preferrential ranking - but then Google is a (hidden) partner in Rip2It....
Law is just a majority agreement on what is morally right or wrong...
LOL
Like MPs voting themselves expenses for second houses you mean...when they live only 20 minutes away!
So the question is a majority of WHO!! not the electorate thats for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveB
It has been known for business to be "flexible" with both the law and ethics
Not just business...either.
Take tony blair, getting a £300K mortage on a £150K house in durham, then charging the whole of the mortgage repayment to the taxpayer...
If that is not corruption of power and abuse of office, I dont know what is