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.

Comments

Bullshit

[ukyoCE]

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)

Re:Bullshit

[cybermage]

When I searched for "linux" I got none.

Want your ad to show up every time 'linux' is one of the keywords, here's your estimate according to: Google's AdWords Preview

6,622,100 impressions
Estimated cost per month: US$99,331.50

My guess would be that the price is why you get none. Add a second keyword, like 'server' and it drops precipitously (probably still more than VA can afford):

118,000 impressions
Estimated cost per month: US$1,770.00

It's a bit pricy per impression, but with a little trial and error, you can be really specific about the impressions you get. For example, here's the stats for both 'linux' and 'Torvalds' in case you want to really target that biography you just wrote:

2,100 impressions Estimated cost per month: US$31.50

No, I don't work for Google, just played with this thing a lot while writing META tags...

This is totally true.

[Cardhore]

I did a quick search for "deceptive advertising in search engines" on altavista. The first link showed me to http://www.wilsonweb.com/.

I clicked:

"Struggling to market your company on the Web? You've come to the right place!"

READ THE ARTICLE before you dismiss this!

[tempest303]

As is the fashion on /. now, the first +3 posts are all slam and (incorrectly) attempt to debunk the posted article without ever having apparently *read* it.

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.

whatever happened to democracy?

[CrackWilding]

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.