[kartayyar]

I don't get how companies can blame Google for loss of traffic. Google is going to do what it thinks will produce the best results.

And if you somehow think that gives you a right to show up in those results or be there if you benefited from showing up in results in the past, that's flawed thinking.

[asadkn]

It's perfectly normal to react and criticize failures of an almost monopolistic search engine, when the good content is outranked by inferior content.

[pb7]

Who decides what is good and what is inferior?

[xapata]

Google, of course. And they're trying to please both their consumers and customers, but more focused on consumers, because there's always another customer.

[pb7]

Someone will always lose in a competition for limited top spots. The Internet continues to rapidly expand every single day but there are still just 10(ish) spots on the front page.

I got what you meant but I think you have the words flipped. Google's customers are advertisers and the consumers of their products are users like you and me.

[xapata]

I assert that a long-term profit optimization will short-term appear to be a focus on consumers (users), and that Google, Facebook, etc. are aware of this. Unless they think their business model is dying and they should just milk the cow as fast as possible before it falls over, which I really doubt.

[JungleGymSam]

Did you read the article?

[pb7]

Yes, what does the article have to do with my question to the GP?

[JungleGymSam]

Did you read the article?

[dkersten]

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[vntok]

Yes, it's a rambling rant "man yells at the cloud", and it's since been recanted by its own author. What did you learn from that article exactly?