4 ms·

This really really doesn't pass the sniff test. It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted.

by vore 3y ago

jjulius 3y ago
>It would be extremely obvious... I don't think this is necessarily true.
- lozenge 3y ago
  If you search for children's clothing, you get multiple different companies. The query obviously hasn't been modified to just include one brand.
  - hedora 3y ago
    You get companies, but they are all resellers. The listings are all worded like advertisements and stuffed with thumbnails, etc, in the style of banner ads. None of the results point to manufacturers, reviews or other classes of articles. Ironically, you get better results with the thing they apparently used to rewrite to.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I wouldn't expect results manipulated as such to be "extremely obvious" to your average person.
    - vore 3y ago
      That's what you should be saying, because that's what the article is claiming. If you're arguing they would rewrite queries less obviously, that's a much weaker claim than what the author is making. I'm sure the average person would notice if their query for "children's clothing" was converted to "NIKOLAI-brand kidswear". Have you ever seen your query converted to such a narrow query targeting a specific brand like the article alleges? Surely you would notice that you're only getting NIKOLAI-brand kidswear results?
      - jjulius 3y ago
        >That's what you should be saying, because that's what the article is claiming. What's with the aggression? All I'm saying is that I don't expect the average end-user to notice something "extremely obvious" like that. Simple as that. I'm taking no position on whether or not Google is actively doing this, nor am I completely confident that I have or haven't experienced it in spite of noticing very single-brand-heavy results for non-branded queries in the past. I'm only pointing out that the average end-user is a lot less adept at seeing "obvious" things in situations like these than many of us are. Edit: Put it this way - You and I might notice something, but that's because we're involved in this industry whether directly or tangentially, to varying degrees. I don't expect others to notice something like this if it's not something that they generally care about.
        vore 3y ago
        Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it. If the author wanted to make such an extraordinary claim, they should have presented extraordinary evidence.
        jjulius 3y ago
        ... what are you even talking about? You said... >It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted. ... and then all I said was that I don't think it would be so obvious to the average end-user. That's it. I made no comment on the article, let alone any kind of interpretation of it. Why are you being so aggressive?
        zen928 3y ago
        because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead of critiquing the original claim, all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making. the slice of the quote you responded with: > It would be extremely obvious [...] and the full claim with full proper context: > It would be [...] obvious if your searches were [...] egregiously converted. the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor.

This really really doesn't pass the sniff test. It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted.

by vore 3y ago

This really really doesn't pass the sniff test. It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted.

jjulius 3y ago

>It would be extremely obvious... I don't think this is necessarily true.

lozenge 3y ago
If you search for children's clothing, you get multiple different companies. The query obviously hasn't been modified to just include one brand.
- hedora 3y ago
  You get companies, but they are all resellers. The listings are all worded like advertisements and stuffed with thumbnails, etc, in the style of banner ads. None of the results point to manufacturers, reviews or other classes of articles. Ironically, you get better results with the thing they apparently used to rewrite to.
- jjulius 3y ago
  That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I wouldn't expect results manipulated as such to be "extremely obvious" to your average person.
  - vore 3y ago
    That's what you should be saying, because that's what the article is claiming. If you're arguing they would rewrite queries less obviously, that's a much weaker claim than what the author is making. I'm sure the average person would notice if their query for "children's clothing" was converted to "NIKOLAI-brand kidswear". Have you ever seen your query converted to such a narrow query targeting a specific brand like the article alleges? Surely you would notice that you're only getting NIKOLAI-brand kidswear results?
    - jjulius 3y ago
      >That's what you should be saying, because that's what the article is claiming. What's with the aggression? All I'm saying is that I don't expect the average end-user to notice something "extremely obvious" like that. Simple as that. I'm taking no position on whether or not Google is actively doing this, nor am I completely confident that I have or haven't experienced it in spite of noticing very single-brand-heavy results for non-branded queries in the past. I'm only pointing out that the average end-user is a lot less adept at seeing "obvious" things in situations like these than many of us are. Edit: Put it this way - You and I might notice something, but that's because we're involved in this industry whether directly or tangentially, to varying degrees. I don't expect others to notice something like this if it's not something that they generally care about.
      - vore 3y ago
        Refute what the article is saying, not your generous interpretation of it. If the author wanted to make such an extraordinary claim, they should have presented extraordinary evidence.
        jjulius 3y ago
        ... what are you even talking about? You said... >It would be extremely obvious if your searches were being so egregiously converted. ... and then all I said was that I don't think it would be so obvious to the average end-user. That's it. I made no comment on the article, let alone any kind of interpretation of it. Why are you being so aggressive?
        zen928 3y ago
        because you're taking the authors ridiculous claim and downgrading it to be reasonable instead of critiquing the original claim, all of this stemming from you taking a quote out of context to make a point that no one was making. the slice of the quote you responded with: > It would be extremely obvious [...] and the full claim with full proper context: > It would be [...] obvious if your searches were [...] egregiously converted. the key word being "egregiously", which is a response to the level of severity the author is making in their claim. trying to be an enforcer of conversational tone by repeatedly claiming how responses that you don't want to engage in are "aggressive" isn't conducive to productive discussion. no one's being overtly hostile, outside of you trying to hijack a discussion to exclusively entertain a nonsequitor.