3 ms·

i think that the ftc's findings on "search bias" are going to deal a big blow to the online ecosystem. google now has a free hand to promote its own services.

i think that the ftc's findings on "search bias" are going to deal a big blow to the online ecosystem. google now has a free hand to promote its own services. they have already shown a willingness to show subpar results above the fold. take the high positioning of google places for example, when there are much richer options available on the web (yelp etc.). large established players like tripadvisor, kayak and yelp will probably be fine because they already get traffic from other sources, but new companies will now have one less major way to get traction. it seems that this paves the way for a future where there are no organic results atf for many transactional queries. search for "flights from jfk to lax" and you'll only see ads and google flights atf (as opposed to hipmunk or kayak). i am not making a moral or business claim, just stating my opinion that this ftc ruling (be it right or wrong) will harm the ecosystem.

greglindahl 14y ago
If Google over-promotes their own services, and that makes the result worse, users are more likely to switch to alternatives. Viable competition will improve the ecosystem.
magicalist 14y ago
There is no such thing as unbiased search. There is no such thing as an objective ranking algorithm. Even ignoring the first amendment issues, what possible way are you going to regulate the "fairness" of the ordering of search results without completely hobbling the usefulness of that search engine? A MapQuest-fan's trash is another man's useful google map at the top of the search results. Far better for the FTC to actually enforce their rules about disclosure of site-provided results, which have been on the books for a decade. Danny Sullivan covers the lack of attention there well: http://searchengineland.com/a-letter-to-the-ftc-regarding-search-engine-disclosure-124169 http://searchengineland.com/a-letter-to-the-ftc-regarding-se...
- elsewhen 14y ago
  as i mentioned in another post on this page, you dont need to regulate the _ordering_. for example, the ftc could regulate the labeling and positioning. ie. google could be required to put all googley results on the right column.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    Positioning is, again, an untenable idea, as you're enshrining the search results of a decade ago as what a search engine should return, while requiring anything else (whether that's search verticals, which is what you seem to be objecting to, or newer approaches like synthesized results) to be literally marginalized. In other words, you would be requiring Google to remain static, while the rest of the market can explore the search result presentation space. That might help competitors, but it's bad for users. You're also special-casing google, when, as noted in Jon Leibowitz's speech today: "Tellingly, Google's search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting this process can benefit consumers." Considering that today's result is because there was no evidence that consumers are being harmed here, would you be OK with your hypothetical labeling and positioning rules being applied to all search engines? Then we just need to decide what defines a search engine...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - kkowalczyk 14y ago
    So, according to you, when Google employee writes a blog post on official Google blog (i.e. as an agent of private enterprise), this post is not covered by first amendment? If New York Times publishes an article written by his employee, it is not covered by first amendment? etc. etc.
wutbrodo 14y ago
It is a bit worrying, but it's worth noting that this expected future is as much of Yelp's (et al) making as it is Google's. Google Places in its original form was essentially a search interface optimized for places (like the search results of a vanilla Google web search of ten blue links). This original incarnation avoided "subpar results", but Yelp specifically requested that they be removed from these results. Of course Yelp had solid reasons to do so, but from Google's perspective, the choice became one between a subpar interface for Place search and subpar content, the important difference being that meager content can in theory be improved, while a subpar interface will always be so.

greglindahl 14y ago

If Google over-promotes their own services, and that makes the result worse, users are more likely to switch to alternatives. Viable competition will improve the ecosystem.

magicalist 14y ago

There is no such thing as unbiased search. There is no such thing as an objective ranking algorithm. Even ignoring the first amendment issues, what possible way are you going to regulate the "fairness" of the ordering of search results without completely hobbling the usefulness of that search engine? A MapQuest-fan's trash is another man's useful google map at the top of the search results. Far better for the FTC to actually enforce their rules about disclosure of site-provided results, which have been on the books for a decade. Danny Sullivan covers the lack of attention there well: http://searchengineland.com/a-letter-to-the-ftc-regarding-search-engine-disclosure-124169 http://searchengineland.com/a-letter-to-the-ftc-regarding-se...

elsewhen 14y ago
as i mentioned in another post on this page, you dont need to regulate the _ordering_. for example, the ftc could regulate the labeling and positioning. ie. google could be required to put all googley results on the right column.
- magicalist 14y ago
  Positioning is, again, an untenable idea, as you're enshrining the search results of a decade ago as what a search engine should return, while requiring anything else (whether that's search verticals, which is what you seem to be objecting to, or newer approaches like synthesized results) to be literally marginalized. In other words, you would be requiring Google to remain static, while the rest of the market can explore the search result presentation space. That might help competitors, but it's bad for users. You're also special-casing google, when, as noted in Jon Leibowitz's speech today: "Tellingly, Google's search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting this process can benefit consumers." Considering that today's result is because there was no evidence that consumers are being harmed here, would you be OK with your hypothetical labeling and positioning rules being applied to all search engines? Then we just need to decide what defines a search engine...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- kkowalczyk 14y ago
  So, according to you, when Google employee writes a blog post on official Google blog (i.e. as an agent of private enterprise), this post is not covered by first amendment? If New York Times publishes an article written by his employee, it is not covered by first amendment? etc. etc.

wutbrodo 14y ago

It is a bit worrying, but it's worth noting that this expected future is as much of Yelp's (et al) making as it is Google's. Google Places in its original form was essentially a search interface optimized for places (like the search results of a vanilla Google web search of ten blue links). This original incarnation avoided "subpar results", but Yelp specifically requested that they be removed from these results. Of course Yelp had solid reasons to do so, but from Google's perspective, the choice became one between a subpar interface for Place search and subpar content, the important difference being that meager content can in theory be improved, while a subpar interface will always be so.