5 ms·

> You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions. C

> You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions. Calling a PR release BS without any fact is illogical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Google wants to give the best search results possible, and it obviously has hooks into it's own shopping database that allow it to show targeted results. A logical conclusion would be to force Google to open up its API, so that internal customers and external customers would be competing on the same playing field, rather than just complaining about search result orders.

coldtea 9y ago
>Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  > Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
  - andrepd 9y ago
    I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm gonna suggest you read that again. I can't believe you can be that naive. "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?
    - jimmywanger 9y ago
      > "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof? I suggest you read your own post again. Project much? Google's PR statement is somewhat based in fact. I'm saying that I generally believe public statements made that are decently substantiated. When you're the one saying that I'm naive or just gaping in disbelief, the burden of proof is on YOU to give reasons why the statements are at fault and why their reasoning is wrong. This is truly projecting at its finest.
      - skinnymuch 9y ago
        No. Google put a claim up. They have to back it up. Not the person questioning it. That would make no sense. So either you or Google need to back yourselves up.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations. First, you've got it backwards: the burden on proof is to them for putting up such a claim (generally, to those putting up any claim), not to those who dispute it. Besides, we have a long history of documented foul behavior by Google in search results. In fact this very story is based on a fine ordered because of this kind of behavior.
- waqf 9y ago
  Maybe because they are in a competitive industry and they like having market share?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Competitive? In social media (e.g. against FB, maybe), but what competition does Google have for search? Neither Bing nor anything like DDG matter.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - waqf 9y ago
      In what sense do Bing and DDG not matter in search? They have less market share, true, because Google has a better product. Your argument seems to be that Google doesn't bother to have a better product (in search), because Google has all the market share, because Google has a better product.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        No, my premises are: (a) Google has a better product (in search) to which they had no real competitor for 17+ years. (b) it remains better than those non-competitors even though Google has decreased its quality over time (worse results and more ads and BS) (c) whether it copies/embeds third party stuff or not plays little into it. Nobody would switch to Bing just for those , after comparing the respective search quality, which is still better for Google. So my argument is: Google doesn't bother improving its search results -- on the contrary it lets them somewhat decline over time too -- because it has all the market share and better results than the competition. If you are 80 points (fictional unit for illustrative purposes) better than the competition, you can let it slip to 70 or even 40 points better, and people will still use you.

coldtea 9y ago

>Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?

jimmywanger 9y ago
> Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.
- andrepd 9y ago
  I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm gonna suggest you read that again. I can't believe you can be that naive. "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    > "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof? I suggest you read your own post again. Project much? Google's PR statement is somewhat based in fact. I'm saying that I generally believe public statements made that are decently substantiated. When you're the one saying that I'm naive or just gaping in disbelief, the burden of proof is on YOU to give reasons why the statements are at fault and why their reasoning is wrong. This is truly projecting at its finest.
    - skinnymuch 9y ago
      No. Google put a claim up. They have to back it up. Not the person questioning it. That would make no sense. So either you or Google need to back yourselves up.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations. First, you've got it backwards: the burden on proof is to them for putting up such a claim (generally, to those putting up any claim), not to those who dispute it. Besides, we have a long history of documented foul behavior by Google in search results. In fact this very story is based on a fine ordered because of this kind of behavior.
waqf 9y ago
Maybe because they are in a competitive industry and they like having market share?
- coldtea 9y ago
  Competitive? In social media (e.g. against FB, maybe), but what competition does Google have for search? Neither Bing nor anything like DDG matter.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - waqf 9y ago
    In what sense do Bing and DDG not matter in search? They have less market share, true, because Google has a better product. Your argument seems to be that Google doesn't bother to have a better product (in search), because Google has all the market share, because Google has a better product.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      No, my premises are: (a) Google has a better product (in search) to which they had no real competitor for 17+ years. (b) it remains better than those non-competitors even though Google has decreased its quality over time (worse results and more ads and BS) (c) whether it copies/embeds third party stuff or not plays little into it. Nobody would switch to Bing just for those , after comparing the respective search quality, which is still better for Google. So my argument is: Google doesn't bother improving its search results -- on the contrary it lets them somewhat decline over time too -- because it has all the market share and better results than the competition. If you are 80 points (fictional unit for illustrative purposes) better than the competition, you can let it slip to 70 or even 40 points better, and people will still use you.