Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine

  1. #1

    Default The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine

    Seriously, this is very disturbing for the future of commercial digital media innovation in Western Europe (already woefully inadequate).

    Western European regulators seem to have be convincing themselves (via shills for Microsoft) that the process of ranking information by relevance is inherently unfair. That Web searchers should automatically be directed to other search engines, even if no one uses those other search engines.

    It's simply absurd, I expect this kind of ineptitude from corrupt kleptocracies. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

    The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine
    Nov 30, 2010 at 7:52am ET by Danny Sullivan


    I did a search at Google today for "cars and was shocked. Rather than list links allowing me to search for "cars" on Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Voila, Naver and Yandex, Google instead favored its own search results. I'm glad the EU will be investigating whether this favoritism violates anti-trust laws.

    Consider the evidence. Here's a search on Google for cars:



    As you can clearly see, none of the competing search engines I've named are listed in the top results. Rather than show them, Google instead shows pages about cars that it has collected across the web using its own technology.

    Google's behavior like this is preventing its competitors from receiving valuable traffic, clearly something Google has done to ensure it remains dominant. I mean, consider that you can indeed search at Bing and find results for cars:



    Or you can search on Baidu and get results for cars:



    But a search for "cars" at Google reveals none of this, to the searcher. It sends them directly to sites about cars! By doing so, rather than sending searchers to other search engines, Google abuses its dominant market position to prevent competing search engines from doing well.

    How "Unbiased" Google Should Appear

    How might "unbiased" search results at Google look, if we could finally get some decent "search neutrality" laws. I'll simulate this for a search on "cars" not with an illustrated mockup but instead actual links that you can click on, so you can experience the better experience searchers would have, if Google wouldn't favor itself. Here's my interactive demo:

    You searched for "cars"

    About 6 results (0.08 seconds)

    cars - Bing

    bing.com/search?q=cars

    cars - Yahoo! Search

    search.yahoo.com/search?p=cars

    百度搜索_cars

    www.baidu.com/s?wd=cars

    Yandex: has found 31 million answers

    yandex.com/yandsearch?text=cars&lr=200

    ]cars :: 네이버 통합검색

    search.naver.com/search.naver?query=cars

    Voila - Recherche de cars

    search.ke.voila.fr/S/voila?rtype=kw&bhv=web_fr&profil=voila&rdata=cars
    Please try the demo about to understand directly how much better Google would be as a search engine, if rather than favoring its "own" results, it instead made you leave to conduct your search elsewhere.

    Enough Sarcasm

    Time to get serious. I've watched the various arguments from some vertical search engines that Google is somehow "favoring" its own vertical search engine to harm them. On the face of it, it's easy to get worked up and decide there's some wrong doing.

    Google points you to its own shopping search rather than a competing shopping search engine! Google even puts a box right within its own search results to entice you there, as you can see in this search for macbook pro:



    How unfair to other shopping search engines. Please, someone, some government body, step in and prevent this from happening! Please ensure that Google doesn't favor its own services this way!

    Some Common Sense & Logic

    If you step back from the rhetoric, the political jockeying, the concerns that Google is just too big so let's use any argument to stop it --if you logically think about this argument from a user perspective --it makes no sense.

    Google is a search engine. A search engine's job is to point you to destination sites that have the information you are seeking, not to send you to other search engines. Getting upset that Google doesn't point to other search engines is like getting upset that the New York Times doesn't simply have headlines followed by a single paragraph of text that says "read about this story in the Wall Street Journal."

    It's insane. It really is. A person comes to Google for answers. Back in the "old" days when search engines were just getting started, that generally meant simply getting lists of web pages (though even back then, even before Google, search engines also had some vertical search engines).

    Over time, it has made more sense for search engines like Google --or Bing for that matter --to provide a better search experience by creating vertical search engines and blending them into regular search results (see Search 3.0: The Blended & Vertical Search Revolution for more about this).

    It's their job. If they are not allowed to do this, they cannot serve their users well. They are ultimately forced to do the idiotic thing I illustrated above and say to searchers, "Go away and search elsewhere."

    Let's go back to that shopping search. Exactly how is Google favoring itself, again? It has a dedicated shopping search engine that lists external sites, destination sites --sites that are not on Google, for the most part. While some small shopping search engines may wish they had this traffic, they'd get it at the expense of these destination sites.

    EU Investigating Google

    Back to that European Union investigation. The news about it came out today, and the EU statement says it will investigate allegations in both Google's editorial and paid results. The statement stresses that it's just an investigation, not a conclusion:

    This initiation of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has proof of any infringements. It only signifies that the Commission will conduct an in-depth investigation of the case as a matter of priority.
    For one long account of Foundem's side of things, a UK-based shopping search engine that's become a cause célèbre around this issue and which helped prompt the investigation, I recommend reading this story from The Register.

    Search Engines = Newspapers

    Certainly on the advertising front, both the EU and the US have supported more restrictions about what a publication can do versus its editorial content. Google ultimately is a publication, a guide to the web. Like a newspaper, it can publish whatever it wants. That's been supported in the US; we'll see if the EU takes a different view. More important, we'll see if the EU decides to apply rules about what a search engine can or can't do versus what Google can or can't do.

    Bing, Google's chief competitor in many countries, highly touts its own vertical search engines. If it's unfair for Google, as a search engine, to "favor" its own vertical search engines, then the same should be true for all search engines.

    Also see my prior post on this topic, The New York Times Algorithm & Why It Needs Government Regulation. It takes the poor wisdom of an New York Times editorial suggesting that Google needs regulation and flips things around to illustrate how newspaper-like search engines are --and how no newspaper would want to be examined this way. It also touches on things that can be concerning about Google. Goodness knows, it's not perfect.

    But on the vertical search engine front, where does it end? Shopping search not allowed, but not image search? News search but no blog search? Only web search? Even that? Will Google be deemed so dominant that the only way to ensure competition is to literally force it to send people away to competitors?

    Postscript: Google now has a blog post up about the issues.

    http://searchengineland.com/the-incr...h-engine-57268

  2. #2
    You're obsessed with google lately. I'm sure they have enough well paid lawyers to protect their interests around the world.

  3. #3
    cars is a really bad example here. If someone is looking for a used/new car database and google isn't giving back the correct results, they will just go to a different search engine. I think that was the hidden point for using such a term, but the sarcasm is all over the place.

    Why would someone go to google to search via yahoo? We have places like dogpile for those types of shitty search mechanics.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 12-01-2010 at 03:28 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I thought the point was more about google listing their own products (browser comes to mind) higher in the results lists.

    That said, the news item with a press conference bit indicated that they had nothing to point at Google abusing its position in this way, and that they were investigating it because of complaints from competitors. Investigating =/ finding them guilty.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  5. #5
    When I search google for browser I got results for Firefox and Opera, even wikipedia, before I get Chrome.
    In fact its the same thing for Bing and Yahoo.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Then I really don't get what the hell they're even supposed to have done.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I thought the point was more about google listing their own products (browser comes to mind) higher in the results lists.

    That said, the news item with a press conference bit indicated that they had nothing to point at Google abusing its position in this way, and that they were investigating it because of complaints from competitors. Investigating =/ finding them guilty.
    The main issue revolves around a group of shopping comparison sites (one which is owned by Microsoft, the other is sorta shady) that didn't like how Google's algorithm wasn't favoring them. The catch being that the sites are usually not such a great user experience. Essentially, they want the government to regulate Google's proprietary algorithm (which has hundreds of variables).

    But investigating is a serious matter, and often implies the bureaucrats think they have a good case. Investigations like this take tons of resources, lawyers and time. They also cast a stigma on a company and can become a massive distraction from important issues like serving customers and running a business. It looks like Google's stock took a pretty serious dive today relative to the overall stock market.

    More generally, I think it's also bothersome that this is yet another mercantile "domestic company versus American competitor" kind of dispute.

    EDIT: Searching Google for "search engine" yields dogpile, Yahoo, Bing, Alta Visa and a Google Directory listing of search engines.

  8. #8
    Its Altavista

    But seriously....they are still around, and that popular ? I made it through high school with those guys and their translation service

  9. #9
    Now that I try it out the results are actually not half bad, but also not quite as good as Google on a few searches.

    Google and Bing are less distinguishable on shorter queries, though I begin to see more of a difference on longer, local and more niche queries. I usually try a different engine for a bit every month or so.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The main issue revolves around a group of shopping comparison sites (one which is owned by Microsoft, the other is sorta shady) that didn't like how Google's algorithm wasn't favoring them. The catch being that the sites are usually not such a great user experience. Essentially, they want the government to regulate Google's proprietary algorithm (which has hundreds of variables).

    But investigating is a serious matter, and often implies the bureaucrats think they have a good case. Investigations like this take tons of resources, lawyers and time. They also cast a stigma on a company and can become a massive distraction from important issues like serving customers and running a business. It looks like Google's stock took a pretty serious dive today relative to the overall stock market.

    More generally, I think it's also bothersome that this is yet another mercantile "domestic company versus American competitor" kind of dispute.

    EDIT: Searching Google for "search engine" yields dogpile, Yahoo, Bing, Alta Visa and a Google Directory listing of search engines.
    Domestic vs American.. You just said the other party was Microsoft

    And didn't a bunch of the previous investigations (microsoft, intel) also have other American companies as the other party?

    I do agree that this seems stupid to investigate.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  11. #11
    True, but Microsoft is relatively late to the game. The origins of this start with Foundem, a UK site. Like with the other MS and Intel investigations, their American competitors eventually jumped in to gain a competitive advantage via regulation. Which I think is generally reckless of them, as those tactics can and do blow back on them.

  12. #12
    The investigation is also about their alleged advertising restrictions. And their stock drop had more to do with bidding on that coupon Groupon company.

  13. #13
    That seems to be more of a sideshow -- the real issue has become this concept of "search neutrality" that companies like Foundem have been pushing for years.

    Though the Groupon issue probably has something to do with the drop, I can't imagine a EU-wide witch hunt isn't a bigger issue for investors. The EU is a massive market after all.

  14. #14
    Dread you cannot be trusted until you get rid of your google stock. Foundem is a victim inthis scenario. I read their story, it brought tears to my eyes
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #15
    Why would I buy Google stock? It's expensive, it pays no dividend and the heads of the company have made it clear that they don't pay much attention to the value of the shares.

    But I think this is a legitimate and concerning stifling of innovation over in your backyard. If I were to start a major restaurant review Website in Western Europe, I suspect I would eventually have to modify the site to give the restaurant owners advertising space above the reviews to comply with some investigation from Brussels.

  16. #16
    Perhaps you would if restaurants were also in the restaurant-reviewing business.

    I note that Foundem is basically accusing Google of stifling innovation by messing up the amazing Foundem technology.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #17
    Google has a monopoly on innovation
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  18. #18
    I think the EU just hates successful American companies.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I think the EU just hates successful American companies.
    I doubt you ever read news from outside the US, but they also investigate European companies, and fine them.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I think the EU just hates successful American companies.
    No we hate Amerika in general.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I think the EU just hates successful American companies.
    Strangely enough those US companies love the EU with a vengeance, including the anti-competition rules as enforced by the EC.
    Congratulations America

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Strangely enough those US companies love the EU with a vengeance, including the anti-competition rules as enforced by the EC.
    Yeah like they are going to ignore a sizable portion of the world market...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •