| No, there's nothing like super generic about it. Google has a de facto monopoly on site rankings, which gives it de facto editorial control over the content of the Internet down to a very fine level. If Google decides to drop a site from search, that site loses traffic and is effectively removed from visibility. This is not a user choice. Users do not to get to say "Well, that site is too slow for me, so I won't visit it again. And actually I don't like the content either." It's not a site owner choice. Owners can't respond to user preferences by improving performance or offering different content. It's a Google choice. And the reasons for Google's choices are typically opaque, largely unstated, and never negotiated directly with site owners. It's absolutely unacceptable for a single unaccountable corporation to have this level level of control over global information infrastructure. In fact the whole idea of generic but opaque site ranking is toxic to an open Internet, and always has been. The idea that page rank has some kind of objective user value - as opposed to monopoly value - has always been debatable. It was tolerable conceit in the days of Alta Vista when search was a research project, and some level of good faith was assumed. But Google has trashed that good faith by operating like a bad actor - and monopolist - in numerous ways, AMP being the most recent example. So no - not generic. Not even close. |