3 ms·

You're pulling a huge bait-and-switch in your argument here. No one was discussing indexing for "organic" search results. The original comment: > In this case

You're pulling a huge bait-and-switch in your argument here. No one was discussing indexing for "organic" search results. The original comment: > In this case the facts [for "knowledge graph"] come from Google+ reviews. Google is just as likely to display Yelp reviews if they were able to collect that data. Yelp however doesn't supply it. This statement is implying that Yelp should be supplying their data to Google in order to be included in the "knowledge graph". That is what I was responding to. And I think Yelp has a pretty compelling case of refusing to open their data to a competitor.

hahainternet 11y ago
That is not my original comment. Yelp is currently refusing to open their data, but they cannot both do that and demand Google artificially rank them highly in the results.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  > That is not my original comment. Apologies. I corrected my comment to reflect this. > Yelp is currently refusing to open their data, but they cannot both do that and demand Google artificially rank them highly in the results. I wasn't under the impression that anyone was debating the "organic" search results at all. I was under the impression that this is regarding the sections Google places above the search results which emphasize its own services unrelated to Search over competitors.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    This is getting overly complex, so I'll try and summarise. This paper uses a disingenuous comparison of the Maps Search section of Google's results with one augmented with Yelp feedback. What is shown is that more users will click the links when they have higher reviews. However. Yelp flat out refuses to provide this information, and in fact if they were to be added to the results they couldn't feature in this section. This 'logic' is then used to say it is illegal for Google to provide any more specific but still search based media on their page unless every single third party provider of similar search services consents to being included on the listings. It's pure FUD.

hahainternet 11y ago

That is not my original comment. Yelp is currently refusing to open their data, but they cannot both do that and demand Google artificially rank them highly in the results.

jdmichal 11y ago
> That is not my original comment. Apologies. I corrected my comment to reflect this. > Yelp is currently refusing to open their data, but they cannot both do that and demand Google artificially rank them highly in the results. I wasn't under the impression that anyone was debating the "organic" search results at all. I was under the impression that this is regarding the sections Google places above the search results which emphasize its own services unrelated to Search over competitors.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  This is getting overly complex, so I'll try and summarise. This paper uses a disingenuous comparison of the Maps Search section of Google's results with one augmented with Yelp feedback. What is shown is that more users will click the links when they have higher reviews. However. Yelp flat out refuses to provide this information, and in fact if they were to be added to the results they couldn't feature in this section. This 'logic' is then used to say it is illegal for Google to provide any more specific but still search based media on their page unless every single third party provider of similar search services consents to being included on the listings. It's pure FUD.