13 ms·
Wired has removed "How Google alters search queries" story
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y agoWired may have removed the Op-Ed, but Search Engine Journal did not remove their article on the matter. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-execs-scheme-to-increase-ad-revenues/497461/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-execs-scheme-to-i... No one knows exactly how Google alters search queries except Google. That's arguably the issue. It's not transparent. But the point of the Op-Ed, if I understand it correctly, was not to describe the precise mechanism of alteration. It was to raise awareness that Google is altering search to boost ad revenue and the changes do not necessarily lead to better search, but they lead to better ad revenue.
- r721 3y ago>EDITOR’S NOTE 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed. https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37740425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37740425 (4 days ago, 119 comments)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- buran77 3y ago> relevant material provided to us Sure would be nice if the material was provided to us too. Or write an article explaining clearly how the original info was misconstrued. Simply deleting it (edit: instead of replacing it with a clarification so anyone who goes to read the wrong info gets the corrected one) really sends a wrong message, both about Wired and Google.
- pierat 3y ago[flagged]
- ludwik 3y agoOr maybe simply "the information is demonstrably untrue and we can prove it"?
- pierat 3y agoThat's the nice way to cheat with AI. It takes a probabilistic set of inquiries to discern the truth. And right now, I'm in my states capitol, looking for a restaurant... Using Google maps. And when I searched for restaurants, was given an advertised 'optimized' curated set of restaurants. And within walking distance, they're missing easily half of the restaurants. Now, which half are they missing? The small one-off places just aren't here on a search. HOWEVER, if you zoom in all the way, then those less-indexed restaurants FINALLY show up. I'm sitting in 1 of those deindexed eateries right now. So yeah, the article's true and has been for a while now.
- r721 3y agoMaybe they meant a longer version of this tweet: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302)
- tyingq 3y ago"The organic (IE: non-sponsored) results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems." Uh, other than being pushed off the visible page, I guess?
- judge2020 3y agoYep. It's obvious that they design for you to click ads, but it was fairly rocky suggesting that the backend reaches out to the ad system. This wouldn't just destroy results, but also run afoul of FCC Ad disclosure requirements.
- 1270018080 3y agoThe relevant information: Google’s legal team
- spondylosaurus 3y agoFor context, the WIRED op-ed was written by a DuckDuckGo executive. I can certainly imagine the incentive there for DDG to misrepresent Google's behavior (and as I was reading the article, most of it struck me as speculation more than anything). ETA: Okay, weird. The op-ed itself made it sound like she was a current DDG executive, but her LinkedIn profile states that she no longer works there (and is more or less self-employed now). No idea how to interpret that. In any case, she was DDG's legal counsel and VP of policy for three years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yegg 3y agoThis person is not employed by DuckDuckGo. They formerly worked there, and not for a couple of years. We had nothing to do with this op-ed.
- hackernewds 3y agoMere employment does not negate that the person might still have financial incentives tied to DDG. If anything, they might be concealed better and are MORE likely they can publish with conflict of interest, without legal risk.
- whycome 3y agoYou're right. And on the other hand, someone with passion and knowledge about the domain will likely be working for one of its major players at some point.
- Angostura 3y agoAre claiming that the author still does have financial links to DDG? That's quite an accusation.
- frde 3y agoIs it such a ridiculous idea that a former executive might have stock options or some kind of lingering financial stake? Worth at least investigating.
- jeroenhd 3y ago> It has been removed Okay, but where is its correction? If you, as a professional publication that considers itself to publish news, unintentionally spread misinformation, you shouldn't just take down the old links, you should put out a new piece with the correct information (and give it just as much attention, don't hide it away). The news came out, everybody got mad, and not half the people who read the original article (or headline) will revisit the articles and see the retraction. Maybe the correction will come later, but I'll stay sceptical of anything Wired has to say until the correction comes out.
- thinkingemote 3y agoarchive from when it was up: https://archive.ph/kmhqs https://archive.ph/kmhqs
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoIf you find that blocked, the Internet Archive also took a snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20231002123815/https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231002123815/https://www.wired...
- workingdog 3y ago[flagged]
- brookst 3y agoIf you’re accusing them of lying, it would be nice if you brought evidence.
- rcstank 3y agoIt reads as more of an opinion than accusation. What’s wrong with an opinion?
- shkkmo 3y agoThere are zero wiggle words to indicate doubt or to frame the statement as an opinion.
- rcstank 3y agoIt’s a comment on an Internet forum with the name of company written with a typo. Clearly an opinion comment.
- brookst 3y agoAh, so when I tell you the Chicago Beers defeated the Miami Saints 37-12 in last year’s Super Bowl, it’s not lying or even incorrect, it’s obviously just an opinion?
- _Algernon_ 3y agoThe default position when commenting something on the internet is that it is opinion (this comment included). I don't think it has to be stated explicitly.
- shkkmo 3y agoWhen idle speculation is presenting as a fact, that is called a "lie". The internet may be full of liars... but that doesn't mean they aren't liars just because there's a lot of them.
- kevinh 3y agoThis tweet apparently shows the slide in question: https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061
- dasil003 3y ago[flagged]
- thanhhaimai 3y agoIsn't this the keyword rewrite that had existed for decades? I remember they showing us similar slides during orientation back when I first interned more than a decade ago. The transformation from "kids" to "children" or "clothing" to "apparel/outfit" improves search results by adding more potential hits.
- probably_wrong 3y agoI am willing to believe that, in this particular instance, there is no evil intent behind the rewrite of search terms. Having said that, the fact that Google goes back and forth on whether they respect the use of quotes to search for literal results doesn't make them any favors. If I wanted to do what the article claims Google did, I would do precisely what Google is doing. So no surprises there.
- cj 3y ago> there is no evil intent I think the only way to know this is to understand whether google’s rewrites also impact what ads are eligible to show. E.g. if 50 advertisers are bidding on “children apparel” and only 10 advertisers are bidding on “kids clothes”, then rewriting to the query with more eligible ad impressions is misleading to both the user and the advertiser. Certain keywords are more profitable than others. Google knows this. One sure-fire guaranteed way to increase revenue is to reduce the % of long tail searches (since long tail searches typically have no ads at all) by modifying queries and swapping words around. If I were a desperate exec at Google, that’s the first place I would look if I was in a crunch to boost revenue short-term.
- lubujackson 3y agoNot a great optics. Everyone knows Google has been swirling the tank for over a decade for actual web search and AI will likely finish the job. The main vector I look at is how much control does the user have over the results they see? That has been in decline at least since Google+ took away the + operator. Remember "did you mean" results? Now we get "let's assume you meant" with fewer and fewer ways to force "actually I did mean..." This is the obvious trajectory for any corp that needs to show quarter over quarter growth for 20+ years, at some point you hollow out from the middle until the whole thing collapses.
- mahkoh 3y ago>Everyone knows Google has been swirling the tank for over a decade for actual web search and AI will likely finish the job. Everyone knows this? GOOG stock is near an all time high with search being more than 50% of its revenue.
- dubcanada 3y agoA few things. 1. GOOGL is the voting share stock ticker, not GOOG. GOOG is nothing more than class c shares. 2. Search as a line item is more than 50%, but search is not searching, searching itself provides not much value, ads are where Google makes its money. 3. A stock being near all time high has no indication that it's a company that is "swirling the tank". Often a stock does not decrease until after a series of bad earnings/negative outlook. But with that said, there is no evidence at the moment that Google is not doing great.
- billjings 3y agoThis discussion is partly about how Google alters search results to increase revenue. It would stand to reason that they might also improve their stock price and search revenue by doing this, while also degrading search quality. As for why their market share has not degraded as a result, it is likely that the folks currently prosecuting Google for antitrust violations have the best argument for why this might be so.
- mrtksn 3y agoThe stock price is a number representing the recent bets on its future price. It really doesn’t tell much more than that.
- postmodest 3y ago[flagged]
- lozenge 3y agoAny way to make this stay up as long as the original?
- johnasmith 3y agoThe article conflated ad selection and search query results.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoWell, why not - Google intends the user to conflate ads with search query results.
- johnasmith 3y agoThat's a fine argument to make, but the article didn't.
- LispSporks22 3y agoThat is their business model
- Rastonbury 3y agoAd impression can be dependent on search query, if they modify query to show ads, they make money they otherwise wouldn't have and worsen results
- curiousObject 3y agoHere’s a quick summary of the main points, I copied from the deleted Wired article [0]. Something important about it is this article, by Megan Gray was in Wired’s Opinion section which usually means the writer has more freedom to express their own opinions, and Wired does not claim this it is accurate reporting. But still it was removed. How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet Testimony during Google’s antitrust case revealed that the company may be altering billions of queries a day to generate results that will get you to buy more stuff. RECENTLY, A STARTLING piece of information came to light in the ongoing antitrust case against Google. During one employee’s testimony, a key exhibit momentarily flashed on a projector … [1] This onscreen Google slide had to do with a “semantic matching” overhaul to its SERP algorithm. When you enter a query, you might expect a search engine to incorporate synonyms into the algorithm as well as text phrase pairings in natural language processing. But this overhaul went further, actually altering queries to generate more commercial results … The “10 blue links,” or organic results, which Google has always claimed to be sacrosanct, are just another vector for Google greediness … Google likely alters queries billions of times a day in trillions of different variations. Here’s how it works. Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all … [0] Complete article here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802265 [1] A link to the actual slide, that she saw. This image was supplied later by Google apparently - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302 Edit: my opinion is Google should respond to the accusations. Removal of the article without a detailed explanation looks real bad for Google and also for Wired
- blowski 3y agoI don’t understand how Google makes more money if I click on the organic links.
- curiousObject 3y agoThe implication is that you’re being unwittingly directly channeled to certain sellers sites, instead of to sites that link to various sellers, I guess. So the path to a potential sale is shorter and you’re more likely to buy (less time to get decision fatigue), and certain vendors might be prioritized. I think that’s what she is implying
- jasonjmcghee 3y agoMaybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it sure seems like this is for ad retrieval, if anything- not search results. I've never seen a set of search results that felt like a different search. My issue with Google results stems from them being low quality. Like all the stack overflow and GitHub issue clone sites before the real results. I don't think this is wired getting bought or bullied- I think the author was mistaken and they retracted the story. Google serving specific ads and optimizing that algorithm to maximize profit is expected imo
- karaterobot 3y ago> I've never seen a set of search results that felt like a different search. They'll certainly ignore search terms, modifiers like quotation marks, and so on. If the result looks like what you meant to search for, that means they're doing their job right I suppose, but they are definitely only using your literal query as a suggestion. (I did not get to read the original article, I have no idea if this comment of mine is off the mark with respect to the claims of that article)
- Thorrez 3y agoCan you give an example of Google ignoring quotation marks? I've seen this claim many times on HN but I've never seen a link showing it happening. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Search.
- karaterobot 3y agoYou may be right! Since I don't use Google search much anymore, and have my search history turned off anyway, I can't recall any specific examples from my own life. So, I searched and found internet threads like this one: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144207/google-for-the-exact-phrase-and-no-quotation-marks-dont-help https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144207/google-fo... Where the complaint is that searching for "map accuracy" (in quotes) results in pages without that literal string in them, implying that Google is ignoring the quotes to give the user what it thinks is a better list of results. But, when I try to duplicate this three year old problem, I can't replicate it, at least not on the first page of results. And when I try to contrive my own example, searching for a literal phrase that would not exist in any web document (an example: "He beheld nonlinear radish-scented vestments") there are 0 results, which is exactly what I'd expect if Google was obeying the quotation marks. So, this is probably not true anymore, and you've got me doubting my memory now, but I am still fairly certain that it has happened to many on multiple occasions. /shrug
- abxytg 3y agoThe article was obviously horseshit -- and I hate google. But if your search for "running clothes" was getting replaced with "addidas running clothes" you would see clearly in the results. Degraded as it is, I still get results that include the specific words I searched in most situations. That type of replacement would be immediately and obviously apparent.
- spankalee 3y agoThe author read the slide wrong.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thrillgore 3y agoNah, this is totally a normal retraction.
- sowbug 3y agoThe most likely explanation for the original article's false premise is that the author had a sketchy extension installed, similar to the ones that inject an affiliate code into every Amazon link.
- photochemsyn 3y agoHere's an article that summarizes the issue: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-deletes-queries-replace-36165.html https://www.seroundtable.com/google-deletes-queries-replace-... Personally, I dislike this approach by Google (from their response): > "It’s no secret that Google Search looks beyond the specific words in a query to better understand their meaning, in order to show relevant organic results. This is a helpful process that we’ve written about many times." This is patronizing, manipulative, and condescending - and 'organic'? They've also been boosting low-quality corporate media outlets to the top of their search rankings for some years now (Youtube search is far, far worse incidentally), as well - part of this 'daddy knows best' mentality, I'm sure. Google does provide a 'verbatim' option under its tools heading but this is incompatible with time-restricted searching, although perhaps not on the advanced search page. Practically I find that to get what I want from Google (search results from a broad range of sources) you have to jump through many hoops and write complicated queries for no reason other than to avoid their enshittification defaults, and that's a time-consuming process. It makes Kagi look more and more attractive, certainly - the time-saving alone might be worth the monthly fee.
- nickphx 3y agogoogle is an advertising company, not a search engine provider. i would expect them to behave in a manner to increase advertising revenue.
- granzymes 3y agoFor context, here is the slide from the trial that the article was referencing: https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 The author appears to have gotten the slide exactly backwards. She said the slide showed a query of “children’s clothing” that Google rewrites to be a “Nikolia kidswear” query so that it can sell more ads. But in reality, the slide is describing a fuzzy keyword matching system that takes a query of “Nikolia kidswear” and allows it to match ads with “children's clothing” keywords. I’m surprised WIRED allowed such an obviously incorrect article to be published in the first place, particularly when it was by a known partisan (the article discloses that the author is a former Duck Duck Go executive with an obvious bias).
- stathibus 3y agoUnfortunately par for the course these days. At least they did remove the article. Citing "editorial standards" is weak sauce though, the point of having editorial standards is so they can be applied by the editor before publication...
- diggan 3y ago> At least they did remove the article Wouldn't it be better to add a correction at the top of the article instead of deleting it? Deleting it I'd think would just fuel (current or budding) conspiracy theorists, as they can point to something that existed but got removed, rather than something that got corrected. But in the end, it's probably a loosing battle anyway...
- Operyl 3y agoAdding a correction at the top would just fuel (current or budding) conspiracy theorists, as they can point to something that was, in their eyes, forcibly corrected against WIRED's will.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoSo instead they prove the conspiracy folks right that the media is willing to scrub proof of inaccurate reporting.
- xnx 3y agoKudos to everyone in the original thread on this article who immediately pointed out how confused and wrong this article was. It heartens me to that Wired recognized this and retracted the article.
- mvdtnz 3y agoGood. I was immediately skeptical[0] of such a huge claim. A lot of you were not, and I hope you use this opportunity to adjust your BS metres. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37740425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37740425
- TheRealPomax 3y agoWould certainly have been smart to say why it got retracted instead of highlighting non-existent editorial standards back when it got published. "This article has been retracted because it was full of inaccuracies, with the author misunderstanding the very basics of ad matching".
- 99_00 3y agoWhen you print a magazine or newspaper space is limited. Lower quality content is cut. With web publishing there is no cap on space. You can throw up garbage that wouldn't have made it as a letter to the editor. And if it gets clicks the temptation to give it a higher and higher profile on the landing page is likely too great to resist.
- justinclift 3y agohttps://nitter.net/maldr0id/status/1710625763534201117 https://nitter.net/maldr0id/status/1710625763534201117
- whb101 3y agoThree words: the Streisand effect
- eli 3y agoThat story is extremely thinly sourced and shouldn’t have been published. But once published I really disagree with the decision to delete it. If you publish an article you have an obligation to archive it. Put a huge flashing disclaimer on the top of you must, but people should be able to read it on your site. Removal is going to needlessly fuel conspiracy theories. It increases the power of the original story. You’d think wired would understand that.
- dang 3y agoThe submitted URL was https://twitter.com/maldr0id/status/1710625763534201117 https://twitter.com/maldr0id/status/1710625763534201117 but I suppose we might as well change it to the page it's pointing to.
- steve-atx-7600 3y agoWired who?
- haunter 3y agoLabeling anti-bigtech leftists with conspiracy theory is not a good outlook either. I bet the HN liebling Cory Doctorow will write another tweet-eassay about this [0] 0, https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1709221318284173443?s=46 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1709221318284173443?s=46
- MightyBuzzard 3y ago[dead]
- varelse 3y ago[dead]
- Havoc 3y agoGoogle's rebuttal [0] seems incredibly weak. >replaces them with ones that monetize better.” We don’t. How is injecting names of brands (that likely advertise) like "tj maxx" not monetizing better? [0] https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061
- andromeduck 3y agoThe transformation is {kids, clothing}-> [{kids, clothing}, {children, clothing}, {kidswear}, {kids, apparel}, {kids, outfit}] for the _advertiser_ trying to buy adds on a query. "tj maxx" isn't the part being matched, it's the "kidswear" in "tj max kidswear" that is causing it to match to {kids, clothing} because of the aforementioned transform
- Havoc 3y agoI see. That makes more sense. Thanks for explaining
- donohoe 3y agoHi. I worked at Condé Nast many years ago. I did not work at Wired. I just wanna say that removing an article is not something they do lightly. They never do if because of PR. They do it if facts do not match the premise. That is all.
- chanux 3y agoThe article didn't make sense to me at all on first read. It was not clear what Google was actually doing as the author tried to claim. I just gave up and moved on. Now it makes sense!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CHB0403085482 3y ago>EDITOR’S NOTE 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed. ISO 8601 tackles this uncertainty by setting out an internationally agreed way to represent dates: YYYY-MM-DD https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html https://www.iso.org/iso-8601-date-and-time-format.html Thanks for USA for holding back a sensible time-stamp format and the metric system.
- manonthewall 3y agoWired messes up from time to time, but in general I find them great compared to most tech news sites.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alpb 3y ago“Google demanded Wired take down my op-ed, pointing to a single page I saw in court for only a few seconds. Wired sent it to me, and I said I needed to see all the pages shown in open court. Google didn't send. Without speaking with me, Wired deleted my op-ed.” https://twitter.com/megangra/status/1711035362326298795 https://twitter.com/megangra/status/1711035362326298795
- philientaylor 3y ago[flagged]
- philientaylor 3y ago[flagged]
- philientaylor 3y ago[flagged]