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."
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
Google's search engine thinks links to Google-related stuff is more relevant? HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!!
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--
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.)
More importantly he is a paid consultant for Microsoft.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the article. Its stupid. Seriously.
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.