6 ms·

It sounds good in theory, but since Google's ranking algorithm ranks pages, how is Google supposed to apply it to widgets? Most widgets do have associated page

It sounds good in theory, but since Google's ranking algorithm ranks pages, how is Google supposed to apply it to widgets? Most widgets do have associated pages, such as shopping search result pages, but they're not the same. They have different interfaces and contain different information, and often they have low PageRank because there's little point in linking to them. If I search "My name is Daniel in Spanish", I would probably like to see a Google Translate widget (or at least some kind of widget), even though the associated page https://translate.google.com/#en/es/My%20name%20is%20Daniel https://translate.google.com/#en/es/My%20name%20is%20Daniel isn't ranked highly. And some widgets have no associated pages -- if a user searches "96 tablespoons in cups", Google simply shows the answer (6), with no associated page. Should that not be allowed? It would be unfortunate if Google was forced to send users to some conversion website for that.

kuschku 9y ago
The problem is that Google has a monopoly on search (>96% in EU), and is using that to gain a monopoly in other areas. For example, where I live, Google maps hasn’t updated map data since 2009. They have no transit in it, no integration with taxi or ridesharing companies, nothing. Here maps has up-to-date maps, with all that in it. Yet, people use Google maps, and not even consider that there might be a better competitor – because Google maps is the default, and shows up first in search. A significantly worse product is winning here, and doesn’t even have a market pressure to improve, just because of anticompetitive powers. You surely can see how that’d be problematic if you’d ever try to disrupt an existing market as startup.
- DocTomoe 9y ago
  Can you give a bit more information about where (in the geographical sense) Google Maps is inferior to [unknownCompetitor]?
  - socksy 9y ago
    Can't speak for the GP, but I always switch to HERE Maps when I visit Leipzig, the transit info is way better for routing. HERE is pretty good throughout Germany too.
    - DocTomoe 9y ago
      Hm, I happen to live in Germany. I have yet to see a map that's years out of sync with reality from GMaps... and I don't use much public transit anymore (mostly because I lack that kind of patience). It is my understanding that public transit information has to be offered by the respective Transit Authority, and that does not currently happen with GMaps. Chances are Here is paying top coin for that. When doing a search on "My Location -> Leipzig HBf", I get oneidentical street routing (google taking construction sites into consideration when calculating the driving duration). Google gives me an alternative strreet route, Here doesn't. Google suggests I can drive to the nearest airport and fly over there (making the trip 3 hours shorter) - and gives me the estimated fare. Here gives me the information about using the train (making the trip two hours longer) - without giving me the fare. As of now, I do not see an advantage... can you give a more specific example?
      - socksy 9y ago
        Well, I do use public transport (indeed, living in a city it can often be the fastest mode), and I couldn't care less as the end user whether someone paid for the transport data... I want to get from A to B. So here's a concrete route that made me switch app: https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Leipzig+Hbf,+Willy-Brandt-Platz,+Leipzig/Altlindenau,+Leipzig/@51.3505434,12.3271499,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47a6f82281a723cb:0x9601d070d5bfcdc7!2m2!1d12.3815755!2d51.3454725!1m5!1m1!1s0x47a6f7a4fc9a2d13:0xb28e1cc9d2a9af04!2m2!1d12.3354318!2d51.3413425!3e3 https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Leipzig+Hbf,+Willy-Brandt-Pla... vs. https://wego.here.com/directions/publicTransport/Hauptbahnhof-Leipzig,-Willy-Brandt-Platz-5,-Zentrum,-04109-Leipzig:276u30u1-da1a4aa7b0c54187844a4ce7c7e641ba/Altlindenau:loc-dmVyc2lvbj0xO3RpdGxlPUFsdGxpbmRlbmF1O2xhbmc9ZGU7bGF0PTUxLjMzODA2O2xvbj0xMi4zMjU4MztjaXR5PUxlaXB6aWc7Y291bnRyeT1ERVU7ZGlzdHJpY3Q9QWx0bGluZGVuYXU7c3RhdGU9U2F4b255O2NvdW50eT1MZWlwemlnKyUyOFN0YWR0JTI5O2NhdGVnb3J5SWQ9Y2l0eS10b3duLXZpbGxhZ2U7c291cmNlU3lzdGVtPWludGVybmFs?map=51.34064,12.35327,14,grey https://wego.here.com/directions/publicTransport/Hauptbahnho...
- dlubarov 9y ago
  I don't see why Google's market share matters. If it was 60% instead of 96%, couldn't you make the same argument that Google Maps was receiving an unfair advantage, just of a somewhat different magnitude? I also don't see why it matters whether there are different business categories involved. If you typed "best search engine" into Bing, and Bing artificially ensured that bing.com was the first result, wouldn't the same criticism apply? It seems to me that the arguments being made apply to all cross-promotions. You could say that Yahoo is giving Yahoo Mail an unfair advantage by promoting it on their portal. I don't see a meaningful difference.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    Having more market share means you have more power. The level of overall harm you can cause is greater. If you're a minor player, and you cut out a particular competitor from your results, they're not hurt that much and people are less likely to come and use your service. If you are the main entry point for the vast majority of people, then limiting your results can easily kill whole groups of businesses. Yahoo only linking to yahoo mail when people search for email providers isn't going to kill off other providers. Google (if almost all results are found through it) doing the same could. That's ok if Google treat their own services like they treat other people's, and let them compete on merit. But if they use it to just kill competition then that's not good for consumers.
    - dlubarov 9y ago
      But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. If Google and Bing had 50/50 market share, then do you think the widgets would be acceptable? Bing also shows shopping widgets, so unaffiliated sellers wouldn't be any better off in that scenario.
      - IanCal 9y ago
        > But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? We do see things differently based on scale or level of power though, both morally and legally. We have different standards for people like doctors being in relationships with patients than two regular people, for example. Thefts will also be treated differently based on scale. Killing more people is typically seen as worse than killing fewer. I'm not really sure what you mean about considering things the same irrespective of scale. > In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. I don't see how the costs and benefits are the same. The problem is that so many people use Google that having them promote their own product can be enough to completely kill off competition. If they were smaller they'd not have that power. There's no point stopping Bobs Search Engine with 20 users from not listing Google because he wants to beat them. Google aren't really harmed much by this. Maybe 20 fewer customers come through. Google not listing Bobs search engine because they don't link to him (deliberately because they want to beat him) could mean the difference between being in business and not.

kuschku 9y ago

The problem is that Google has a monopoly on search (>96% in EU), and is using that to gain a monopoly in other areas. For example, where I live, Google maps hasn’t updated map data since 2009. They have no transit in it, no integration with taxi or ridesharing companies, nothing. Here maps has up-to-date maps, with all that in it. Yet, people use Google maps, and not even consider that there might be a better competitor – because Google maps is the default, and shows up first in search. A significantly worse product is winning here, and doesn’t even have a market pressure to improve, just because of anticompetitive powers. You surely can see how that’d be problematic if you’d ever try to disrupt an existing market as startup.

DocTomoe 9y ago
Can you give a bit more information about where (in the geographical sense) Google Maps is inferior to [unknownCompetitor]?
- socksy 9y ago
  Can't speak for the GP, but I always switch to HERE Maps when I visit Leipzig, the transit info is way better for routing. HERE is pretty good throughout Germany too.
  - DocTomoe 9y ago
    Hm, I happen to live in Germany. I have yet to see a map that's years out of sync with reality from GMaps... and I don't use much public transit anymore (mostly because I lack that kind of patience). It is my understanding that public transit information has to be offered by the respective Transit Authority, and that does not currently happen with GMaps. Chances are Here is paying top coin for that. When doing a search on "My Location -> Leipzig HBf", I get oneidentical street routing (google taking construction sites into consideration when calculating the driving duration). Google gives me an alternative strreet route, Here doesn't. Google suggests I can drive to the nearest airport and fly over there (making the trip 3 hours shorter) - and gives me the estimated fare. Here gives me the information about using the train (making the trip two hours longer) - without giving me the fare. As of now, I do not see an advantage... can you give a more specific example?
    - socksy 9y ago
      Well, I do use public transport (indeed, living in a city it can often be the fastest mode), and I couldn't care less as the end user whether someone paid for the transport data... I want to get from A to B. So here's a concrete route that made me switch app: https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Leipzig+Hbf,+Willy-Brandt-Platz,+Leipzig/Altlindenau,+Leipzig/@51.3505434,12.3271499,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47a6f82281a723cb:0x9601d070d5bfcdc7!2m2!1d12.3815755!2d51.3454725!1m5!1m1!1s0x47a6f7a4fc9a2d13:0xb28e1cc9d2a9af04!2m2!1d12.3354318!2d51.3413425!3e3 https://www.google.de/maps/dir/Leipzig+Hbf,+Willy-Brandt-Pla... vs. https://wego.here.com/directions/publicTransport/Hauptbahnhof-Leipzig,-Willy-Brandt-Platz-5,-Zentrum,-04109-Leipzig:276u30u1-da1a4aa7b0c54187844a4ce7c7e641ba/Altlindenau:loc-dmVyc2lvbj0xO3RpdGxlPUFsdGxpbmRlbmF1O2xhbmc9ZGU7bGF0PTUxLjMzODA2O2xvbj0xMi4zMjU4MztjaXR5PUxlaXB6aWc7Y291bnRyeT1ERVU7ZGlzdHJpY3Q9QWx0bGluZGVuYXU7c3RhdGU9U2F4b255O2NvdW50eT1MZWlwemlnKyUyOFN0YWR0JTI5O2NhdGVnb3J5SWQ9Y2l0eS10b3duLXZpbGxhZ2U7c291cmNlU3lzdGVtPWludGVybmFs?map=51.34064,12.35327,14,grey https://wego.here.com/directions/publicTransport/Hauptbahnho...
dlubarov 9y ago
I don't see why Google's market share matters. If it was 60% instead of 96%, couldn't you make the same argument that Google Maps was receiving an unfair advantage, just of a somewhat different magnitude? I also don't see why it matters whether there are different business categories involved. If you typed "best search engine" into Bing, and Bing artificially ensured that bing.com was the first result, wouldn't the same criticism apply? It seems to me that the arguments being made apply to all cross-promotions. You could say that Yahoo is giving Yahoo Mail an unfair advantage by promoting it on their portal. I don't see a meaningful difference.
- IanCal 9y ago
  Having more market share means you have more power. The level of overall harm you can cause is greater. If you're a minor player, and you cut out a particular competitor from your results, they're not hurt that much and people are less likely to come and use your service. If you are the main entry point for the vast majority of people, then limiting your results can easily kill whole groups of businesses. Yahoo only linking to yahoo mail when people search for email providers isn't going to kill off other providers. Google (if almost all results are found through it) doing the same could. That's ok if Google treat their own services like they treat other people's, and let them compete on merit. But if they use it to just kill competition then that's not good for consumers.
  - dlubarov 9y ago
    But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. If Google and Bing had 50/50 market share, then do you think the widgets would be acceptable? Bing also shows shopping widgets, so unaffiliated sellers wouldn't be any better off in that scenario.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      > But in general, we consider things right or wrong (both morally and legally) irrespective of scale. Why should this be different? We do see things differently based on scale or level of power though, both morally and legally. We have different standards for people like doctors being in relationships with patients than two regular people, for example. Thefts will also be treated differently based on scale. Killing more people is typically seen as worse than killing fewer. I'm not really sure what you mean about considering things the same irrespective of scale. > In utilitarian terms, the ratio of benefits and costs to society is the same whether it's Google or Bing that's showing a search widget, so we should allow both or neither. I don't see how the costs and benefits are the same. The problem is that so many people use Google that having them promote their own product can be enough to completely kill off competition. If they were smaller they'd not have that power. There's no point stopping Bobs Search Engine with 20 users from not listing Google because he wants to beat them. Google aren't really harmed much by this. Maybe 20 fewer customers come through. Google not listing Bobs search engine because they don't link to him (deliberately because they want to beat him) could mean the difference between being in business and not.