Daniel Tharp

Google's Downfall: Search Engine Optimization

This article reads like one big "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.

P1. Google is big.
P2. SEO was conceived because Google got big.
P3. SEO is bad.
C. Google lost a ton of market value because of the effects of SEO.

P2 doesn't follow from P1 (and is also demonstrably false as SEO was around before Google), and P3 doesn't even really follow from P2, and C ignores little things like the economy forcing nearly every American-traded company off their highs.

If any of this had some proof behind it I would find it a little more credible. At least you didn't cite that Precursor study or I'd almost have to accuse you of being a troll.

Google: The Impossibility of Rational Debate

Suffice it to say I'm glad one of the Seeking Alpha writers understands what's going on in the article, it's telecom-lobbyist swill that will probably go over smashingly with other telecom lobbyists, but for those of us on Earth, it's a little unnerving that Scott Cleland is getting paid more than I'll probably ever make to propagate this crap.

Microsoft's Cashback Program is Working: 15% Uptick in June Searches

While I agree with 228966 I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment. MS has money to burn, and they really could manage this long term (MS Games should be all I have to say on the subject). While I agree that it's completely unrealistic in the long-term, if they maintain that rate of growth (more than likely it would increase even past 15% as more everyday people hear about it) for, say, a year, don't you think they could stand to take a pretty substantial chunk of the search engine market?