Slashdot Mirror


Hard-Coded Bias In Google Search Results?

bonch writes "Technology consultant Benjamin Edelman has developed a methodology for determining the existence of a hard-coded bias in Google's search engine which places Google's services at the top of the results page. Searching for a stock ticker places Google Finance at the top along with a price chart, but adding a comma to the end of the query removes the Google link completely. Other variations, such as 'a sore throat' instead of 'sore throat,' removes Google Health from its top position. Queries in other categories provide links to not only Google services but also their preferred partners. Though Google claims it does not bias its results, Edelman cites a 2007 admission from Google's Marissa Mayers that they placed Google Finance at the top of the results page, calling it 'only fair' because they made the search engine. Edelman notes that Google cites its use of unbiased algorithms to dismiss antitrust scrutiny, and he recalls the DOJ's intervention in airlines providing favorable results for their own flights in customer reservation systems they owned."

24 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. I am not sure whether this is right or wrong by MaxOfS2D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I believe it'd be better if their own services didn't display as a result and more as a "hey look your favorite search engine has something for that" kind of thing

  2. No Way!! by revlayle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google's search engine thinks links to Google-related stuff is more relevant? HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!!

    1. Re:No Way!! by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 3, Interesting

      because god forbid you get high traffic without google. *rolls eyes*

      Seriously: you completely omitted the "if I make awesome website A, and advertise it on google."
      you're claiming that your website is awesome: but people are not going TO your site, people are going to your site because it was linked somewhere else. how is that unfair? you're using their name to get free advertising for your domain name essentially, and you wonder why somebody would take your "trade secret" and use it themselves?

      sorry: I don't see how a site that's "the most popular" of anything can't get direct traffic.

      Google seems to get a hell of a lot of direct traffic. :P

    2. Re:No Way!! by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fact: Google expanded rapidly also because they claim that every website is equal, you all have a chance just make a good website.

      I don't recall Google ever suggesting that every Web site is equal. In fact, the whole point of the PageRank algorithm is that every site is not equal, and most people are going to want to go to the site that everybody else goes to. This puts an automatic bias toward established players -- if someone else has the best XYZ site today, and you start a "good" XYZ site, you have very little chance of bumping the other guy's site out of first place. Your site will have to be significantly better than the other guy's site, which is kind of how it works in real life, most of the time.

      As far as competing directly with Google, Google's services are largely information-based. The weather, medical advice, stock prices ... these are the kind of things a reference librarian could point you to, which are arguably the sort of things that a good information search engine should provide. If all your site is providing is factoids that can be screen scraped from someone else's site (like the National Weather Service), then you're doing it wrong, and you shouldn't expect to get top ranking on Google anyway.

      And it's worth noting that if I go to Google.com, type in "cancer" and click "I'm Feeling Lucky," the page that comes up is ... the American Cancer Society. Not Google Health. If I do the same for "sore throat" I get MedicineNet.com. If I do it for "AAPL" I get Yahoo Finance (no joke, try it).

      On the other hand, people who specifically ask for a page of search results from a specific search engine shouldn't be surprised if the search engine tries to offer information instead of just URLs. It's just part of the ongoing evolution of what a search engine can/should be.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  3. weird by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I search goog, in google I get a link to google finance and then in the line right under it yahoo finance, MSN money, CNN money, Daily finance and Reuters. So what exactly is the problem? It seems like perhaps someones just nitpicking.

    1. Re:weird by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it is quite clear that that isn't a search result, but rather some info at the top of the page.

      The first actual algorithmic search result for AAPL for example is Yahoo Finance (1st two results), then Google Finance, then Wall Street Journal.

      I'm in the UK so uk.finance.yahoo.com is first, then finance.yahoo.com. If you are searching in the US, then probably it doesn't show uk.finance.yahoo.com at all or it is much futher down the page along with the likes of sg.finance.yahoo.com.

    2. Re:weird by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Informative

      When I search goog, in google I get a link to google finance and then in the line right under it yahoo finance, MSN money, CNN money, Daily finance and Reuters. So what exactly is the problem? It seems like perhaps someones just nitpicking.

      Someone seems to think they've "discovered" Google secretly "manipulating" search results when all they've done is "discover" a feature that Google is quite open about that certain search results get a special result which is not a product of the normal web-search put at the top.

      Google has for quite some time been building in features that attempt to recognize the special meaning of search terms, and will respond to searches that match one of the mechanisms they have for potential meaning with a special result.

      This is just as algorithmic as regular web search, but is a result of a term triggering a special algorithm (either a stock ticker symbol, which gives a special result that presents Google Finance info with links to other financial information sources, a formula that can be processed by Google Calculator in which case the calculator result appears before the normal web search results, etc.)

    3. Re:weird by gmack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the same thing that gives me UPS as the first link if I search for a UPS tracking number.

    4. Re:weird by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only that, but I get the exact same feature with a graph and a link to finance.yahoo.com when I search for GOOG on yahoo and a bing.com/finance link when I search for GOOG on bing.

      omg they're all biased!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:weird by VTI9600 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).

      The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons. This article, however, makes a logical, empirically supported argument for why Google *should* be subject to such scrutiny; because it is, in fact, engaging in the sorts of activities that anti-trust laws are meant to regulate. Namely, that it is using using its dominance in the search engine market to stifle competition in other areas.

      This is not "nitpicking", as the GP suggests. This is about the flow of global commerce (and the billions of real dollars associated) being unfairly diverted by one company through the seemingly innocuous practice of reordering search results. The question is not about whether or not Google is engaging in this behavior, but is instead about the ethical implications of doing so. It's a question of the point at which service to the public interest overrides Google's right to profit from its proprietary technology.

      When starting a debate over such an important topic, it's necessary to first perform a thorough investigation to reveal the facts of the case, even if most people would consider the results to be obvious. That's what this article does.

    6. Re:weird by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent "woosh" for completely missing the point of the article (which he probably didn't read).

      Read the article. Its stupid. Seriously.

      The point is that Google has said many times that it should be immune to anti-trust scrutiny because its search results are unbiased, among other reasons.

      Sure, and if you want to make an argument that their actively promoted, publicly announced, documented Universal Search feature is inconsistent with those statements, there may be a legitimate argument to be made about that.

      OTOH, most of TFA was an attempt to "prove" that Google was doing something secret and underhanded by pretending that Universal Search wasn't a publicly disclosed, widely promoted, well-documented feature and pretending to "discover" the feature.

      It's completely intellectually dishonest.

  4. Stupid Article by bradgoodman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That would be like me calling up my local lawnmower store looking for a lawnmower - and getting angry that they recommended I by a lawnmower that they sold, and I should buy it from them!

    If you don't like it...call a different lawnmower store!

    1. Re:Stupid Article by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't bias the results. If you look at any of the searches mentioned in the article yes the Google thing appears at the top, but it is fairly obvious it's not a web search result.

      If Google sees a normal search go through that their engine thinks may be better served by running in one of their other tools, it does that and offers a small preview at the top of the page, then starts the results below. It does not change the results themselves though, and I can not see anyone confusing those previews for search results. Also, as noted where they link to their own services they also link to the same information at other sites.

      No bias in the search itself, no real story, just someone who wanted to whine.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  5. Not Search Results by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did anyone read the article?

    The search results for 'acne' vs 'acne,' were exactly the same. The difference was where the search started.

    With the comma, the search results started immediately. Without the comma, the search results started after a 'Value-Added' section at the top of the page.

    This doesn't show a problem with Google's search engine or algorithm, it shows that in addition to the search feature, Google also has a 'Decision Engine' (to steal a phrase)...or whatever that Wolfram Alpha crap said about itself.

    This is exactly the same thing as the conversion/arithmetic functions that Google has. Is it Anti-trust for Google to automatically show you the "centimeters to inches" conversion instead of simply linking to another page that has a converter app?

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
  6. What? by Superken7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article is inaccurate. Google does not bias search results, the results which appear on top aren't regular search results, they are more like services.

    If I search for "the social network" as the article provides as proof of bias, I am happy to see a service presenting me with additional info which is certainly NOT a search result, but rather dynamically generated content. No search result can provide that, only google can because after all its their site.

    Besides, how awful would it be to have that special "generated" information not showing up first?? why would it be displayed in the 3rd, 4th, 6th position? It makes no sense! Because it ISN'T a web search result. It would also be an awful user experience.

    If I wasn't new here I would ask: "Why is this even news in slashdot land?" :P

  7. "email" has hotmail as top result by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a difference between website search result and inline information from other google services.

    The first search result for GOOG yahoo finance, but the first thing shown, before the search results, is google's finance data (as if you were searching via google finance).

    "World map", "map of the usa", "shopping", no top places for google.

    "6*9" gives "54", but no webpage results... OMG HAX

  8. TFA is F stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The things this moron is complaining about are not the "search results". Those are Google's helpful subject-based results. Like when I google "2+2", it helpfully returns 4. (OMG! Google is biased toward 4!) Whether adding helpful subject-based information that I didn't explicitly ask for is really helpful might be something to think about, but it has no bearing on any purported bias in the search results themselves.

  9. Yawn. by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On Google, Yahoo, Bing, and even WolframAlpha the "top link" for stock quotes is actually a widget that shows current stock info. Google's widget is the only one of the four that has links to all their competitors' finance sites.

    The same is true of health searches, travel searches, you name it... Google's widgets give you choices, the rest shuffle you to their sponsored site.

    Mod article troll.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  10. not standard search results by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Informative

    they only do this with search results that "break out" with more than the standard web snippet, as a user this means that you can usually type your query for any google service (a map location, etc.) into the regular google input rather than first navigating to the relevant subdomain. i find this very helpful if i am doing a series of things, such as looking up information about something local to me finding the website, then using that to pull up a map from google.

    they are not messing with search results order, they are putting a breakout at the top of the results when your query hits potentially relevant results on one of their other functions.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  11. Re:The one that annoys me... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comrade, are you suggesting that you know better than Google? Please remain where you are, and someone will be there shortly to assist you to a re-education center.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  12. I just searched for a stock ticker by Flipao · · Score: 3, Informative

    First result was MSN money.

    Benjamin Edelman is a troll.

    1. Re:I just searched for a stock ticker by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Benjamin Edelman is a troll.

      More importantly he is a paid consultant for Microsoft.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. More of what's going on here. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a lot going on here.

    First, the "comma" thing strongly affects Google Suggest, which drives Google Instant. It also affects Google Web Search, but not as strongly. Google Suggest, which comes up with those alternatives for Instant, isn't driven by Google PageRank; it's driven by Google Trends. Or rather, it used to be; it's not as strongly trend-driven as it was a few months ago. That's really a side issue.

    Then there are the special-purpose subengines - stocks, health, celebrities, weather, sports, travel, etc. That was actually a Yahoo innovation. Yahoo introduced that in early 2008, with about fifty subengines, and for six months, their search was more on topic than Google's. Few noticed. (I found out about it at a talk by a Yahoo VP.) Then Google copied that idea, and now every major search engine has it. Some of the subengines won't fire with a trailing comma present. The subengines are what the article author is talking about as "hard-coded bias".

    Subengines have been around since 2008. What's changing is that some of them now actually sell something. The "weather" and "stocks" subengines don't try to sell anything. The "travel" subengine is different. Try "flight from london to new york". Google has partners ready to sell you tickets. There's a "products" subengine. "dvd player" gets Google results for brands, stores, and types, directing you to Google partners. For neither travel nor products are these entries identified as advertisements.

    This is where Google is pushing the line between search results and paid ads. This previously got them into trouble with the Federal Trade Commission back in 2002. Now it's more subtle, but it's back.

  14. Wow, I found something even more blatant by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

    Check this out... I search for "bing", and what do I get? A big Google link to the left of the search box. It's even above the search results, in special colors and everything. Talk about biasing the results in favor of Google services! Even worse, the tile bar... TITLE BAR of the window says "Google Search", even though I searched for Bing! The nerve of these people. The DOJ should come down HARD on them for this clear monopoly abuse.