4 ms·

It's more like asking for directions to a restaurant and getting directions to a different restaurant.

by fuzxi 6y ago

pb7 6y ago
It's really not. You're asking for a seafood restaurant and are given directions to various seafood restaurants. You are not shown directions to one (a link) and when you show up there, it's another (link was fake).
- zo1 6y ago
  To follow the GP's point ITO this being a protection racket: You "pay to be at the top" of that list of seafood restaurants. Let's not pretend like google aims to find you the "best" answer to your search question.
  - pb7 6y ago
    No contest, just don't see how this is unique to Google. When you go to a store and you look at an aisle at eye level, do you see the objectively best products or the ones that paid the most to be there? Before you get to that aisle, do you see the best product on the endcap? Do you grab that item regardless or only if it's what you're looking for anyway? It's okay to have a problem with advertising -- I think it's pretty healthy to do so -- but this is a societal problem and not one with any single player.
- fuzxi 6y ago
  I disagree. We're not talking about an instance where you search for "search engine" and the first result is Google. We're talking about searching for "Bing" and the first result is Google.
  - pb7 6y ago
    And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't think you have any right to be the first result for any query. If you want Bing when you search for "bing" then go directly to bing.com. You are using a third party's service so you accept the terms of use (and therefore monetization). If I search "apple", should I get apple.com, a Wikipedia article on apples, or recipes using apples on allrecipe.com, or something else? You see how that doesn't work? What about "caviar"? At what point is Google obligated to show you Caviar the delivery service as the first result? I say never. Note here that I'm talking about first being first whether it's an ad or organic result.
    - fuzxi 6y ago
      >And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't think you have any right to be the first result for any query. If you want Bing when you search for "bing" then go directly to bing.com. You are using a third party's service so you accept the terms of use (and therefore monetization). What if I didn't want to go directly to bing.com, but just wanted to know more about Bing? Maybe I want to see some reviews and determine if it's appropriate for my use-case. But then there's a big ad as the first search result for "bing" that says, "Looking for Bing? They suck! Use Google instead!" >If I search "apple", should I get apple.com, a Wikipedia article on apples, or recipes using apples on allrecipe.com, or something else? You see how that doesn't work? What about "caviar"? At what point is Google obligated to show you Caviar the delivery service as the first result? I say never. I definitely see your point here, and I do agree - in circumstances like that. However, I've only been talking about the ads that are above the first result, not organic results. No, there's no special reason that apple.com should or shouldn't be the first organic result for "apple", but as I hope I showed above, there are reasons that the first result, which is always an ad, shouldn't be microsoft.com, or samsung.com, or alibaba.com/knockoff_iphone. It forces companies to choose between buying the ad space themselves or allowing a competitor to advertise directly to their potential customers. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a digital protection racket, but I do think it can be used maliciously.

It's more like asking for directions to a restaurant and getting directions to a different restaurant.

by fuzxi 6y ago

It's more like asking for directions to a restaurant and getting directions to a different restaurant.

pb7 6y ago

It's really not. You're asking for a seafood restaurant and are given directions to various seafood restaurants. You are not shown directions to one (a link) and when you show up there, it's another (link was fake).

zo1 6y ago
To follow the GP's point ITO this being a protection racket: You "pay to be at the top" of that list of seafood restaurants. Let's not pretend like google aims to find you the "best" answer to your search question.
- pb7 6y ago
  No contest, just don't see how this is unique to Google. When you go to a store and you look at an aisle at eye level, do you see the objectively best products or the ones that paid the most to be there? Before you get to that aisle, do you see the best product on the endcap? Do you grab that item regardless or only if it's what you're looking for anyway? It's okay to have a problem with advertising -- I think it's pretty healthy to do so -- but this is a societal problem and not one with any single player.
fuzxi 6y ago
I disagree. We're not talking about an instance where you search for "search engine" and the first result is Google. We're talking about searching for "Bing" and the first result is Google.
- pb7 6y ago
  And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't think you have any right to be the first result for any query. If you want Bing when you search for "bing" then go directly to bing.com. You are using a third party's service so you accept the terms of use (and therefore monetization). If I search "apple", should I get apple.com, a Wikipedia article on apples, or recipes using apples on allrecipe.com, or something else? You see how that doesn't work? What about "caviar"? At what point is Google obligated to show you Caviar the delivery service as the first result? I say never. Note here that I'm talking about first being first whether it's an ad or organic result.
  - fuzxi 6y ago
    >And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't think you have any right to be the first result for any query. If you want Bing when you search for "bing" then go directly to bing.com. You are using a third party's service so you accept the terms of use (and therefore monetization). What if I didn't want to go directly to bing.com, but just wanted to know more about Bing? Maybe I want to see some reviews and determine if it's appropriate for my use-case. But then there's a big ad as the first search result for "bing" that says, "Looking for Bing? They suck! Use Google instead!" >If I search "apple", should I get apple.com, a Wikipedia article on apples, or recipes using apples on allrecipe.com, or something else? You see how that doesn't work? What about "caviar"? At what point is Google obligated to show you Caviar the delivery service as the first result? I say never. I definitely see your point here, and I do agree - in circumstances like that. However, I've only been talking about the ads that are above the first result, not organic results. No, there's no special reason that apple.com should or shouldn't be the first organic result for "apple", but as I hope I showed above, there are reasons that the first result, which is always an ad, shouldn't be microsoft.com, or samsung.com, or alibaba.com/knockoff_iphone. It forces companies to choose between buying the ad space themselves or allowing a competitor to advertise directly to their potential customers. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a digital protection racket, but I do think it can be used maliciously.