3 ms·
Random. No joke, it's fair. I also doubt Google is auctioning this space for the sake of fairness. Their competitors are going to take a slice of their cake, a
by aylmao 7y ago
Random.
No joke, it's fair. I also doubt Google is auctioning this space for the sake of fairness. Their competitors are going to take a slice of their cake, and this is the most efficient (and legal) way to get as much of it back as possible.
- jrochkind1 7y agoSomeone else said 3,823 search engine options are given in Firefox. (They still auction off the top 7 initially-on-screen options, apparently). How many of those do you think are... even really usable? I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that choosing randomly (for default, or for whatever X can show up initially on-screen without scrolling) is going to give many many non-expert users an unusable search experience, and an unusable Android experience to the extent that search is significant.
- duskwuff 7y agoMost of those 3,823 options [1] are site-specific searches, e.g. Wikipedia, YouTube video search, Amazon and eBay product searches, etc. They aren't "search engines" in the sense of services which search the Web at large. [1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search-tools/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search-tools/
- jsnell 7y agoRandom selection would be extremely easy to abuse, and result in a garbage user experience. With random selection, creating new shell companies running some basic web search implementation and a ton of ads. With random selection and an unlimited supply of such entrepreneurs, the users would statistically always be forced to choose from one of four scammer search engines to proceed with the setup.
- tsunamifury 7y agoRandom is neither definable, auditable nor equal. It would be the absolute worst solution