4 ms·

However... artificially ranking their own links, ranking that isn't objective, is deadly to the utility of their search, and to their brand. In the past, google

However... artificially ranking their own links, ranking that isn't objective, is deadly to the utility of their search, and to their brand. In the past, google products have seemed to rank highly, but google claimed this was their natural rank. What is the evidence against them now? I think the notion of objectivity in search is a fallacy, and I would hesitate to characterize the addition of social search as artificial inflation, at least not any more artificial than any other part of the algorithm. The fact is: Google has more information about how to rank G+ profiles than any other profiles. That extra information adds google juice. Yes, other social networking profiles are indexed and ranked, but Google doesn't have the appropriate extra information on them that it does wrt G+. This doesn't seem particularly hard to understand, and I'm not sure how the focusontheuser.org bookmarklet illuminates the issue. I agree that the G+ profiles are probably given too much weight, and that's probably for two reasons: 1. It's brand new and requires more data for calibration; 2. It props up G+ as a product. From Google's perspective, even if search quality is negatively impacted in the short term while they calibrate and funnel users into G+, as long as in the long term search quality is bolstered by the additional subsequent data, it's a win.

6ren 15y ago
Yes, I agree that social search can improve accuracy, and that google knows more about its own social information so it can use it more accurately. Artificially inflating that, for the purpose of pushing their product, is the problem (that's how I'd define "artificial ranking" - ranking on a basis other than returning a page of search results for the user). This avoids the problematic term "objective". I don't buy the "means to an end" argument. If google really is doing that, it means worse search results, loss of user confidence, and antitrust litigation (abuse of market power). BTW: the first search example "people and places" seems to require a google+ account (as it wouldn't give me results unless I signed up). I'm happy for a google+ search to yield google+ results.
- ekianjo 15y ago
  I am not sure about the "antitrust litigation" claim you make. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Google. There are tons of old search engines and new ones coming up every year. This is very different than having a computer where Windows is installed by default, instead of having the choice of your OS. It's like saying Facebook is also "abusing its market power" because it only shows you contacts on Facebook and not on Google+. Sorry, but this cannot work this way, when you are on one network, you agree with the principles of that network, or you use another. There's no lack of options out there.
  - 6ren 15y ago
    I was thinking of antitrust suits for abuse of market-power. i.e. not about how you got it, but what you do with it. So the analogy is microsoft using their market-power to bundle their media player. BTW Bill Gates thought as you did, that this was perfectly legitimate. Your point about alternative search engines, and Windows being hard to avoid, is relevant for another kind of antitrust. Aside: though, I think google is still far and away the best, in terms of response time (especially for predicting search queries as you type - that requires huge local data centres all over the world). e.g. Duck duck go has great features, but it's just too slow (at least, over here in Australia). Who can afford data-centres everywhere? (maybe Amazon...) Google also has one of the strongest brands in the world. So, the choice is kind of figurative. It's an earned monopoly, not earned through abuse, not bad or wrong; but a monopoly nonetheless.
    - ekianjo 15y ago
      On Microsoft, (to close the loop), I think it is legitimate for them to include the software they want with Windows (such as IE, media player and all), however it is not normal that hardware manufacturers sell you computers only bundled with Windows and nothing else. That is where the abuse is, for this case. I think the term "abuse of market power" has very thin legal ground. Anything that becomes popular tend to appear like it "abuses" its power. That's usually what competitors say when they simply give up competiting: they use lawyers and politicians to weaken the leader. What matters in the end is what value the service provides, and if there is choice available for users to turn to other alternatives. If Google does not provide value anymore (irrelevant results) it will consumers/users in the end, and that will spark demand for better alternatives. The market will adjust. I do not really see an issue with the current situation. Regarding search engines, Bing and Yahoo may not be as relevant but they also do the job most of the time. There will be new competitors coming, web contents are changing, the way people use the web are changing, all this environment creates opportunities to challenge search on the way. Looking through pages of results of links is hardly something that can be optimal over the long term - we will need better tools, I have no doubt about that.
      - 15y ago
- blakeross 15y ago
  That's incorrect. The hardcoded Google+ results in the "People and Pages" box, as well as the other two hardcoded locations outlined on this page (http://www.focusontheuser.org/examples.php http://www.focusontheuser.org/examples.php), appear for all Google users -- whether or not they have a Google+ profile, and even whether or not they're logged into Google. You can see that in this video, which is conducted in a Chrome incognito window in logged-out Google: http://www.focusontheuser.org/video.php http://www.focusontheuser.org/video.php If you're not seeing the Google+ results on some pages, it's just because Google is still in the process of rolling out the feature.
thrilway 15y ago
I absolutely agree. There's no objectivity in ranking search results.

6ren 15y ago

Yes, I agree that social search can improve accuracy, and that google knows more about its own social information so it can use it more accurately. Artificially inflating that, for the purpose of pushing their product, is the problem (that's how I'd define "artificial ranking" - ranking on a basis other than returning a page of search results for the user). This avoids the problematic term "objective". I don't buy the "means to an end" argument. If google really is doing that, it means worse search results, loss of user confidence, and antitrust litigation (abuse of market power). BTW: the first search example "people and places" seems to require a google+ account (as it wouldn't give me results unless I signed up). I'm happy for a google+ search to yield google+ results.

ekianjo 15y ago
I am not sure about the "antitrust litigation" claim you make. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Google. There are tons of old search engines and new ones coming up every year. This is very different than having a computer where Windows is installed by default, instead of having the choice of your OS. It's like saying Facebook is also "abusing its market power" because it only shows you contacts on Facebook and not on Google+. Sorry, but this cannot work this way, when you are on one network, you agree with the principles of that network, or you use another. There's no lack of options out there.
- 6ren 15y ago
  I was thinking of antitrust suits for abuse of market-power. i.e. not about how you got it, but what you do with it. So the analogy is microsoft using their market-power to bundle their media player. BTW Bill Gates thought as you did, that this was perfectly legitimate. Your point about alternative search engines, and Windows being hard to avoid, is relevant for another kind of antitrust. Aside: though, I think google is still far and away the best, in terms of response time (especially for predicting search queries as you type - that requires huge local data centres all over the world). e.g. Duck duck go has great features, but it's just too slow (at least, over here in Australia). Who can afford data-centres everywhere? (maybe Amazon...) Google also has one of the strongest brands in the world. So, the choice is kind of figurative. It's an earned monopoly, not earned through abuse, not bad or wrong; but a monopoly nonetheless.
  - ekianjo 15y ago
    On Microsoft, (to close the loop), I think it is legitimate for them to include the software they want with Windows (such as IE, media player and all), however it is not normal that hardware manufacturers sell you computers only bundled with Windows and nothing else. That is where the abuse is, for this case. I think the term "abuse of market power" has very thin legal ground. Anything that becomes popular tend to appear like it "abuses" its power. That's usually what competitors say when they simply give up competiting: they use lawyers and politicians to weaken the leader. What matters in the end is what value the service provides, and if there is choice available for users to turn to other alternatives. If Google does not provide value anymore (irrelevant results) it will consumers/users in the end, and that will spark demand for better alternatives. The market will adjust. I do not really see an issue with the current situation. Regarding search engines, Bing and Yahoo may not be as relevant but they also do the job most of the time. There will be new competitors coming, web contents are changing, the way people use the web are changing, all this environment creates opportunities to challenge search on the way. Looking through pages of results of links is hardly something that can be optimal over the long term - we will need better tools, I have no doubt about that.
    - 15y ago
blakeross 15y ago
That's incorrect. The hardcoded Google+ results in the "People and Pages" box, as well as the other two hardcoded locations outlined on this page (http://www.focusontheuser.org/examples.php http://www.focusontheuser.org/examples.php), appear for all Google users -- whether or not they have a Google+ profile, and even whether or not they're logged into Google. You can see that in this video, which is conducted in a Chrome incognito window in logged-out Google: http://www.focusontheuser.org/video.php http://www.focusontheuser.org/video.php If you're not seeing the Google+ results on some pages, it's just because Google is still in the process of rolling out the feature.

thrilway 15y ago

I absolutely agree. There's no objectivity in ranking search results.