4 ms·

Otherwise their competitor gets top billing for their very own brand name. See this on Apple’s App Store too. Feels very unfair.

• DANmode 23d ago
  They’re selling a limited ad-space - again, instead of to their competitor. In that context: suggest a fairer way. Now, it may just be you don’t like advertising in this context - a valid take. But a different one!
  • Dylan16807 23d ago
    If someone searches for a specific product, you could still have competitor ads in a relatively fair way, but you have to put them after the correct link. Putting them first is going to mislead so many people. And you could advertise related products, or unrelated products. So many options there.
    • DANmode 23d ago
      Mandating Google choose the “one right” link is the failure point, here. (Not because I disagree.) Similar problems with mandating that they track what’s considered a competitor.
      • Dylan16807 23d ago
        > Mandating Google choose the “one right” link is the failure point, here. (Not because I disagree.) I'm talking about the actual search results. They already do that part. > Similar problems with mandating that they track what’s considered a competitor. Well I said fair not mandatory, but they make enough money off these ads that they could handle it being mandatory.
        • DANmode 23d ago
          Besides “I’m Feeling Lucky” and new AI offerings, Google specifically does not purport to tell you the one true link! It ranks based on likelihood of what you’re search for - and yes, that’s different!
  • Barbing 23d ago
    Feels unfair. Guess humans could be hired to try to prevent the situation in cases where it was on the obvious side of what was happening. Would increase the cost of ads or reduce ad network profits, and feel more fair?
  • sethammons 23d ago
    The fairer thing is what Google _used_ to do: organic results in the main column, ads in the sidebar. Searchers get to see competitors without confusing them for the real thing.