3 ms·
The problem is the best way to weight the accuracy of results (as you say, SEO exists) is with skin in the game. A bidding-based advertising system ultimately
by pembrook 2y ago
The problem is the best way to weight the accuracy of results (as you say, SEO exists) is with skin in the game.
A bidding-based advertising system ultimately results in the most valuable solution winning, since the ad spend will be marginally bid up as close to the value the consumer is willing to pay for the product/service minus producer input costs.
The most successful companies ultimately have the most to spend on ads. Again, this does not result in perfectly rational outcomes all the time (because humans are irrational), but comes damn close.
Now, whether we should let one company take the profits off of that ad bidding system (since it inherently trends to monopoly) is another question.
- seanhunter 2y agoIf you genuinely believe that then I’m delighted for you. You are living in paradise
- ndriscoll 2y agoAn auction system for ads results in the most profitable solution winning, not the most valuable. Marginally bidding toward the largest difference between consumer price and input cost is a bad thing; that's the least efficient solution, and means you are maximally overpaying for value received. An ideal search would find products with the smallest difference between price and input cost, i.e. items near the Pareto frontier. For a more distilled scenario, if you manually accepted open stock trade offers, and your broker took kickbacks to always show you the worst bids/asks that they think you might fall for and make it difficult to find the best quotes, that would obviously be bad. In fact not providing best execution is illegal. The ad economy runs on exactly this conflict of interest. Money flowing through ads represents inflated transaction costs.