4 ms·

"Pathetic" is saying that my handing one guy money then some other guy down the block handing me crack was two totally unrelated events. I'm quite frankly asto

"Pathetic" is saying that my handing one guy money then some other guy down the block handing me crack was two totally unrelated events. I'm quite frankly astonished that you're being serious. Google sells top result placement. Calling it another thing is just lying. Taking their lies seriously is... incredible. I literally can't believe anyone would do that. [EDIT] Without a financial stake in it, anyway. Obviously people peddle blatant lies in exchange for money all the time. (I am not accusing you of that, that's just the one circumstance in which I find that entirely unsurprising, and I assume it's what's going on with the guy in the Twitter thread). [EDIT EDIT] Actually, looking back over this... your posts read more bizarre to me with each re-read. WTF is happening in this thread. [EDIT ONE MORE TIME, I JUST REALLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON] To reiterate my understanding here: 1) The post is pointing out that Google says allowing people to pay to go to the top of search results is bad, so they don't do it. That's... just what it says, straight up. I have to assume (from the rest of the context of the post and following thread) this is being pointed out because it's funny and/or hypocritical, since (see below). 2) Google in fact places ads that are very obviously designed to trick people into thinking they're search results, above "natural" search results. To rephrase: you can buy ads that put your hard-to-distinguish-from-a-search-result link at the top of search results. The evidence that this is on purpose include that Google used to make it far more obvious explicitly because they didn't want to trick people, and stopped doing that, and just watching any non-geek use Google then asking them what they think just happened. 3) Some company saying something does not affect reality, whatsoever. 4) "I'm not touching you" (while waving hands as close as possible without touching) isn't even valid or convincing when kids use it as a defense, let alone adults. Everyone involved knows exactly what's going on, and that it's wrong. 5) Any equivocation happening here is in trying to draw a fine line between selling ads designed to trick people into thinking they're the top search results, and simply selling top search result placement. Same damn thing, to the point that I find it hard to take anyone serious who's trying to treat the distinction as in any way important. Where are we diverging, here?

glenstein 5y ago
We're diverging at point #1, because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Now the latest version of the equivocation is "top of search results" which throws away the distinction between ads and search, a distinction that exists in Google's original statement, in order to falsely attribute to Google a statement professing they would not place ads on top of search results. This is a repeat in the exercise of equivocation that I described above. The next step in the cycle is to engaging personal attacks, and then it's to reboot back to the beginning with a new equivocation, and on and on. At this point I feel that this thread has exhausted itself and all further comments are just continuing in this predictable pattern.
- brimble 5y ago
  This exact thing right here is why I keep wondering if we're looking at totally different things. I assure you zero of my incredulity is "performative". I guess I'll just quote what I see when I click the link. Brackets to indicate highlighting by Krebs. Paragraphs numbered for reference. >>> Title: Why we sell advertising, not search results. (1)[In a world where everything seems to be for sale, why can't advertisers buy better position in our search results?] (2)The answer is simple. We believe you should be able to trust what you find using Google. [From the beginning, our approach to search has been to provide the most relevant answers and results to our users.] (3)(I think I can omit the paragraph that's just google describing how they arrive at search results and their claim that they're not tainted by money changing hands, right?) (4)[And while we believe relevant ads can be as useful as actual search results, we don't want anyone to be confused about which is which.] (5)Every ad on Google is clearly marked and set apart from the actual search results. While advertisers can pay more to be displayed higher in the advertising area, [no one can buy better placement in the search results themselves]. Moreover, ads are only displayed if they're relevant to the search terms you entered. That means you only see ads that are actually useful. (6)Some online services don't believe the distinction between search results and advertising is all that important. (7)We do. >>> 1. Google says you cannot buy better search result positioning from them. (well, you can, but more on that later) 2. Because users trusting results is important. (OK) 3. (sure, OK) 4. They absofuckinglutely do want you to be confused. This is not true. They behaved differently in the past when, maybe, it was true, including in the early days of inline ads with results. It is not true now. This is probably highlighted because it's hilariously false, right? 5. They are not clearly marked (now). The distinction between buying a top-placed ad that a huge percentage of users will think is a search result, and buying better search result placement, is grade A bullshit. This is the equivocation. 6. Yeah, like Google. 7. They do not. [EDIT] I was wrong that Krebs doesn't post in the responses. He does, writing this: "And this is how it looked like in the past (taken from HN). Ads were markedly distinct, both visually and in placement." The screenshot highlights both sidebar ads and visually-distinct inline ads above the results. I see nothing to support your assertion that "Adrian Krebs, who wrote the tweet, is not claiming ads and search results are the same thing, contrary to the insistence of many here who think they are speaking for him. Instead, he is treating ads and search as truly distinguishable things but makes a point about the placement of ads relative to search." The reading of this overall thing as his making the point that Google have so blurred the lines between their above-the-results ads and the results themselves that they're effectively doing exactly the thing they say they don't seems entirely unambiguous to me. [EDIT EDIT] I worked out a way to obtain your reading—or, at least what I think your reading is. If you assume that Krebs mis-read the very short and clear document that he took time to highlight, embed, and tweet (as quoted above—I'm assuming the highlighting was his) then this: "The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then." isn't just an accurate-enough but (perhaps) imperfectly precise phrasing, but simply wrong, and everything else related to it including how ~everyone here and on Twitter read it is wrong (=correct for a funny and the-most-obvious critique of the document vs. reality, but wrong for what Krebs intention was under your reading), and you assume that Krebs either didn't notice that everyone was getting it wrong or decided to pretend that's what he meant, and you assume he only intended to showcase part of the image he re-posted from here, then your reading prevails. I do not judge this a strong reading, at all.

glenstein 5y ago

We're diverging at point #1, because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says. Now the latest version of the equivocation is "top of search results" which throws away the distinction between ads and search, a distinction that exists in Google's original statement, in order to falsely attribute to Google a statement professing they would not place ads on top of search results. This is a repeat in the exercise of equivocation that I described above. The next step in the cycle is to engaging personal attacks, and then it's to reboot back to the beginning with a new equivocation, and on and on. At this point I feel that this thread has exhausted itself and all further comments are just continuing in this predictable pattern.

brimble 5y ago
This exact thing right here is why I keep wondering if we're looking at totally different things. I assure you zero of my incredulity is "performative". I guess I'll just quote what I see when I click the link. Brackets to indicate highlighting by Krebs. Paragraphs numbered for reference. >>> Title: Why we sell advertising, not search results. (1)[In a world where everything seems to be for sale, why can't advertisers buy better position in our search results?] (2)The answer is simple. We believe you should be able to trust what you find using Google. [From the beginning, our approach to search has been to provide the most relevant answers and results to our users.] (3)(I think I can omit the paragraph that's just google describing how they arrive at search results and their claim that they're not tainted by money changing hands, right?) (4)[And while we believe relevant ads can be as useful as actual search results, we don't want anyone to be confused about which is which.] (5)Every ad on Google is clearly marked and set apart from the actual search results. While advertisers can pay more to be displayed higher in the advertising area, [no one can buy better placement in the search results themselves]. Moreover, ads are only displayed if they're relevant to the search terms you entered. That means you only see ads that are actually useful. (6)Some online services don't believe the distinction between search results and advertising is all that important. (7)We do. >>> 1. Google says you cannot buy better search result positioning from them. (well, you can, but more on that later) 2. Because users trusting results is important. (OK) 3. (sure, OK) 4. They absofuckinglutely do want you to be confused. This is not true. They behaved differently in the past when, maybe, it was true, including in the early days of inline ads with results. It is not true now. This is probably highlighted because it's hilariously false, right? 5. They are not clearly marked (now). The distinction between buying a top-placed ad that a huge percentage of users will think is a search result, and buying better search result placement, is grade A bullshit. This is the equivocation. 6. Yeah, like Google. 7. They do not. [EDIT] I was wrong that Krebs doesn't post in the responses. He does, writing this: "And this is how it looked like in the past (taken from HN). Ads were markedly distinct, both visually and in placement." The screenshot highlights both sidebar ads and visually-distinct inline ads above the results. I see nothing to support your assertion that "Adrian Krebs, who wrote the tweet, is not claiming ads and search results are the same thing, contrary to the insistence of many here who think they are speaking for him. Instead, he is treating ads and search as truly distinguishable things but makes a point about the placement of ads relative to search." The reading of this overall thing as his making the point that Google have so blurred the lines between their above-the-results ads and the results themselves that they're effectively doing exactly the thing they say they don't seems entirely unambiguous to me. [EDIT EDIT] I worked out a way to obtain your reading—or, at least what I think your reading is. If you assume that Krebs mis-read the very short and clear document that he took time to highlight, embed, and tweet (as quoted above—I'm assuming the highlighting was his) then this: "The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then." isn't just an accurate-enough but (perhaps) imperfectly precise phrasing, but simply wrong, and everything else related to it including how ~everyone here and on Twitter read it is wrong (=correct for a funny and the-most-obvious critique of the document vs. reality, but wrong for what Krebs intention was under your reading), and you assume that Krebs either didn't notice that everyone was getting it wrong or decided to pretend that's what he meant, and you assume he only intended to showcase part of the image he re-posted from here, then your reading prevails. I do not judge this a strong reading, at all.