3 ms·

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 wa

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.

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.