Slashdot Mirror
Search Engine Payola
QwkHyenA writes: "Seems that Ralph Nader and his Consumer Watchdog group has fired the first shot in pegging 8 search engines for reshuffling query results based on fees paid to them. Like we didn't see this happening! Nader has asked the FTC to look into this based on deceptive advertising practices..." Check out the complaint, which itself references pages like this one detailing how to pay for placement at all the major search engines.
Previous posters have brought up some poor analogies. Newspaper ads are clearly ads (and newspapers can get in serious trouble when this isn't the case). The yellow pages are entirely advertisement.
A better example is infomercials . These are clearly a `free service', too, as is all of broadcast television. That emphatically does not exempt them from the requirement to clearly distinguish paid ads from normal programming.
Now, you could argue about whether or not paid-for placement between `normal' links is the same as a tv commercial which is paid for in-between `normal' programming, but it's not a completely unreasonable stretch.
It's getting to be quite uncommon to see a topic posted on slashdot without someone railing against it with a reply along the lines of: "So? What's the big deal? It's not like I care."
The point I'm trying to make is that whether or not you care, yourself, is exactly as interesting - to you - as it is to others to have opinions of their own. Whether or not you personally mind using search engines where the content returned might have more to do with financial transactions that you remain ignorant of, or the fact that they exist at all, doesn't make it a poor story.
Running a search engine certainly isn't free, but if you want to make up for that by changing what a search engine IS, or at least what it is commonly (and perhaps naively) perceived to be, without telling anyone about it, then that most certainly is deceptive advertising.
The right of search engines to charge money for returning their result isn't in question, it's how they do it that is the issue. When you ask your teacher at school how to solve a particular problem, you expect him to answer to the best of his ability, not according to what he's paid to say, right? And if what he tells you is influenced by some form of remuneration, whether it's secret or not, wouldn't you prefer to be told about it?
It's all about playing an open game. It's what MSNBC do whenever they mention Microsoft and add a comment to the effect that MSNBC is a joint venture held by, among others, Microsoft. It's about confessing to a prejudice when you're asked for an opinion. If you don't reveal whatever motivation that might slant what you say, then you must accept that people who discover this motivation later could come to see what you said, and perhaps you yourself, in a new light.
We all agree that telling something that isn't the truth is deceptive, but to not tell something which is true seems to be more of a gray area.
Garth Algar: Here, take two of these.
Wayne Campbell: Ahh, Nuprin. Little, yellow, different.
Imagine the absurdity: let's say you're some R&D manager covering a few groups and you want to index your intranet (which has documentation and interface descriptions for all internal-use and skunkworks projects, as well as docs for local tools and local mods to tools). What's the first thought that comes to your mind? I can bet my ass it's not "Eureka! I'll license the engine from www.dogpile.com! Failing that, I'll go for askjeeves.com or some other shill-engine!" Nope. Pay-for-rank and pay-for-inclusion have merely castrated the already-ineffectual engines backing the "web portal" sites. Even if they had any cred before they ran out of VC, they CERTAINLY don't now.
[1] IIRC, Altavista once sold "personal AltaVista" and "workgroup Altavista" products, but I believe they were unsuccessful and are no longer available -- I think they were discontinued shortly before AV went to pay-to-improve-rank as a business model. Mea culpa if I'm wrong.
Maybe AltaVista was worthwhile three or four years ago. Maybe five people have ever used Netscape or MSN search on purpose, but those are things one accidentally uses by clicking the wrong button in her browser. However, none of these companies has a real business strategy -- if they weren't selling placement, they'd be selling your personal data to x10.com. Selling placement is merely the third or fourth step on the road to fuckedcompany.com.
Last time I checked we lived in a free market economy
One of the fundamental tenets of capitalism is that the free market only works efficiently with accurate information.
Misrepresenting (also called "lying" by normal people) your product or business in order to decieve the public is not a right of a company (at least in our country).
Whether the search engines are misrepresenting themselves and services is what Nader is asking to investigate.
"We can say what we want to sell our stuff, and by the way did I mention this cures cancer?" is not a particularly compelling argument.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Come on now ... no one's saying this isn't their right. The question is whether it ethical to do so without informing users, and I think most would agree that it isn't. I certainly wouldn't want to use such a search engine.
... good for them.
Incidentally, Google was not mentioned
It's lying. Read the freaking article--it isn't a complaint that they accept paid advertisements. The complaint is about search sites that mix the paid advertisements in with the ACTUAL results, providing no way for a viewer to know whether a site is actually relevant to your query, or just a site that paid the search engine some money.
This is nothing more than lying.
See how it specifically points out Google, which has clearly marked "SPONSORED LINKS" at the top of your query results, with the actual relevant results below that? That is perfectly fine.
Read first, then post.
(karma whore)
Isn't this exactly what the phone company does when they publish the Yellow Pages? Certain companies have simple listings with only their name, phone number and address. Others have quarter-page three-color ads that pop out at you when browsing a particular catergory. Maybe the yellow pages are more like Yahoo than a conventional search engine, but the idea is still the same (looking for listings based on key words).
For those who can't be bothered to read the links directly from the news posting, here's a little translation of the whole bit:
Commercial Alert would like the FTC to investigate whether current methods of paid placement are deceptive to consumers, and whether that deception is strong enough for FTC intervention.
Don't think they could be intentionally misleading people? I've met people who didn't know the "click here to optimize your internet connection!" button was an ad the first time they saw it. I've also met people who have a hard time distinguishing between icons in their web browser and icons on the web page. This is much more subtle than either of those examples.
Don't think this is something the FTC would bother intervening in? The complaint has a little section entitled "The FTC Has Repeatedly Sought to Stop Companies From Concealing That Their Ads Are Ads", in which they argue that point as well.
It's a very simple three point argument, summarized with bold headings above each of the points. So there's my simple pitch for reading the complaint. I think you'll find it interesting and informative, and it will take less time to read than it's taken you to get this far.
To get back to the initial post, suffice it to say that the Commercial Alert complaint is obviously not asserting that paying search engines for targeted advertisements is wrong.
No one is forcing you to use the free service of go.com, excite.com, or even google. How do you think they pay for hardware, bandwidth, and programmers? Selling banner ads won't keep a search engine going. As long as you know companies paid to be listed in bold (red, highlited, whatever) print, who cares?
I clicked:
Got friends?
The complaint is not that search engines are accepting money to have certain links pop up towards the top of a search, it's that they're doing it without LABELING it as such - essentially, they're trying to masquerade the paid links as normal, objective search data, to make it seem like the paid links are somehow more "relevant" to a search.
But god forbid anyone actually read the tiny article... that'd be far harder than just spouting your mouth off to look clever.
The Free desktop that Just Works
It's ok not to read the article, but if you don't, then don't post!
A few points:
1) To those who say, "Hey, AltaVista is a business. Can you blame them?" Yes, we can blame them. Newspapers are a business, but you don't (well, you didn't once upon a time) see them printing corporate press releases as news.
2) It's kinda funny to me how many people respond to this strictly in terms of capitalism. What ever happened to democracy? I realize that the original promise of the 'Net is drying up faster than liquid nitrogen, but still, someone needs to say it.
Let's imagine that Google goes out of business. Poof -- suddenly you can't do a search without having to turn to a paid search engine. Yeah, yeah, search engines suck anyway, but... unless I am running linuxisbitchin.org, they are a good way to get people to come to my site (I run a humor site and do not blanch at appearances of .aol in my logs). However, if $$$ is causing me to be marginalized, that ceases to be a tool for me.
Ultimately, it seems to me the barrier to entry is being raised here. I understand quite well that search engines are not the only way to promote a site, but from a strictly democratic point of view, this leaves one in a situation that's like running for President with nothing but a bunch of bumper stickers, while your competition has access to the airwaves.
3) A philosophical question, really. The airwaves are supposed to be a public resource, according to the FCC charter. Since the airwaves are regularly sold lock, stock, and barrel to companies that couldn't possibly give a shit about the public good despite this, what protects the Internet, given that the infrastructure is owned by a zillion institutions and there is no charter to speak of?
G'nite.
Visit sunny Knowumsayin.com, home of the pork shirt.
The fact that this is happening should come as no surprise. And the rub is i cant see anyway Ralph Nader or anybody else can claim this is illegal. Users dont sign and particluar agreement and most search engines make no claim of impartiality (i mean look at Yahoo for gods sake) you have a right of choice and they have as far as i know no legal right to disclose this sort of information.
Taking money for listing improvment is something companies do all the time - its how a yellow pages works - the biggest placements cost the most money. This has been going on for time and based on what the complaint and comment says they are cleary seen as 'special' links.
Altavista and other companies have been doing this for years.
I would be interested in the FCC comment on this and their response - as the usage of a search engine and choice of which one is a choice made by the consumer then one would assume that this would negate some of the arguments about uninformed consumers - the banner ads and sponsored links would convince you they were taking advertising anyway.
Most people looking for information have a rough idea what they want so advertising wont have much of an effect on them - IE if you are looking for info on Open Source then you may only want general info - so you go there; if you are shopping then you may be led to a page reanked site, but bear in mind the engines return choices and thus you are not locked into only going to one place, and if the site you go to has what you want at a good price and quick service then all good and well, if not then thats what consumer laws are for, you dont sue a search engine if an online store rips you off, regardless of where you found the link.
IMHO if you follow the line that this practice is unusual then you are gullible - Radio stations dont get paid in cash for play anymore, they just get free food, gifts, invites to parties and junkets (but NO cash !)
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....