4 ms·

Like many other comments here, I think this is continuing to miss the point. Google certainly does sell ads above search today. And it certainly is irritating

Like many other comments here, I think this is continuing to miss the point. Google certainly does sell ads above search today. And it certainly is irritating and it definitely is reflective of Google's following their financial interests at the cost of user experience. Google's expressed ethos in the statement certainly does seem at variance with their design choices and ad placement in the present day. We can talk all day about their pivot away from don't be evil. But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said. Google is in many important respects a bad actor that needs to be criticized, but that truth shouldn't be a blank check to misinterpret them and dismiss corrections as pedantry.

Macha 5y ago
Others disagree that an ad presented among the search listings, with visual presentation only distinguisable from a search result if you know the very small indicator to look for, as the first few entries is a meaningful distinction from just selling search listing results directly, rather than euphemistically.
- glenstein 5y ago
  I agree, I think the line between ads and searches are blurred, but I think that point can be made without misrepresenting the statement from Google as an explicit critique of ads placed above search results.
  - onli 5y ago
    Since they sell ads that look like search results (which you agree on), they arrived at the same point of selling the top search result positions. Keeping that in mind I don't feel like the tweet is a misrepresentation. Do you, really?
    - glenstein 5y ago
      The tweet is attributing to Google a statement explicitly decrying placement of ads at the top of search results. This is not anywhere in the statement. To make an untruth into a truth, it's necessary to zoom out and get fuzzy in words so the one thing kinda-sorta means the other. So you can make things fuzzy by saying "ads on top" kinda sorta means "making ads look like search results" which kinda means it's okay to attribute a thing to Google that wasn't said. I think the breakdown is this: people feel like this clarification is a challenge. When I say "google didn't say that about ad placement" people hear "Google has never done anything wrong with their search ads." And so it's a proxy for that argument.
      - onli 5y ago
        Maybe. I think it's less fuzzy - the ads back then were clearly ads and harder to mix up with search results. So even if Google had ads on top of search results then, it wasn't as misleading. Or rather: The statement looked valid then, but doesn't anymore. That's what people pick up on.
  - Macha 5y ago
    You think the line has been blurred, but not removed, so a statement that Google won't sell search results because Google draws a distinction at sale time between ad slots and search results is not evidence of a change in position to the reality now where you can buy "things that look 99% identical and sit in the same location as search results" because those things are called ads in the purchase interface. Others view these things as sponsored search listings because.... they have 99% in common with search listings and only 50% in common with ads as presented at the time that Google made this statement. What they are selling, despite being called ads, are for all intents and purposes search results. So I don't think it's unfair to call them out for how it conflicts with earlier positions against the selling of search results.
    - glenstein 5y ago
      Google's statement was that they will make it clear that ads were not the same as search results. Krebs paraphrased that statement as Google "critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results" and noted that they were instead placed on a sidebar. He's not flagging the statement out of a belief that ads and search basically amount to the same thing.
jancsika 5y ago
> But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said. I'm just not grokking what you mean. Let's construct an example of an evil Google who decided to start "selling better positions in search results." Let's say they decided to do it using the following method: 1. Sell the first three positions in the organic search results in an automated auction 2. So as to avoid accusations of trickery, they put a little "Ad" indicator by the top three positions in the three top search results. 3. They put a little "news" display below the first three results to separate them from the rest of the search results. This means the user typically has to scroll to see the rest of the results, adding value to those first three positions. Would what I just described count as a relevant example of hypocritical behavior for the company quoted in that Tweet? If so, then the search results I got were the same as what I just described-- only the history of how Google got there is different. If it's not a relevant example, then I still don't understand the point of OP or your comment. Edit: clarification. Also, could you perhaps give me an example of how you think a company could hypothetically act in a way that contradicts the quote from the tweet? If it's not what I laid out here, what would it be?
- glenstein 5y ago
  This is basically an extended exercise in equivocation. It's pretty cut and dry that the statement does say one thing (keep ads out of search), and doesn't say another thing (don't place ads above search). And as I've said in numerous comments, there's a thematic level at which the statement is clearly at odds with Google's ethos in 2022, but that point can be made without equivocating between unlike things for the purpose of misrepresenting the statement. Edit: in response to your question: Google's statement critiques the placement of ads into search results. So one example of them acting in a hypocritical manner would be to place ads directly into search results.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    They did just that (at the top) and then changed the layout over time to what it is today. Of course the top spots are far more valuable than spots further down, in fact if your search result is not on page one it might as well not exist.
CTmystery 5y ago
From the expecation of the user, the page that you see after punching the 'google search' box, _is_ the google search results page. Ads in the top position of this page are clearly in a better position than organic search results. So advertisers have bought a better position in search results, against the claim of this google doc.
- glenstein 5y ago
  If you equivocate on the meaning of "search results", then sure.
  - CTmystery 5y ago
    Looking at the definition of equivocate, I see "use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself". I don't see that I have done that. Perhaps "broadened" would be better. I have in fact broadened the definition of "search results" to capture the common usage and expectation of a user that punches a query string into google, taps "search", and is brought to a page of results.
    - glenstein 5y ago
      I would say equivocate.
      - brimble 5y ago
        Calling google's inline ads "not part of the search results" is the equivocation that's going on here. They absolutely sell top positions in results.
        glenstein 5y ago
        Not even the person who posted the original tweet believes that.
        5y ago
passivate 5y ago
Those are all great points that you made. However, is it more important to be fair to them or to criticize them for their bad practices? Can you win a fight by being principled, when the other side is fighting dirty? Maybe. Personally, I'd let small errors slide, and look at the larger picture - How the tech world is slowly shifting towards a pay-to-play, rent-seeking, monopolist model. I'm optimistic about the future, and we can still save it. I'm no organizer, but I would focus our efforts on taking down these mega corps that have abused our trust and good-will - to make room for smaller companies to flourish that do believe in doing the right thing.

Macha 5y ago

Others disagree that an ad presented among the search listings, with visual presentation only distinguisable from a search result if you know the very small indicator to look for, as the first few entries is a meaningful distinction from just selling search listing results directly, rather than euphemistically.

glenstein 5y ago
I agree, I think the line between ads and searches are blurred, but I think that point can be made without misrepresenting the statement from Google as an explicit critique of ads placed above search results.
- onli 5y ago
  Since they sell ads that look like search results (which you agree on), they arrived at the same point of selling the top search result positions. Keeping that in mind I don't feel like the tweet is a misrepresentation. Do you, really?
  - glenstein 5y ago
    The tweet is attributing to Google a statement explicitly decrying placement of ads at the top of search results. This is not anywhere in the statement. To make an untruth into a truth, it's necessary to zoom out and get fuzzy in words so the one thing kinda-sorta means the other. So you can make things fuzzy by saying "ads on top" kinda sorta means "making ads look like search results" which kinda means it's okay to attribute a thing to Google that wasn't said. I think the breakdown is this: people feel like this clarification is a challenge. When I say "google didn't say that about ad placement" people hear "Google has never done anything wrong with their search ads." And so it's a proxy for that argument.
    - onli 5y ago
      Maybe. I think it's less fuzzy - the ads back then were clearly ads and harder to mix up with search results. So even if Google had ads on top of search results then, it wasn't as misleading. Or rather: The statement looked valid then, but doesn't anymore. That's what people pick up on.
- Macha 5y ago
  You think the line has been blurred, but not removed, so a statement that Google won't sell search results because Google draws a distinction at sale time between ad slots and search results is not evidence of a change in position to the reality now where you can buy "things that look 99% identical and sit in the same location as search results" because those things are called ads in the purchase interface. Others view these things as sponsored search listings because.... they have 99% in common with search listings and only 50% in common with ads as presented at the time that Google made this statement. What they are selling, despite being called ads, are for all intents and purposes search results. So I don't think it's unfair to call them out for how it conflicts with earlier positions against the selling of search results.
  - glenstein 5y ago
    Google's statement was that they will make it clear that ads were not the same as search results. Krebs paraphrased that statement as Google "critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results" and noted that they were instead placed on a sidebar. He's not flagging the statement out of a belief that ads and search basically amount to the same thing.

jancsika 5y ago

> But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said. I'm just not grokking what you mean. Let's construct an example of an evil Google who decided to start "selling better positions in search results." Let's say they decided to do it using the following method: 1. Sell the first three positions in the organic search results in an automated auction 2. So as to avoid accusations of trickery, they put a little "Ad" indicator by the top three positions in the three top search results. 3. They put a little "news" display below the first three results to separate them from the rest of the search results. This means the user typically has to scroll to see the rest of the results, adding value to those first three positions. Would what I just described count as a relevant example of hypocritical behavior for the company quoted in that Tweet? If so, then the search results I got were the same as what I just described-- only the history of how Google got there is different. If it's not a relevant example, then I still don't understand the point of OP or your comment. Edit: clarification. Also, could you perhaps give me an example of how you think a company could hypothetically act in a way that contradicts the quote from the tweet? If it's not what I laid out here, what would it be?

glenstein 5y ago
This is basically an extended exercise in equivocation. It's pretty cut and dry that the statement does say one thing (keep ads out of search), and doesn't say another thing (don't place ads above search). And as I've said in numerous comments, there's a thematic level at which the statement is clearly at odds with Google's ethos in 2022, but that point can be made without equivocating between unlike things for the purpose of misrepresenting the statement. Edit: in response to your question: Google's statement critiques the placement of ads into search results. So one example of them acting in a hypocritical manner would be to place ads directly into search results.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  They did just that (at the top) and then changed the layout over time to what it is today. Of course the top spots are far more valuable than spots further down, in fact if your search result is not on page one it might as well not exist.

CTmystery 5y ago

From the expecation of the user, the page that you see after punching the 'google search' box, _is_ the google search results page. Ads in the top position of this page are clearly in a better position than organic search results. So advertisers have bought a better position in search results, against the claim of this google doc.

glenstein 5y ago
If you equivocate on the meaning of "search results", then sure.
- CTmystery 5y ago
  Looking at the definition of equivocate, I see "use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself". I don't see that I have done that. Perhaps "broadened" would be better. I have in fact broadened the definition of "search results" to capture the common usage and expectation of a user that punches a query string into google, taps "search", and is brought to a page of results.
  - glenstein 5y ago
    I would say equivocate.
    - brimble 5y ago
      Calling google's inline ads "not part of the search results" is the equivocation that's going on here. They absolutely sell top positions in results.
      - glenstein 5y ago
        Not even the person who posted the original tweet believes that.
        5y ago

passivate 5y ago

Those are all great points that you made. However, is it more important to be fair to them or to criticize them for their bad practices? Can you win a fight by being principled, when the other side is fighting dirty? Maybe. Personally, I'd let small errors slide, and look at the larger picture - How the tech world is slowly shifting towards a pay-to-play, rent-seeking, monopolist model. I'm optimistic about the future, and we can still save it. I'm no organizer, but I would focus our efforts on taking down these mega corps that have abused our trust and good-will - to make room for smaller companies to flourish that do believe in doing the right thing.