3 ms·

Here’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 Wire

Here’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 ago
I don’t understand how Google makes more money if I click on the organic links.
- curiousObject 3y ago
  The 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
  - spondylosaurus 3y ago
    That sounds like an accurate summary of what she's implying, but her implication makes no sense. Levi's doesn't pay Google for directing people to their site (unless it's through an ad, of course).
    - 93po 3y ago
      I am positive Levi's pays for ads on google and google has incentives to show increased sales for Levi's as a result of that advertising
      - spondylosaurus 3y ago
        (1) Why? Ads are charged per click/impression, not per sale. (2) How would you feasibly create a link between every brand who advertises with you and every brand whose site you're trying to uprank? What happens when two different brands who advertise with you appear in the same results? (3) Most importantly, is there any proof at all that Google is upranking organic links on behalf of brands who advertise with them? (I don't think there is.)
- lozenge 3y ago
  I think they're implying that the sites get higher ranking if they are commercial- ie they display ads from Google. It still makes no sense though.
- thayne 3y ago
  Because google is also a broker for ads on many other sites. So there is an incentive to prefer sites that use google's ads products.
_cs2017_ 3y ago
Holy shit, this article is such garbage. And not only is it incorrect, it is obviously incorrect. The website owners do not pay Google for clicks on the "10 blue [organic] links"; so it gives Google no business advantage to make them more commercial.
- cma 3y ago
  Since they have an ad monopoly they have incentive to link you to stuff that shows ads, which will in all likelihood be their's. Spammy medical sites with google-run pill ads vs the wikipedia page for the thing you searched for (often not even on the first page anymore for medical terms).
- 93po 3y ago
  The author is not saying that. They're saying google manipulates what those 10 links are to generate more money (bc of reasons like those sites serve more google ads).
tqi 3y ago
They did respond: https://x.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297?s=46&t=TJLVlMyXo7nrqrFc7IXo7g https://x.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297?s=46&... Google doesn't get to decide what Wired does with content on its site.
- xvector 3y ago
  X as a website needs to go. It's wild that readers can "add context" that's patently false or misinformative, and then X will portray this as meaningful. If I was Google, I'd just delete all index links to X: "Did you mean 'Threads'?"

blowski 3y ago

I don’t understand how Google makes more money if I click on the organic links.

curiousObject 3y ago
The 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
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  That sounds like an accurate summary of what she's implying, but her implication makes no sense. Levi's doesn't pay Google for directing people to their site (unless it's through an ad, of course).
  - 93po 3y ago
    I am positive Levi's pays for ads on google and google has incentives to show increased sales for Levi's as a result of that advertising
    - spondylosaurus 3y ago
      (1) Why? Ads are charged per click/impression, not per sale. (2) How would you feasibly create a link between every brand who advertises with you and every brand whose site you're trying to uprank? What happens when two different brands who advertise with you appear in the same results? (3) Most importantly, is there any proof at all that Google is upranking organic links on behalf of brands who advertise with them? (I don't think there is.)
lozenge 3y ago
I think they're implying that the sites get higher ranking if they are commercial- ie they display ads from Google. It still makes no sense though.
thayne 3y ago
Because google is also a broker for ads on many other sites. So there is an incentive to prefer sites that use google's ads products.

_cs2017_ 3y ago

Holy shit, this article is such garbage. And not only is it incorrect, it is obviously incorrect. The website owners do not pay Google for clicks on the "10 blue [organic] links"; so it gives Google no business advantage to make them more commercial.

cma 3y ago
Since they have an ad monopoly they have incentive to link you to stuff that shows ads, which will in all likelihood be their's. Spammy medical sites with google-run pill ads vs the wikipedia page for the thing you searched for (often not even on the first page anymore for medical terms).
93po 3y ago
The author is not saying that. They're saying google manipulates what those 10 links are to generate more money (bc of reasons like those sites serve more google ads).

tqi 3y ago

They did respond: https://x.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297?s=46&t=TJLVlMyXo7nrqrFc7IXo7g https://x.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297?s=46&... Google doesn't get to decide what Wired does with content on its site.

xvector 3y ago
X as a website needs to go. It's wild that readers can "add context" that's patently false or misinformative, and then X will portray this as meaningful. If I was Google, I'd just delete all index links to X: "Did you mean 'Threads'?"