Slashdot Mirror
Texas Opens Inquiry Into Google Search Rankings
Hugh Pickens writes "The AP reports that Texas' attorney general, Greg Abbott, has opened an anti-trust investigation against Google spurred by complaints that the company has abused its power as the Internet's dominant search engine. The review appears to be focused on whether Google is manipulating its search results to stifle competition. European regulators already have been investigating complaints alleging that Google has been favoring its own services in its results instead of rival websites and several lawsuits have also been filed in the US that have alleged Google's search formula is biased. However Google believes Abbott is the first state attorney general to open an antitrust review into the issue."
When you can't compete in a market, sue... That's the ticket!
Did anybody not expect this would eventually happen? Do no evil. meh.
It's a very simple, easy to obfuscate (cover up) search results manipulation that could quite easily make a multi-hundred millions dollar difference for the company. Why on Earth would Google, if it could (and it can) NOT do something like this? Just look at their support of Chinese communism and ask yourself if the company is above doing anything for a buck.
As originally posted on Search Engine Land, These allegations are merely exploratory and it is difficult to determine exactly where the GA's office is headed in this investigation, or how Texas could claim jurisdiction. All the lawsuits in question are being raised by non-Texas corporations and against a California-based company.
Yesterday, Google responded to the investigation, which has not been made public yet by the General Attorney's office. In it's response, Google states that they "listen carefully to people's concerns" and " we strongly believe our business practices reflect our commitment to build great products for the benefit of users everywhere". To some extent this sounds like the usual play from Google, invoking it's "do no evil" mantra.
Does Google manipulate results to thwart competitors and advance its own businesses? Some competitors to Google are concerned that the company lowers search results listings for certain firms and/or charging higher fees ads they place vs those of Google's partners.
Google has never revealed its search or ranking methodology for sites in detail, though it has published some papers on optimization and best practices.
Google's reply on a Friday night after business hours on the biggest 3-day summer weekend of the year is sure to draw little attention.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Texas, why am I not surprised?
People are going to draw parallels between Google and Microsoft or Intel. However, I need to point out that unlike the later two, Google's services are free to the end user. Not only that, but it's also monumentally easier to stop using Google than say, Microsoft.
I don't know if Google is doing what they're accused of, but so what? It's free, I'm not locked in, and they never said that they were impartial (so no false advertisement).
I also noticed this: Always when I enter search terms in Google, I always get Google search results. Not a single time did I get results from Bing or Altavista. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Google might be abusing it's power but what we really do need is real choice.
We have basically bing and google and every other search site have licenced their engines.
I personally am not really happy about bing and there seems to be no true alternative for google. I welcome more competition into search engine market.
Two alternatives: you either let them do it or you force them to publish their ranking algorithms.
If page rank were public, there would be no search engines worth using. The whole internet is bad enough with spam as it is.
Better let Google do their stuff, it's not as if they were keeping others from posting their own search results. I started using Google when they started giving me better results than Altavista, which was the search "monopoly" back then.
An advertisiment service company advertising it's own company on it's own services!
Why that's.... downright logical! Sue them! Quick! Before it catches on!
What's the problem? Google keeps on raking pages from Wikipedia higher than Conservapedia? I agree, that must be an anti-competitive conspiracy!
Search on google "search engine" and you get the following
http://www.google.co.za/#hl=en&source=hp&q=search+engine&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=59f7cdf3c54fdd53
Your first hit is bing, the only google references are news sites
Search that same term on bing and you get
http://www.bing.com/search?q=search+engine&go=&form=QBLH
Google is 6th on that list, and bing references *itself* as the 7th on that list.
Whose really deserving of a lawsuit here?
Of course google has minipulated their search results. They are a company operating in the market. If you want more competition, they what we need is an investigation into the privileges that google receives from the government. These privileges may give google an unfair advantage with respect to other search engines. I'm not a proponent of intellectual property, but if google is allowed to infringe it while other companies are not then they have an advantage.
You may ask yourself the question whether the government and google have a natural tendency to collude together. These type of monopolies are also called government monopolies and are relatively stable with respect to free market monopolies. Take for example the banking cartel or monopoly. I can imagine that the government would like to lay its hands on the information that google has, and in return google would like to maintain it's market position using government granted privileges.
So, I would say, that an investigation by the government about the a possible monopoly position of google is nonsense. Any collusion of the government with google will never be investigated. Anyway, I as long as google's youtube is still hosting the following clips, I would say that google is relatively ok: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY
I think we should start an inquiry about bias with Texas attorneys, not Google. It seems that they are too embedded in the old boys network to have anything to do with justice.
Look at the companies that file complaints: three companies that anyone would rather filter out than in. Seems to me that these aren't the companies that warrant the investigation. So I've got a very strong feeling this other company is behind it.
For me, this is just a big ploy to get to the page-rank algorithm. It would not be hard to leak it when the investigation starts for real.
'Texas' is just mad that people like Jerry Springer can quickly and easily find morons to populate the chairs on his stage so that he can make 'Texas' look bad. I mean after all, Google has been the dominant search engine for people who actually want to find something relevant for the last 10 years. I figure if 'Texas' is sad about it hurting their image. they need to use Yahoo. Because as we all know, Yahoo has been a worthless search engine since its inception. :)
"However Google believes Abbott is the first state attorney general to open an antitrust review into the issue." Did they used Google search to determine this?
Mozy, free online backup service
--
tony calls george simple minded then agees that iran should be nuked later today. bad history gets even worse? that's a real gooed question/stuff that really matters, butt it's also fodder for the mindless phlamethrower majority. the cost (in innocent lives etc...) of the 'head in the sand' position at this time is absolutely immeasurable.
"If TEXAS does it, it must be E-V-I-L."
Not really, but their track record is not so good, especially regarding justice.
"But European governments are doing it too?!?!?"
Yes, and even though they do weird things, they do have a better track record.
"But it's oh-so-wonderful Google!!!"
Google has been very nice up till now, but strength tends to be abused. We should be vigilant without necessarily harming Google.
"OH NOES!!!! SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT TO THINK!!!!"
We should take a very good look at Google from time to time. The Texas attorney general is, however, probably the least competent person to do so.
I've looked up the attorney general and this part gave away what he's after:
"Defending Tort Reform
Texas has been recognized among the best in the nation at attracting new businesses and recruiting new medical personnel due to the state’s successful tort reforms. General Abbott has successfully defended legal challenges to Texas’s tort reform laws helping create a stable environment to attract new businesses and create new jobs."
This guy is not after Google to help the little man for certain. Actually, there is evil in Texas, and I might just have found a part of it.
Does Google manipulate results to thwart competitors and advance its own businesses? Some competitors to Google are concerned that the company lowers search results listings for certain firms and/or charging higher fees ads they place vs those of Google's partners.
Maybe. You said they have published whitepapers. If you had access to certain stats you could simulate an internet environment and see how pages ranked according to the best practices in those papers. If they match up, more or less, with what Google serves up you then have an indication they are implementing those best practices.
Harrison said that Abbott has asked Google for information about several companies, including: Foundem, an online shopping comparison site in Britain; SourceTool, which runs an e-commerce site catering to businesses; and MyTriggers, another shopping comparison site
Never heard of any of these sites. I Google shopping comparison, and I get the well known comparison sites I expect to see at the top. I do not get MyTriggers.
.co.uk domain suffix - Google doesn't like this as much. Also, this time there really aren't any merchant rankings. They do have a Google bash on their home page with a link to SearchNeutrality.org - a site they also own.
So I go to the MyTriggers site itself to check it out. At first, I didn't think they even had merchant site reviews. Then I realized they do, but may of the sites have not been reviewed yet. Only 2 reviews for Target? 12 for Amazon?
Whois search reveals the site was registered in 2005. Not bad, but if they have been around for 5 years I should have heard about them by now. Also, their domain registration reveals that they renew their domain every year. Google gives better ranking to sites that pay for many years at once, since that shows they owners have faith if their company. Basic SEO fail.
Quick investigation reveals that the company also owns ShopBig - one of those penny auction sites. I hate these sites and the way they operate. The MyTriggers site is hardcoded to show a big ad link to ShopBig on every page. Aren't they in fact doing the same thing they accuse Google of. They don't give other penny auction sites a chance to advertise there or appear on their search result rankings.
Let's pick on another site. TFA says that SourceTool is a e-commerce site catering to business, but the title on the home page says "SourceTool - A B2B Search Engine". If I Google B2B Search Engine, they are number 2 in the results. If I Google e-commerce for business they do not appear. The word commerce doesn't appear on their home page. So what are they? SEO Fail.
In the end, the site is a search engine for companies that sell to businesses. Since they have a medical category, and the company I work for is #1 in several categories for medical devices, I decide to see if they are listed. After waiting a full minute for the medical page to load, they are not. They don't even have the proper category for my company. Just to be sure I click on company profiles A-Z to see if I can find my company. It shows all companies starting with the #1. and a button for next page. No simple button to show companies that start with letter X. Do I have to click Next 50 times? They have a search box on this screen, but if I use it I get a 404 error.
I wasn't going to review Foundem at first since they are based in the UK and I don't live there. Google should be smart enough to lower their site on my search simply because that site applies less to me. Still I look anyway. They use the less popular
I think the real complaint from these companies is the fact that shopping.Google.com results are now always shown on the search results page if Google thinks you are searching for a product - Something Bing did first. This pretty much destroys the business model for many companies. If Google thinks I am trying to purchase something, should they send me to a site that can't sell me the product? Should they send me to another site where I have to do 4 more clicks to get to a list of merchants and prices for the product I am looking for. If Google guesses wrong, should they show me a list of shopping sites on the first page when I really want a product review? I think the way Google handles shopping results is the best way for me, and they are in the business of satisfying my needs. This is still search.
It seems that lately we've seen a lot more government types looking for something they can use against Google. I wonder if they're trying to pressure Google into "voluntarily" cooperating with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. No doubt Google's information gathering capabilities would be extremely useful to them.
When I google Google google.com is the first result, followed by 9 more Google sites! And on the right hand side of the screen is an ad saying "MAKE GOOGLE YOUR HOMEPAGE NOW YOU CODDYFOPPED WHELP!!" and on the right hand side are some links to even more Google products and services!!! And then in tiny little letters below everything is "oh yeah, here's a bunch of other search sites" and in even smaller letters (you have to magnify the screen to see it): "hackonlybitchesusebingcoughsneeze". Man, Google is so evil.
That's not off-topic, that's just an inconvenient truth.
I just Googled, "search" and Google was at number seven. Bing was at the top. Using "search engine" and Google isn't even on the first three pages (I got bored after that). So clearly, Google isn't exercising it's monopoly powers very well.
P.S. I would Google for "Google" but I didn't want to break the Internets.
.. I dont care whether the results are biased or not, as long as i find what i want. In fact, this is likely the view of any person not in the search engine market so for an attorney general who is meant to serve their state (the state being populated and controlled by those people), shows corruption at some part of the process
You can't use an Android phone without a GMail account http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/android/thread?tid=22aadb7bd265418a&hl=en.
The term for that is "tying arrangement" (http://www.answers.com/topic/tying-arrangement) and ... tying arrangements are regulated by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton (anti-trust) Act (15 U.S.C.A. 14)).
It really upsets me to see how popular it is for Attorney Generals to abuse their powers to feather their political beds. I suppose it was started by Elliot Spitzer's great success at the tactic. We need a way to check their powers.
Might the Citizens United decision point the way? In that decision, the justices said that corporations are people with respect to first amendment rights. What about fourth amendment rights about unreasonable search and seizure? It seems that one of the primary forms of government abuse these days is to demand that corporations cough up all sorts of information at the drop of a hat in support of a so-called "investigation."
Without fourth amendment rights, government orders, subpoenas, regulations, and statue laws are not required to be "reasonable."
It never occurred to anybody that someone USING Google wouldn't want results from a competitors page. Sure when I search Microsoft I want the Microsoft page and I know I'm gonna get it. More often though, I am happier with what search results I get with Google, if I wasn't I would switch search engines. This feels like suing Mcdonalds for only serving Mcdonalds food, obviously a big anti-trust deal there. *insert rolling of eyes*
No, you can't use Android without a GOOGLE account. They just automatically give you a GMail account with it.
Let's say Google does rank their own services higher. Google isn't the only search engine around and people are free to use others. Why does the legal system even enter into it? Don't like the way Google does rankings? Use one of the many alternatives! Google isn't even the default search engine on the default browser of the default OS, so who cares?
You must've missed http://www.careace.net/2010/05/25/samsung-will-support-yahoo-service-on-android-and-bada/
android phones without having a google account. *gasp* I know. its fucking shocking. Android, which is open source, can be rebuilt by anyone to use anybody's services. It isn't even a tying arrangement because the actual delivered OS doesn't come from Google. It comes from the handset makers and carriers and third parties. In order to qualify, Google would have to require the handset makers and carriers deliver Android with Google accounts, which they don't. They publish code and say "here you are. use it as you will."
Maybe I'm completely off here, but I'd say this is sort of the soft, short-bus version of government fighting for (or at least trying to advance) net neutrality. In this case, the prospective non-neutral area isn't ISP-based. (By extension, it's also not Telcos carrying on about their business rights, either -- which probably goes a very long way to explain why government officials might speak on behalf of the consumers.)
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
Google is not a search company, they are an advertising company.
When an on duty, in uniform, on the clock deputy guards a U-Haul when his wife backs it up to my house and helps to clean it out, then I get an audio recording of a participant not only admitting to it but taunting and bragging about it, then the sheriffs department calls it a "civil matter" I would say some monkey business was going on. I wrote Greg Abbott for help on the matter and the fact that a judge was obviously biased in the matter when issues surrounding this went to court. Greg Abbott told me to buzz off. Then when I tried to setup to pay my child support like I was supposed to his office refused to talk to me without a lawyer representing me.
So he's neglecting the people he's supposed to take care of but goes after Google. Why?
Google has money and I don't.
The wont talk to me without a lawyer bit? That's right, hire a lawyer to support the legal industrial complex.
Democrat, Republican, it doesn't really matter which one you elect, you're going to get a crooked bastard looking to move money through the machine who doesn't care about their job.
BTW - I wrote the governor on these issues. He told me to talk to Greg Abbott.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
a) Neither Android not gmail have dominant market share, not even close.
b) It's not true ... Android is open source so anybody is free to change that arrangement.
No sig today...
Ever wonder why you cannot buy Kellogg's Heartwise Cereal anymore? Thank the Texas Attorney General's office.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/03/garden/kellogg-files-slander-suit.html
I laughed at the lawsuit at the time because the claims were baseless. Soon I could no longer buy my favorite cereal.
I guess you've never used an Android phone, but after the G1 all Android phones (and later firmware) are fully usable without a Google account. What does require a Google account is using -- gasp! -- any of the Google services, such as their hosted marketplace. You're redefining "usable" (open, full functionality) to mean "fully featured" (open, full functionality, premium services). You are completely free to install non-GMail, non-GMaps, and non-GMarket apps on an Android phone which doesn't have an active Google account. No, you don't need to modify the OS as mentioned by another poster; the phone itself can install apps manually without marketplace assistance (easiest way is via adb install <pkg.apk>).
Pretty obvious if you look at the first page of a google search for any major keyword these days - http://changetheworld.me/google-now-requires-you-to-pay-to-appear-on-1st-page-of-some-search-results/
but I blame that on the voters who decided, shortsightedly, that there was probably no reason taxes should ever go up
California's fiscal problems are not due to low taxes. Nor are they due to not raising taxes. CA's fiscal problems can be traced to the 1990s when while CA's economy was roaring the state increased spending just as fast. When tax revenue dropped the state didn't drop spending too. Hell, look at the Taj Mahal of public schools. While teachers are being laid off LA spends more than half a billion dollars on a new school. And as TFA says, that's not the only school costing hundreds of millions of dollars in CA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I would say that it's easier to stop using Microsoft. There are numerous free and non-free alternatives. Google, however, has become the de-facto premiere search engine.
Really? It's easier to stop using Microsoft? How many people install their own OS? How many buy Macs? How many buy PCs with Linux preinstalled? I, and anyone else, can easily use another search engine. Of course the quality of results might not be good. While I use Google mostly, because it gives me the best result most of the tyme, I also use Altavista, About.com, Mooter, and Teoma, now Ask.com. I use them when their results are better. I don't even use gmail, instead I use Yahoo! mail.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I also noticed this: Always when I enter search terms in Google, I always get Google search results. Not a single time did I get results from Bing or Altavista. :-)
There have been tymes I googled something and got results from another search engine. For instance googling Monte Verde archaeology returns About's webpage on Monte Verde in 4th place. It used to be first place.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You're looking at this from a users perspective. I'm looking at it from a webmasters perspective.
If I don't use Google, I miss out on a significant portion of the traffic I enjoy now.
How many people install their own OS?
Well, I do. My daughters use Linux. The last 4 companies I've done work for..... A few people, at least.
How many buy Macs?
Well, I do. My wife uses a Mac.
How many buy PCs with Linux preinstalled?
I would say, enough to make it a venture that's profitable enough that manufacturers keep doing it.
"Lame" - Galaxar
have you ever seen a newspaper with ads for other newspapers? or a big supermarket that tells you the milk is cheaper next door? I really don't see the problem. people have a choice, and if they choose google, they should expect (and probably want) other google products to come on top.
You're looking at this from a users perspective. I'm looking at it from a webmasters perspective.
Even webmasters can choose what they use. Not only that but they can even choose to use more than one search engine and provider of advertising. Actually if I were an employer and my webmaster wasn't using more than one provider then I wouldn't want to pay their salary. Sure right now Google has the major market position but that is likely to change. For instance Microsoft handles Facebook's ads as well as other high traffic websites. Until the end of August Google handled News Corp's MySpace ads however in July News Corp was in discussion with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo for ad placement. Marketing is growing on other social networking websites as well, and Google doesn't do ads on all of them.
How many people install their own OS?
Well, I do. My daughters use Linux.
Did you install Linux for your daughters, or did they install it themselves?
How many buy Macs?
Well, I do. My wife uses a Mac.
So do I, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro. I also have 2 Linux PCs, both of the tower PCs under my desk have Linux installed. One is a really old one I ordered from Microway with two HDDs, one with NT4 and the other with Redhat Linux, so I can dualboot. The other I bought with Linspire preinstalled. I also plan to install Ubuntu on my Mac. But most people buy and use Windows PCs.
How many buy PCs with Linux preinstalled?
I would say, enough to make it a venture that's profitable enough that manufacturers keep doing it.
But how many people can easily switch to Linux? Without a Linux guru it is difficult for most people to switch. Distros like Linspire attempted but Ubuntu is doing successfully is making it easier but there's still a long way to go before Linux is as easy to use for normal people as Windows, heck even Macs, is to use.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I fail to see why Google's ads shouldn't be given priority over competitors in its search listings.
Just what is so wrong with Google's services appearing above other listings in their search results?
...if Google's own products are genuinely better?
I mean, not necessarily saying that all of them are better than the alternatives in all circumstances, but if Google's product X happens to truly be the best result for a given search, is it a problem if the results reflect that?