Search Engines Take Their Time Disclosing Paid Links

An anonymous reader says "This CNN.com article talks about how most search engines have not disclosed the difference between a paid ad and an 'objective' result. The one exception of course is every geek's favorite search engine, Google. Once again, hooray for Google!" We mentioned the FTCs Mandate that search engines be clear about who's paying for what. Apparently all the non-google engines are on vacation ;)

Comments

It's only a recommendation

[Telecommando]

It's not like they're required by law to do it.

Yet.

Re:It's only a recommendation

[dalassa]

I would say that ethics requires them to do so, but then I turned on the latest finacial news.

Ethically they should disclose who pays them to sponser links, but will they; not unless forced too.

Re:It's only a recommendation

[Anonvmous Coward]

This is about advertising. There are no ethics in advertising. It's a business. They probably feel like disclosing who paid for the ad is the same as devaluing the ad.

Re:It's only a recommendation

[ReelOddeeo]

I recommend that corporations disclose their true performance in their accounting and sec filings.

Re:It's only a recommendation

[ReelOddeeo]

This is about advertising. There are no ethics in advertising. It's a business. They probably feel like disclosing who paid for the ad is the same as devaluing the ad.

This is about business. There are no ethics in business. (Except to enrich executives.)

They probably feel like if you knew who paid for the search result you wouldn't click it and so you would be STEALING!!!

Re:It's only a recommendation

[bravehamster]

This is about advertising. There are no ethics in advertising. It's a business. They probably feel like disclosing who paid for the ad is the same as devaluing the ad.

That's a load of crap. Just because something is a business doesn't mean that ethics are thrown out the window. This is sadly too often the case, but there's a reason you have to take a class called "Business Ethics" to get an MBA. As for disclosing who paid for the ad, that's not what we're talking about here at all. This is about telling people that the link they're clicking on is an ad! In order for the internet to maintain it's usability, Search Engines must be trusted sources of information. That's not the same as saying they aren't allowed to make money. They can make all the money they want, just so long as they aren't screwing with the results to favor someone who dropped some cash in their laps.

Re:It's only a recommendation

[Anonvmous Coward]

I'm very close to advertising. I've watched some of the decision making. It's not ethical.

Ever see a picture of strawberries? Chances are, that strawberry is covered in lipstick to make it an appealing shade of red. Everybody knows that McDonald's burgers look nothing like their picture. Car commercials feature locations that nobody'd ever take the car too. Heck, one showed a Jeep outrun a helicopter up a mountain. Ads, as a general business, are deceptive. Ever see that popup that looks like a message box saying 'you have 1 new message'? Heh.

If advertising was ethical, products wouldn't be held in such a ludicrously high light. They take whatever means are necessary to get people to come visit, with no regard to whether or not they're being deceptive. This is why search engines must disclose paid links.

Re:It's only a recommendation

[Kierthos]

I am reminded of a Dudley Moore movie called "Crazy People", where Moore's character was sent to an insane asylum for suggesting that advertising use the truth....

Such gems as "Volvo: We're boxy but we're safe." and "Don't go to France, the French are rude. Come to Jamaica, we're nicer."

Of course, I am also reminded of the time I ordered food at Denny's and asked for the burger that looked just like the one on the menu. The waitress laughed.

Kierthos

Re:It's only a recommendation

[alcohollins]

An advertising fad I find interesting is that practically every wristwatch ad I ever see has the watch dials set at 10 and 2. Apparently it's so that the watch appears to be smiling at you.

Of course, doesn't work for digital watches...

Re:It's only a recommendation

[jafuser]

I've been occasionally kicking around the idea of setting up a website that shows how much of a tangent the ads are skewed from the real thing these days. I was thinking about putting up a picture of the ad right next to an equally-arranged picture of the real thing... I wonder if this would be of any interest?

Re:It's only a recommendation

[doorbot.com]

there's a reason you have to take a class called "Business Ethics" to get an MBA

Isn't that class just so MBA's can't plead ignorance (you know, covering the school's legal ass and the like)?

Re:It's only a recommendation

[doorbot.com]

If advertising was ethical, products wouldn't be held in such a ludicrously high light. They take whatever means are necessary to get people to come visit, with no regard to whether or not they're being deceptive. This is why search engines must disclose paid links.

Exactly.

Also, refer to the same rules which apply to text ads...

Ever see those ads in Newsweek/Time/etc that look like they're editorials or "cool new product" blurbs but then you notice at the bottom of the page in small, but readable text it says "Paid Advertisement"?

another example ...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

... of a law we just don't need. why does it take the FCC to mandate such a thing, let the market decide. Google is already the defacto search engine, not just because of its tech. but also because of the way it does ads and not being "sold out" as far as search placement goes. why does the government feel this kind of thing requires legislation? if people want a search engine which doesn't sell search result positions, they'll use one. if they don't care, they won't. what's the big freaking deal. save the legislative branch for getting rid of all the stupid laws, not passing new mandates.

Re:another example ...

[valmont]

the big freakin deal is that the average joe user is not able to distinguish search engines which have sold out, and will take any search result they're given to face-value. FCC's effort is to ensure consumers to have the information they need to make the informed choice to go to google.

Re:another example ...

[gehrehmee]

Bottom line: The market (ie, consumers) are idiots. Now I don't mean that in a really bad way... but honestly, when was the last time you saw consumers en masse have any objections to the actions of a corporation stronger then "aww shucks, that's too bad."

A very large amount of education is required for the market to realise exactly how much power it has in this equation. Too often people assume that business & capitalism is about the big corporations making decisions... but it's entirely controlled by the market. If people would stand up and use that power, 99% of our corporatism problems would go away.

Re:another example ...

[sylvester]

another example ... of a law we just don't need. ... save the legislative branch for getting rid of all the stupid laws, not passing new mandates.
Uhh? No one is discussing a new law here. All the law is in place. Nothing is taking up the time of the legislative branch. This is a FTC issue - they have the mandate and the ability to impose such things. Learn how the system works before you go about criticising it.

Re:another example ...

[Moofie]

The FTC is chartered to decide what constitutes fair trade practices in the United States. Since it has been determined that stealth advertising in searches is unfair and deceptive, the FTC is stepping in and making that go away. System is working as designed. (for a change.)

Re:So you get a paid link

[Scutter]

Yes and no. I mean, it's free, so you get what you pay for, but a paid link may not be the most accurate hit on your search. What is your time worth to you, especially if you have to wade through paid links to get to something more accurate (and therefore useful)?

Teoma also distinguishes between paid/not paid

[allelopath]

Teoma also distinguishes between paid/not paid

Teach the spammers a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot them out of buisness! Follow these instructions.!

Search on paid sites with terms like
bulk email
email marketing
opt in safe lists
and so on.

Click on all the paid links. Then do it once every 24 hours. If all the slashdotters do this then a tremoundus 'slashdot effect' will cost the spammers potentionally millions of dollars! Do it now! Spread the word!

Re:Teach the spammers a lesson

[Kredal]

They pay "per click" assuming people who click on their ads will be interested in their *cough* services.

Let's assume they are charged a dollar a click by Google, and 1/10th of Slashdot's readership clicks on the links once per day... That's 25,000 dollars a day that the spammers are paying Google. Over a year, that's a heck of a lot of money, and they won't see a dime for their advertising.

Credibility

[TibbonZero]

I think that search engines really get users on credibility.
I know that with Google, I won't get popups, not too many banners, no porn ads.
More importantly, getting what you search for is important. I know with google, I can find anything almost, and their Cache and Translate features really help out. I know with confidence that Google will give me the results I want.

So, why are these other Engines killing their credibility by jumping on this bandwagon, and not telling the users what they are getting? Less people will use it, and the service will die.

In addition: Check out this.. It's google's beta of their answer service. Ask a question, and Pay for the answer. Kinda cool if you have a complex or hard to find problem.

Re:Credibility

[nyquist_theorem]

In addition: Check out this. [google.com]. It's google's beta of their answer service. Ask a question, and Pay for the answer. Kinda cool if you have a complex or hard to find problem.

Am I the only one that's rather impressed by this? The quality and depth of some of the answers provided to some pretty straightforward or simple questions is remarkable.

EG, for $20, you can ask "abc television had a story on a lady in cambodia who set up a orphinage and her relationship with a cambodian pilot" and get this. Or, for two bucks, you can ask why your site isn't listed on google and they'll tell you. Lastly, if you're wondering how to help American businesses expand into Romania, for $30 you can find out.

The best part is that they even give you the search terms they used on google, as well as any other resources they used. For those of us that have been using search engines since Altavista was good, feeding a search engine a balanced diet is pretty straight forward - but if you've seen someone new to the net try to work a search engine, you can understand how useful this is - the whole "teach a man to fish" bit, I suppose.

Wow.

Re:Credibility

[Broccolist]

Google answers was a nice idea, but it's a failure. There have been only 4000 questions since the project started a month ago -- even though for some time it was advertised on every google search result! At an average of (say) 5$ a question, that equates to 20,000$ of total cash transactions, only a fraction of that being revenue for Google. The buying market is obviously too small for this to work. If they have an ounce of business sense, they'll drop the thing soon.

Lots of similar services have popped up in the past, and they all failed. The problem is that although you have plenty of sellers with too much time on their hands and looking for a cheap ego-boost, there are very few people willing to dish out any money to random people for information they could just as well find themselves.

The other exception is gewgle

[pheph]

www.gewgle.com follows regulations as well... But then again, it just uses google's search :)

Re:The other exception is gewgle

[Rupert]

What is the point of this site? It doesn't do anything to the results, and it's not like the Google main page is so cluttered with advertising that it needs a cleaner front end.

Re:The other exception is gewgle

[zangdesign]

It some asshole capitalizing on people who can't spel kurrectly. It's almost as obnoxious as namesquatting.

Porn Sites

[smellmyfart]

So, If a porn site pays enough money, the next time i search the words how-to linux I'll be bombarded with pictures of penguins in sex postions. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Re:Government Regulation

[Peyna]

because search engines are deceiving the consumer. Would you be all for allowing ads on TV to tell you that alcohol will make you skinny and cure cancer? It's basically protecting the consumer for disinformation which they should know about. This is a case where it isn't clear cut as to what is a valid search result and what was displayed as being a valid result when in fact it is a paid advertisement?

Re:Government Regulation

[arkanes]

Well, commercial "speech" is not as protected as private speech, which is at it should be. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as "truth in advertising" laws, for example. A law that required (commercial) porn sites to identify themselves as such, for example, wouldn't see any complaints from me. This falls under consumer awareness - people have a right to know what they're "buying", or patronizing. Now, I'm not totally sure that we need a law about this - you won't keep using a search engine that doesn't give you the results you want - but I see no problem with a "reccomendation".

silly

[tps12]

This whole "debate" ignores a basic truth about the web. Put simply, there is a whole lot of cr*p out there.

A few companies have put great, useful sites together (Amazon comes to mind...note they're one of the few sites to turn a profit...coincidence?). But for every gem you will find hundreds of ugly, useless pages designed by high school kids between games of Quake and rounds of marijuana smoking.

When I'm searching for something, one of the best ways to seperate the cream from the crop, as it were, is using a simple rule of thumb: if a site's owner is not willing to invest a few dollars to get it listed in the major search engines, then he has probably not put in enough effort to the site as a whole, and I shouldn't bother.

For this reason, I love Google. I always ignore the general results and go straight to the sponsors, who by definition have some confidence in their own worth. If a search engine were created that only listed paid advertisers, then it would replace Google, not only for myself, but for most sensible web users.

In short, this is nothing to get upset about. Search providers that list advertisers in their top search results are doing their users a favor, and should be celebrated with open arms.

Re:silly

[liquidsin]

You, sir, are high. Or drunk. Just because someone springs the money for more advertising doesn't mean they offer superior products/services/information. The beauty of the web lies in the basic idea that it's a medium for everyone. Anyone can get a message out on the internet. The more that diminishes, the less useful the web becomes.

Re:silly

[jdunn14]

I certainly hope that commment is simply sarcasm, but I have this feeling that it's not. First off I have to agree that there is a lot of cr*p out there, but a good search engine (like google) will help you sort through it.

There's no reason that some company paying to have their site listed higher means that they have better content. In fact I often search for things such as published computer science papers and random pop-culture facts which no company would pay to rank. When I do search for something like software, which a company may have posted, I often find that free alternatives (which may be unsponsored personal projects) are often good enough, or even better. Rarely do I end up choosing the big companies product (which in your sort of search engine would be listed higher).

Any search which was solely based on the payment of the listed sites is subject to manipulation by any entity with enough cash. This means that hits which are actually closer in content to what I'm searching for will not be ranked as highly simply because they're personal or University projects.

Try Teoma

[brunes69]

I still love google as well, but Teoma is decent and fast. Like Google, they don't shove banner ads down your throat, and the prominantly display sponsored links. They also have some cool unique features to refine your search to relavant areas, rather than you having to manually choose the narrowing keywords yourself. Give em a gander.

A search engine by any other name...

[Anonymous Custard]

Is it fair to call yourself a search engine if you're really just an Ad database? What if a company offers their site as a search engine, but actually only retrieves relevant Advertisement-links frmo their own paid sponsor database, and never searches the rest of the web?

I think we need an official definition of 'Search Engine.' Just like a product can't be certified as "100% Grade-A Beef" without meeting some set standards of ingredients and production process, a 'search engine' should have to meet certain standards as well. Isn't it false advertising if they say they search the web but really search their own Ad databases?

For now, it'd be useful if each search engine had an About page which describes the type of search they do; be it a monthly crawl, a live search of popular sites or info services, free and paid submitted links, etc, or any combination.

The only question that should be debated in congress is where the responsibility lies for user-education, sort of a consumer responsibilty clause or free speech thing. Should the sites tell you, or should you figure it out yourself?

Re:A search engine by any other name...

[Plutor]

> Is it fair to call yourself a search engine if you're really just an Ad database?

Technically, searching an ad database is still searching.

Google's Integrity

[webword]

Here is a snip from an article just written called Google's Integrity:

"This means that with PageRank-sorted results, to be better linked is more important than to contain the search therms -- even though the search therms ultimately have to be there.

"A hypothetical high-PageRank page that contained the most popular search therms in the title could appear very often in the top 10 pages. We might call this a catch-all page.

"This is significant because a badly linked page, perhaps a new page, might be popular within the community of pages with the same topic, but eclipsed by the score of an extremely well linked page (linked from pages not containing the word) that also happens to contain the word."

Read more...

Re:Government Regulation

[valmont]

it is not censorship at all. Again, the government here is simply trying to prevent companies from practicing "false advertising". You cannot tell people you offer one thing and give them another. FCC regulates that kind of things.

Re:Government Regulation

[rde]

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but...

How exactly is it deceiving the consumer? If I search for, say, "cars for sale" should I care about whence the reference comes? All I'm interested in is links, and if a paid link points me towards a car for sale, woohoo! If it doesn't, I've got a browser that comes equipped with a Back button. BFD. Your time may be worth thousands of dollars per hour, but I'm willing to spend that extra seven seconds per day to find out that what I see is what I get.

I'm not here to say that unannounced, paid links are dandy; I'm just saying that they're not the end of the bloody universe. And they're most emphatically not deceiving anyone. A lot of sites ask you to submit URLs to their search engine. Who gives a rat's arse whether it's paid for or not?

Re:google is the only search engine

[lovebyte]

Yahoo's search engine is in fact Google.

Google appliance

[NearlyHeadless]

Speaking of Google, did anybody else see an ad on Slashdot linking to the Google Appliance. It seems like Google is trying to figure out a way to actually make money. Shocking!

Re:Google appliance

[jafuser]

You can make google even more money by daily searching for such keywords as "mass marketing", "bulk email", "bulk advertising", and then clicking on all of the sponsored links that look like spamcorps. I've used google's adwords feature, and based on how much it's told me it would cost for some keywords, I'd guesstimate those links cost the companies they link to at least a dollar per click for those near the top...

Re:Google appliance

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually they've been in profit since August 2001, over $50 million.

Their google appliance was their big idea- the google search engine is a loss leader for this, and they make 50% of their profit this way. The other 50% is from advertising.

Non Google Engines on Vacation?

[5h4k4-2u1u]

Apparently all the non-google engines are on vacation ;)

You mean there are other search engines?!

Re:Government Regulation

[Peyna]

Usually a search engine will tell how they rate their results, or are expected to do so based on some simple rules (it is just a randomly returned list of results). If they do so, and do not explain that some results are ranked highly because they are paid as such, and not because they scored higher against some ruleset, then yes, they are indeed deceiving the customer.

Re:Government Regulation

[ObviousGuy]

Maybe they don't have these where you're from, but there are cleverly disguised commercials run late at night that last half an hour to an hour and are virtually indistinguishable from normal programming. Infomercials go to great length to veil the fact that they are simply lengthy adverts.

AHEM

[Telecommando]

It's the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission not the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

The FTC handles trade, commerce, tariffs, advertising and business practices.
The FCC handles radio & telephone communications policies, standards and practices.

Perhaps the reverse is also true

[SmallFurryCreature]

Wouldn't it be even more worrying if the reverse happened. If a search engine was paid to NOT display certain links? The internet is supposed to be this free haven of information, but the only way to find anything is through someone elses search engine, most of wich apparantly for money are willing to be selective in their searches.

Just how much would bill pay to have a links to bug tracking lists sorted at the bottom?

Re:Government Regulation

[Peyna]

Except for that large notice right before the infomercial that states: THIS IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT AND THE OWNER OF THIS STATION IN NO WAY ENDORSES THE PRODUCT BEING SOLD WITH-IN. Also, they are required to flash "paid advertisement" every so often on the screen, much in the same way that newspapers have to print "paid advertisement" on ads that resemble stories.

liberal nonsense

[groves]

"It's important for people to know whether or not their search results are being bought by big business," said Gary Ruskin, the group's executive director.

how is this harming consumers? the very notion of profit is evil to these people.

Re:liberal nonsense

[WolfWithoutAClause]

"It's important for people to know whether or not their search results are being bought by big business," said Gary Ruskin, the group's executive director.

the very notion of profit is evil to these people.

Well, Google is the most popular search engine, and they don't rank results by advertisement and that in itself should tell you something. And Google is very profitable indeed.

how is this harming consumers?

Tons of ways:

- its a form of lying (the best MATCH is supposed to be at the top, not the most expensive advertisement)

- it loses the best match in a forest of advertisements, reducing the usefullness of the engine

- its to do with fitness for purpose; a search engine should search, not advertise

- its to do with not pissing off your users

- its to do with making bigger profits from having more users - its to do with not going broke (Google has been very profitable since August 2001, hence they're more likely to stick around)

- it's to do with cluttering the screen, poor readability, adding advertising lies and bullshit

Don't get me wrong, profit is essential. But so is water. Drinking water is good, drinking more water is often better. Drinking too much water will kill you and stop you drinking ever again.

Past some point, too much pursuit of shortterm profit will reduce your longterm total profit. You reach a local maxima, and you get stuck. The people behind Google were able to see past the 'raising the link for money idea' and see where the real money can be made. It's nothing to do with liberalism at all.

Integrity = Long term success

[nuggz]

I agree ideally integrity should/will lead to long term success and stability. Many corporations have build substantial businesses by making a good quality product year after year. That is where I invest my money BTW.

However when company execs can make a fortune quickly by hyping stock and making good quarterly returns they do. Why slog away year after year and have a good stable business, when you can make just as much in a few years bending the rules and acting irresponsibly?

Re:Government Regulation

[rde]

I've wandered through a few search engines just now, and typed 'house sales' into each. netscape and teoma gave sponsored links, yahoo didn't (and stated categorically on its site that it doesn't jiggle with the results), but they all gave essentially the same thing; sites that I'd conceivably be interested in if I were search for House Sales.

On the subject of how they rate their results: the word 'proprietary' pops up a lot, along with some variation on 'we won't tell you how we do it'. Hard to deceive under those circumstances.

And to quote the cnn article: "The spot checks found few changes had been made." Hardly a drama.

Has anyone else noticed this Google problem?

[Outland Traveller]

In the last few weeks I've noticed a disturbing trend when using google. I'll search for something using keywords, and the page that google spits back is 50% full of links to third-tier sites that read "Advance search for [your keywords]". If you go to those pages they are full of ads and do not have the information you're looking for. It looks like someone found an unfortunately effective way to poison google's results.

Re:Has anyone else noticed this Google problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a thread on usenet about this issue.

The current hypothesis is that the search44 guys have a lot of domains, and a lot of pages with different keywords.

Re:Has anyone else noticed this Google problem?

[frankie]

yes, Yes, YES! It is really annoying as hell to see mighty Google getting bombed like this. There's a Hacker Sith Lord out there laughing at us.

If you see this happening in a search result that you care about, please report it either by email (search-quality at google) or by web form.

Here's some of the sites I've seen that are abusing cross-linking to spam Google:

costa-dorada.net
e-bevs.com
elevenacceleration.c om
ije-ir.org
ims-corp.com
indonesiahelp.com
i ndowebdesign.com
kluthe.net
laserprintersbymte.c om
makingmusic.net
myownpoll.com
ocean-press.co m
onesmack.com

More cool stuff at Google

[TibbonZero]

Check out Google Labs..
It's got some pretty cool things, but let's not ./ the voice search.

nothing new

[majcher]

(standard disclaimer, flamebait, karma to burn, yadda yadda...)

The yellow pages (commercial phone directories) have been doing this since forever. If you want a big ad for your business in the directory that everyone uses to look up businesses in their area, you pay for it. Pay for your listing - people see it. Why should search engines be any different? They're not public services, they're businesses. This isn't 1995, when altavista was just some research project or something. People need search engines, companies provide the service, and they have to pay for it somehow. I don't see the problem.

That being said, Google kicks ass, and I'd love to see more companies use their model, or at least their sense of utility and aesthetics.

Re:nothing new

[gorilla]

You can easily tell when someone buys an add in the yellow pages, they always look different to the regular listings (usually bigger, or in a different colour). When newpapers run 'advertising features', they have to mark this because it's not so obvious - you have something which the uninformed might think is a regular page. That's exactly what the FTC is asking for here. It's ok to advertise, but it's not ok to hide the fact.

Re:3 things you find on searches....

[Mr Guy]

Predicted Items Programming Porn Linux Internet Hardware Database Applications Misc Windows Companies Consoles Gaming Audio




I was SURE Mozilla would come up on that.

There are worse problems

[uncoveror]

It's nice that the FTC mandated distinguishing paid results from metasearches, but the worst problems with search engines are phony metatags. Frequently searching for CDs, MP3, Music, or anything other than porn brings back a porn site at the top of results. It's deception. I could mention an offender which I got delisted by writing letters, but that would only give them free advertising. The FTC should treat use of phony metatags an act of fraud, and respond accordingly.

Re:a new search engine I found

[fabiolrs]

well, i just found it last week... :)))

altough I believe many searches I did on it returned better results than google, I cant get used to its "heavier" look... i mean, google has a much cleaner layout that pleases me much more! :))

Re:a new search engine I found

[fabiolrs]

i believe they are the best search engine out there... as I said to the other guy sometimes alltheweb returns me better results but I much more used to googles clean/easy layout, there is thousands of information on alltheweb pages and they are not always clear to understand...

well, i must agree with you, sometimes those selling spots are kinda usefull, much diferent from those on geocities websites that I rarely look at! :))

Re:Government Regulation

[mangu]

Well, commercial "speech" is not as protected as private speech, which is at it should be.

Why do you think so? Every speech has one purpose. What is so bad about exchanging something for money that it should be less protected than, for instance, obtaining followers for a political idea?

If there are "truth in advertising" laws, shouldn't there also exist "truth in political campaign" laws?

Google: Trouble in Paradise

[bareman]

Lately using Google I've been more annoyed to find advertisements at the top of the results list when I have been searching for a quoted string.

Try searching for the following quoted string: "building your own electric car"
and the first link returned today is for autoweb.com. Now, if Autoweb had a resources for building an electric car I would have no problem with their paid ad showing up. Hell, make it first on the list and make animated arrows to it if you like.

BUT you see, autoweb has nothing on the page about ELECTRIC cars, much less about BUILDING a car of any type. No, all they have is a paid advert that hits on the word CAR.

Come to think of it (yep) I just tried "Baby you can drive my car" and there they were. Top-o-the list.

Here's more; you can't even defeat the advert buy specifically trying to exclude the ad by "-buy" or even "-autoweb".

Please GOOGLE gods, return to the good old days where a quoted string only returns sites that have the entire quoted string.

Re:Government Regulation

[rde]

I won't argue; but it's never happened to me. Granted, it's a rare circumstance in which I won't go a-googling when I need to find something, but even in those rare circumstances when google fails me, I can rely on ask.com (although Jeeves does seem overly enmoured of the CIA), hotbot or av.com . I've also learned that if I'm searching for hardware drivers or help, then judicious use of the '-' before a few select words'll generally clear away the chaff.
And if you're still seeing popups, it's time you either a) downloaded mozilla or b) checked out its "Script & Windows" options.

Again: I'm not defending immoral search engines. But I do think people should check out a few of the more arcane commands on their engine of choice. A good search engine is more than another web page. I don't know about the rest of you, a day doesn't go by when I don't google for several things. If I was still using it the way I was three years ago, I'd deserve all I got. Technology - and knowledge - move on. Adapt.

Google cheering on Slashdot

[MushMouth]

One of the big problems with slashdot creaming over google all the time (such as dismissing alltheweb's crawl size) is that Google pays for banners on slashdot. Do we have a conflict of interest?

Re:Government Regulation

[arkanes]

Yes, there should. Also, money is not speech. Next question?

What about the phone book!

[anthony_dipierro]

I want to know which of those yellow page entries are paid for, damnit!

I have to agree with you.

[mindstrm]

This is a good idea they are chasing.

Any idea, though, what happens with answered questions? If I paid for the research to be done, someone else shouldn't be able to get it for free.

I am quite impressed.

[mindstrm]

It somewhat reminds me of "The Circuit" from the Greg Mendel trilogy.

The difference here is the asker sets the price.

I think this service could have more merit if there was some kind of feedback mechanism, or a bid/ask type mechanism.

I could see a question I know how to answer, but I'm sure not going to do it for the $5 the people ask. Researchers should have to compete for answers, and then someone should correlate it all and make sure everyone gets paid.

Re:Government Regulation

[rde]

It's just the frustration of seeing what's essentially a good thing (the internet) being turned into just another corporate abomination
People are greedy, and people are assholes. A fatal combination that means that anything popular will be subverted and bastardised. Take consolation in the fact that the internet is so much bigger than it was; it's still possible to do cool stuff, and to read cool stuff. I read a newspaper from a different country every day. this is partially possible because of those self-same corporate bastards that are ruining other parts of the net.

These are the same buffoons who think that showing you the same Nexium ad 50 times is gonna make you want to go see your doctor for some
I'm with the buffoons on this. People are assholes, and like nothing better than going to the doctor and telling him/^H^Her what they need. Much as the US tendency towards litigation pisses me off, I'd love to see one of these companies get sued for reckless abuse of patients' stupidity. Look at all the morons who inisist on antibiotics to cure their cold; this sort of ludicrious hubris - actively encouraged by the drug companies - is going to kill us all.