I am Chris Beasley, the author of this site. Why did I make it? Well because Google has been unfairly getting a lot of flak and I felt someone needed to tell the other side of the story. They are in a position of tremendous power and they do not abuse it. They never sacrifice their vision for the sake of making a buck. They are benign innovators, if only other companies (here's looking at Bill), were this good.
Remember search engines before Google? Compare and contrast AltaVista's cluttered pages from many years ago (try archive.org to find copies) with what they have now (obviously inspired by Google). Compare the flashing "You've Won" banners to the simple text links that Google has made popular, and effective. Google has done more for the Internet than just about any other company. They've pioneered a system that rescued search engines from the spam of the late 90's, and they've brought about a sort of renaissance in page and advertisement design where simple is now in again. They've also always been a model of labeling the difference between paid and unpaid search results.
Unfortunately Google's popularity has made it a target for mud slingers, and thats just not right. I made this site so that the next reporter thats wants to write about how big and bad Google is might get both sides of the story. I also thought it'd be funny, and since it wasn't a big project (a couple hours at the most) I registered the domain and the rest is history.
Many people have accused me of working for Google. In truth, I publish websites for a living. When Google dramatically changed it's ranking algorithms in late 2003 some of my sites (I have nearly 100) lost some very lucrative rankings. That change cost me over six figures a year, seriously. You'd think I'd hate Google, but I don't, and I still defend Google because most of the accusations against them are plain unfair and usually based on flawed logic.
For those of you in a stew about Google's algorithm changes in late 2003, I suggest reading this paper. Instead of complaining to me.
In response to what is said about me on Google-Watch, I'd like to set a few things straight. Firstly I don't do anything deceptive. Yes, I run some affiliate datafeed sites, but I'm not shy about it. The only place I've ever really promoted them is in forum signatures and I always clearly labeled them as affiliate sites there. I also have labeled them on my business site.. Datafeed driven sites are about 1% of my business. Mostly I run content sites, including 6 forums, and one newsletter with over 120,000 subscribers. There is also a substantial ecommerce component to my business. My sites have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, US News & World Report, among many other places. Would US News & World Report make a spam site the site of the week? Would USA Today make it a "Hot Site,"? I hope its evident that what Brandt says is a gross mistatement.
What's really insane though is that Daniel Brandt thinks I'm conspiring with Google to publish these datafeed sites. He couldn't be further from the truth. Most datafeed driven sites are banned or severely penalized in Google within months of being launched, including my sites. MSN & Yahoo still list them though. In fact most of my datafeed sites only receive traffic from Yahoo & MSN. Google has gotten smart about this. I actually plan on closing many of the sites (or just let them languish in obscurity perhaps) because Google has so effectively neutered them.
I also find it odd that I'm listed on a page about how "bloggers game Google". My first (and so far only) blog was only launched in October of 2005, and its not even my blog. I'm just a paid blogger for SitePoint.com
For more about me you can visit the following links:
- My SitePoint Blog
- Website Publisher - my resource website for... website publishers (did you see that coming?)
To contact us you can use our quick contact form:
Quick Contact Form
Copyright © 2003 - 2013 Jalic LLC. All Rights Reserved. Contact/About