4 ms·

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 expli

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.

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.