Slashdot Mirror
Google Faces EU Probe Over Doped Search Results
Barence writes "The EU has launched an investigation into whether Google is deliberately doctoring its search results to favour its own services. The search giant stands accused of artificially lowering the search ranking of competing price-comparison sites in organic and paid-for search results, in favour of Google Shopping. 'There is a growing chasm between the enduring public perception of Google's search results as comprehensive and impartial, and the reality that they are increasingly neither,' said Shivaun Raff, CEO of British price comparison site Foundem, which lodged the complaint with the EU. Google has denied any foul play. 'Those sites have complained and even sued us over the years, but in all cases there were compelling reasons why their sites were ranked poorly by our algorithms,' it claims."
...an old story? I'm pretty sure Google is on the line though.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
I shop online all of the time. I've never heard of this "foundem". Furthermore, the last two paragraphs are pretty telling:
Addressing Foundem's allegations specifically, Google said: "We built Google for users, not websites, and the nature of ranking is that some websites will be unhappy with where they rank. Those sites have complained and even sued us over the years, but in all cases there were compelling reasons why their sites were ranked poorly by our algorithms.
"For example, Foundem, one of the sites that has complained publicly and to the European Commission, duplicates 79% of its website content from other sites, and we have consistently informed webmasters that our algorithms disadvantage duplicate sites."
You're not ranked high because you're not relevant to the users' interest. 'Nuff said.
"Those sites have complained and even sued us over the years, but in all cases there were compelling reasons why their sites were ranked poorly by our algorithms,"
They didn't start with the letter G.
I'm pretty sure any company would have turned towards that in the end. I think the problem will be proving it. Since google know pretty much how their ranking algorithm works - I'm pretty sure they can design a site which always turns up top - without needing to 'cheat'.
I'm not sure who's side I'm on this time. I mean, it'd be stupid if (say) you google something on Bing and you don't get the Microsoft solution first. I think it'd be weird if you look up "Shopping" and google shopping is at the bottom.
I really hope Google wins this one. Google search results are spammed with enough useless "price comparison" and "vertical search" sites as it is, their results really don't need any more - especially not forced upon them by Google. It's reached the point where it's very difficult to find actual reviews for certain products or sites selling them via Googling already, because the "vertical search" sites don't care about actually providing good information. (If you read Google's response, the reason the company complaining got automatically downranked is because nearly all their content was duplicated - like many such sites, they offered absolutely nothing useful and were just sponging off their ability to draw people in by getting as high in the Google results as possible.)
"There is a growing chasm between the enduring public perception of Google's search results as comprehensive and impartial...
Impartiality Checklist
[ ] Do they make money doing it?
[ ] Do they support a political candidate, viewpoint, or party?
[ ] Is what they're doing taxable?
[ ] Do they claim to know the truth, as opposed to still searching for it?
Note: If you checked any of the boxes, you can be certain they are not impartial.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Anti-corporation sounds like a sound government policy to me. Or is it just anti-american corporations (microsoft, oracle, google) and pro-europe (opera). Hard to tell?
Now if the EU can just stop the Euro from collapsing, it would be pretty close to paradise. "Where liberty lives, there is my country." - Ben Franklin
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I thought you paid to be listed first... what's impartial about it to begin with?
Help me understand here - Is not this like saying, If I provide top10 song rankings and I put Spice girls song at no.2. EU does not like that and sues me to put her song at no 1.
I'm all in favor of impartial media, but is there some law in the EU that requires search engines to show impartial rankings?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7301299/Google-under-investigation-for-alleged-breach-of-EU-competition-rules.html
This is just more of the same from Microsoft when trying to compete.
Forced upon them by the EU, even.
Agreed - these price-comparison sites are almost universally leeches. They provide no added content, the contents are often out-of-date, and you can get the same functionality by just clicking on individual links in Google. I wish they would all go away. That said, I have never seen Google shopping come up in the results of a search for a product. I am always skipping over spammed results from other price comparison sites - not to mention eBay (I hate eBay). If Google is cheating, they surely are doing a lousy job of it :-)
According to one article, Foundem is a case study in SEO fail. Perhaps it's easier to sue than to fix your business concept.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Yes, if it were to happen in America, regardless if they were innocent or not, they wouldn't have even made it into court. When was the last time a giant had to face charges for something like that in the US?
Agreed - these price-comparison sites are almost universally leeches. They provide no added content, the contents are often out-of-date, and you can get the same functionality by just clicking on individual links in Google.
There are some useful ones: e.g. car insurance, electricity and ISP comparison sites. However, they generally spend a lot of money on advertising, so you go to them direct. They aren't lame sites that think Google owes them a living.
Why does Google have to do its search a certain way? It's provided with its own servers, so they can do whatever the hell they want. I guess Google needs to put a big disclaimer on their site, "This site's results are biased in favor of providing useful results for users, not your website. Get over it."
I'm not in favor of Google "weighting" their search results in favor of their own interests; however, where does it say they have to be impartial? A search engine is fundamentally a "weighting" engine, and what makes (made?) Google more successful is that the public (in general) agreed more with their method of weighting results and with other engines. If the quality of the results (as perceived by the users) falls off, then other search engines will become more popular.
This shouldn't even be an issue. Is there a law that says search engines must be impartial? This is their company and their algorithm. Who the fuck has the right to tell them if they want to optimize it to make all websites with the word google in them go up in rank?
If their search results stop giving useful and valid results someone else will build a new and better search engine. See the history of search engines as a reference.
Google is not a public utility, they are a for profit company.
As an avid user of Google Shopper (http://froogle.google.com), I honestly wish Google integrated it's results into searches for products. Being able to price compare *and* read reviews on one single page of results would be excellent.
Foundem is a case study in SEO fail
Sorry to say, but that article was written by a clueless moron who just argues that any price comparison site must fail at SEO, which a) is obviously wrong and b) would mean that Google Products would also never warrant a top position since all its content is as problematic as the author wants to make us believe Foundem's is.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
1) Google makes it explicitly clear that its services are being pushed to the top of the results - say a section labeled "Google services" on an off-white background, much like it does with sponsored results.
2) End users aren't bothered by this in the least, and Google profits go up another notch.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
If Google has a product that the user is searching for, you don't have to be a genius to realize that they're going to promote it in their search results. Is it anti-competitive? Probably. Does it make good business sense? Definitely. Is it a little bit evil? Maybe. I think the crux of the situation is that they're not demoting competing products (a search for "map quest" returns mapquest.com as the top result, Google maps is just above the wikipedia entry), but rather promoting their own products.
Now to fully address Foundem's complaint, a did a search for "shopping" on google.co.uk, which according to Mr.Raff, should place Foundem high in the results. The usual suspects were returned, most of them .co.uk versions of popular websites. Google's own shopping site wasn't on the first page, but rather the second, and Foundem was nowhere to be seen. Did Google demote Foundem out of anti-competitive desires? I think the more likely answer is that Google promoted their shopping site above what would (I suspect) be a normal page three or four result.
Couldn't their algorithm say something like IF name contains Google AND rank is no less than or equal to 5 THEN add one relevancy point?
But seriously a site no one has ever heard of is suing a giant company with lots of money? Jealous much?
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
> What search alternatives exist to the near-monopoly Google and Microsoft's Bing?
Just search for "search engine" in Google and look at the results. Whether any of the competition is good enough or better? That only you can decide.
It's a pity web directories such as the Open Directory Project have fallen by the wayside in the mind of the general public. (Alexa ranks dmoz at No. 460.) If a web directory had the same personal investment end users worldwide give Wikipedia it could provide a useful alternative to algorithm-based search engines. Although Wikipedia already is a web directory of sorts, with links to relevant sites at the end of articles, as well as numerous "list of" articles pointing to sites you might never encounter searching through Google.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Because different rules apply to de facto monopolies?
This shouldn't even be an issue. Is there a law that says search engines must be impartial?
It seems so, as there is an inquiry. Maybe you have heard of anti-trust regulation...
Who the fuck has the right to tell them if they want to optimize it to make all websites with the word google in them go up in rank?
RTFS! But mainly the European Commission, and some others.
You'd think the page rank of and *.google.com domain would have a pretty good page rank. Lots of links to it.
Oh, please, your ignorance is greater than mere words can describe. If you're an American your nationalist propaganda brainwashing has worked. Despite your own conceited beliefs the US is not an epitome of justice.
Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that the EU and its institutions takes complaints and prosecutes, naturally, primarily European companies, ignorant people such as yourself that have no knowledge of the relevant history, law or geopolitics, wax eternally on about the few instances of American-owned European businesses that fell foul of European competition laws. Nevermind the realities of the cases, the clearly illegal conduct, and abuses of monopolies.
A complaint to the European Union and its courts will only be decided on its merits alone, we follow the law to the letter, with no regards to the nationality of the owner of the European entity in question (Google's European branches). The primary goal of the EU and its laws is to facilitate trade between and within the member nations of the European Union with specifically no bias or preference for companies, people or goods of any nation. The EU already has to be perfectly impartial to avoid favoring any entity from any European Union member state.
You have no idea what you are talking about and how crucial it is for the EU courts that cases such as these are decided purely on the basis of law(s), in the interest of consumers and unhindered trade. Where Americans talk about legal protections for trade they focus on corporations, while Europeans focus on the consumers rights.
"Success breeds enemies" & that "trite saying" tends to summarize it imo.
Now that GOOGLE's doing so well, it only stands to reason that they'll be taken to court over "every little thing" because a LOT of big companies often "settle" whether they're right OR wrong (to avoid big court preceedings that get "dragged out" & cost TONS in legal fees (whether the attorneys or fleet of them even is on retainer, or not - there are costs above & beyond attorneys in courts of law is why I state that)).
E.G.-> Look at how McDonald's (iirc, it was Mickey D's) "laid down like a dog" on that lawsuit where the woman allegedly spilled supposedly SCALDING HOT COFFEE on her lap & burnt herself... hey, SHE did the spilling, but she STILL GOT PAID LARGE!
(That? That made NO sense to me, but McD's laid down like a dog & paid her... no fight @ all!)
APK
P.S.=> I mean, hey: The SAME STUFF happens to Microsoft too. Their success breeds enemies, and I had to side with Bill Gates when I saw him on T.V. in a speech he gave to the courts, which went along the lines of this regarding the antitrust suits they faced (etc.):
"I welcome Microsoft's competition, and especially if they can 'build a better mousetrap'"
Which is what competition is, all about, after all... MS wouldn't be "on top" if their stuff outright stunk & didn't work, after all. If MacOS X or Linux (or whatever) can do whatever MS does for better & cheaper, it ought to be winning & the most used (but for now, it's still not)... apk
Yes, Norway is a part of the European Economic Area, the inner market of the EU, due to the Free Trade Agreement between our nations. However we are very much not members of the EU, strongly opposed in fact, and we have no influence, representation, power or voting rights. We also pay dearly for access to the EU's market to the number of millions of Euros each year.
The fact that Opera and Mozilla's complaints were taken into consideration was purely a matter of law.
Sorry to say, but that article was written by a clueless moron who just argues that any price comparison site must fail at SEO, which a) is obviously wrong and b) would mean that Google Products would also never warrant a top position since all its content is as problematic as the author wants to make us believe Foundem's is.
Google Products is actually much better. Compare this Foundem search and the per-product pages with Google Product and its per-product pages. The Google pages offer more useful information up-front, avoid redundant duplication, and are generally better designed.
Even this probably wouldn't warrant a top position for Google Products on most searches, and it doesn't generally get one. What Google does is use it to supplement its search results - if you make a search where Google thinks the Products search results are useful, it displays them as well as the generic web search results. This makes sense - Google wants to offer the best web search results it can, and sometimes that means presenting them in the Google Product format.
Note that Bing does exactly the same thing with ciao.co.uk, which Microsoft also owns and which was one of the other complainants. Except that Microsoft totally screwed this up - the ciao.co.uk pages lack useful information like prices and website names, making them less useful than generic internet search!
It's no wonder that Bing and ciao.co.uk have a much smaller marketshare than Google - they're useless.
Yes, it's much better to bail out the HUGE banks and financial institutions that screwed up your financial system in the first place. Nevermind the 200 minor American banks that have had to close...
With Great Power Comes Great Responsiblity.
The key complaint is that Google has now become so powerful and leading that consumers believe and trust it. The reality is that Google now has such a huge impact that it is starting to effect markets, and businesses, as such it is in the interest of European consumers that the company be regulated.
We have a number of consumer protection laws that most Americans have not heard of, such as requiring that all products sold with subscriptions must include the full and total price including all fees and such.
Google Products is actually much better. Compare this Foundem search and the per-product pages with Google Product and its per-product pages. The Google pages offer more useful information up-front, avoid redundant duplication, and are generally better designed.
Your Google link didn't work. Yes, the product info on Google is better, but Foundem has a) better result filtering, b) a more user-oriented default sorting by price (Google sorts by "Relevance", which is silly on a per-product page and reeks of favoritism i.e. paid results first), c) pounds and not USD like Google, d) a price history, e) merchants from the UK as expected from a .co.uk site while Google has US merchants
It's no wonder that Bing and ciao.co.uk have a much smaller marketshare than Google - they're useless.
I would have no issues with it if I could believe that to be the reason, but with the facts known at this point I can't.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I didn't read TFA, but WTF is a search ranking? Is it some universal standard governed by laws and some ISO committee? I was always under the impression that it was an arbitrary number computed by the search engine to order results. I've also always assumed that the search ranking value was a function of multiple factors including the "how much do we want to see this at the top of the list" value.
"You're an idiot. I'm not even going to start in on all the reasons you are completely wrong." - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @11:49AM (#34390132)
All you've done is call me a name (ad hominem attack) rather than attacking the point I made that you didn't like: I'd actually be willing to listen to your "so-called points" in rebuttal (but you haven't offered any), & discuss them... but, you're avoiding that!
What I do know, is that Microsoft has the largest market share in terms of how often it is used... this does tend to point to the fact that others are using it, and feel it is "better" (for whatever that means, because for SOME things? Windows is overall better, & for others (costing comes into play here w/ Linux), Linux presents a better bargain (hard to beat "FREE" & it's a great server OS system for zero-dollars down) & for others, MacOS X fits the bill better (multimedia used to be a BIG one here)).
APK
P.S.=> If you're going to be a "Linux fanatic", then use facts. It might surprise you that I like both MacOS X &/or Linux (KUbuntu 10.10 w/ KDE 4.5.3 64-bit) & use the latter, daily, even @ home (alongside Windows 7 64-bit)... I have to, it's the line of work I have chosen & often do (both programming &/or network administration + security), so I have to know a good amount on them all, to make them interoperate, and how to secure them + code on them... apk
Your Google link didn't work. Yes, the product info on Google is better, but Foundem has a) better result filtering,
Yeah, it's interesting that Google hasn't enabled its support for narrowing down your selection on that page. On some of the other Google Products pages I've looked at, the results-narrowing feature is better than on many actual shopping sites. (I'm guessing there aren't enough distinct results for them to bother or something.)
b) a more user-oriented default sorting by price (Google sorts by "Relevance", which is silly on a per-product page and reeks of favoritism i.e. paid results first),
That actually struck me as quite clever. The first results on Google by relevance are from sellers like Dabs and Amazon, which have a very good reputation over here. On the other hand, the top Foundem results include companies I'd be reluctant to do business with. No idea how Google managed that.
c) pounds and not USD like Google, d) a price history, e) merchants from the UK as expected from a .co.uk site while Google has US merchants
I get merchants from the UK and all the prices are in GBP. Something odd must be going on for you.
"I'm not a "Linux fanatic,"" - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:17PM (#34390566)
You sounded it, because you only went after the point I made in my init. post that had "bill gates" &/or "microsoft" in it (& from having been around here for around 8 yrs. total time now, that type of reply is usually the province of *NIX fanatics (for lack of a better term)).
---
"but I think it is simple absurd for you to suggest that Microsoft's continued success is due to anything other than them being preinstalled on pretty much every computer ever." - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:17PM (#34390566)
Actually, I think it's due to the fact they are preinstalled, AND, that in some things, MS does do a better job. A case in point, is gaming (and what is one of the things "normal end-users" (for lack of a better expression here) love?? Games!).
Drivers for hardware also tend to be another 'advantage' MS enjoys... very high quality ones, because the hardware makers know that devs need to be paid to write these, & that hardware makes them monies... so, Windows gets that type of development generally & of higher init. quality, first.
MS also has "volume mgt. tools" like ActiveDirectory (AD) &/or Group Policies (alongside typical logon scripts & .reg file merges etc./et al) that make managing a large LAN/WAN very simple... I don't believe Linux for example, has anything QUITE as simple & easy to use (tons of settings, yes, but easy enough to setup & create policies for, & to have them propogate across a LAN/WAN by groups &/or users level settings, into the machine level)).
The closest I know of to that combination, in say, Linux? SUSE & Novell addons you have to pay for to get that... I could be "off" here, or lack other information on other alternatives/analogs Linux may have going for it, but that's one I know of. Thing is though, from what I understand?? You have to PAY for it/license it.
Feel free to correct me, OR, inform me on other alternatives to AD + Group Policies.
---
"And that surely isn't due to their stuff being better (or cheaper, in some cases)." - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:17PM (#34390566)
Well, Linux pursues "seize the youth/seize the future" as much as MS does, I know, I see it in academia (I am nearly continually educating since 1994 in fact, on top of working in this field (you have to imo))...
Linux also pursues the "freeware" concept of "no money down", which is an INCREDIBLY HARD PRICE-POINT to out-compete... is this "fair", vs. software that costs money??
It actually doesn't make sense to me, unless you figure that Windows IS "so much better" at various things that people like it better (like gaming) or, don't see a need to change.
APK
P.S.=> MS is also so "out there' & widely used, that IF you're looking for work? Well, MOST of the jobs deal in "knowledge of Windows" or Office, or MS dev tools from what I see in the 'want ads' also... apk
The first results on Google by relevance are from sellers like Dabs and Amazon, which have a very good reputation over here. On the other hand, the top Foundem results include companies I'd be reluctant to do business with. No idea how Google managed that.
Amazon will be paying through the associates program, whether dabs is paying or not I don't know, but it seems likely. The question is, does it say anywhere on Google that those companies are "relevant" because they are known to be more reputable, or does it say nothing because there are factors involved that would not seem to be objective?
Something odd must be going on for you.
I just clicked on your links. I am not located in the UK though (and not in the US either).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Why wouldn't Google push their own products to the front of search results? Are they barred from doing what we would expect from every other company in the world to do? Why is this investigated? Why does anyone consider this illegal, amoral, or wrong in any way? They can't promote their own products on their own website - Why the hell not?
They are not a nonprofit impartialsearch.org, they're not the government shoving this down our throats, they're a large corporation that is completely optional to use. There is no reason to expect their own products not to be first in every related search. There are Google logos on every page - it's not deceptive, you know who is providing this information. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this in any way, shape or form. It's companies with crappy products that lose money politicking/suing Google because they have money - That is the total sum of these stories. There's no rights violations, illegal activities or sketchy dealings here, just unmitigated greed and a failed political/legal system.
If Google didn't do this, if you searched for "Email" on Google and the first result was Hotmail, everyone would think they're complete idiots - employees, users, advertisers and competitors.
This sentence no verb.
If someone came up with a search engine that was significantly better than Google, no amount of pre-installed search lock-in could hold them back. Just like Google started way back when, the new search engine would start by attracting the digerati who actually do know how to type in a URL, and it would gradually seep into the consciousness of the computer-illiterate public. The tricky part is to come up with a new search engine that's better than Google, because lots of smart folks at Google are working at that very thing, all the time.
This has already been covered on Slashdot. Google hard-codes its own services to appear as the top search result for specific search queries. Marissa Mayers even admitted they were doing it for Google Finance, and the article demonstrates that it's occurring for other services too.
I'm noticing a growing divide between Slashdot and the world outside Slashdot when it comes to coverage of Google, which is creating an inaccurate worldview for Slashdot readers who only get their tech news from commentators here. For example, the Google Street View data collection was a huge controversy that is being investigated around the world, but on Slashdot, it was treated as a benign "accident" that was the fault of the people running the WiFi networks. In the last article, people defended Google's hard-coded search results and totally ignored that Google claimed their search results were algorithmically objective when questioned by antitrust investigators. And of course, Eric Schmidt's infamous statement that only criminals care about privacy seems to have been forgotten or ignored.
There's obviously a massive bias toward Google that has developed over the years which is clouding legitimate criticism of this now-massive company. Behavior that would have caused an uproar if it was another company like Microsoft is dismissed because it's Google. I think it's due to a combination of three things:
The most amusing factor is that if roles were changed, popular opinion around here would be almost completely different. If this was Microsoft and Bing, nobody would be defending any of this. People would cite this EU probe as another example of Microsoft being "evil" (one of the most ridiculous terms to enter the lexicon of technical communities). Because it's Google, fans rush to the defense of the company and ignore facts and history.
this will end with the EU forcing Google to fully expose their search algorithms. Mainly for being a dominant US company*, if for no other reason.
* - not named Apple of course, which is exempt from mere human regulation.
Seriously folks, Google's search results are a product of Google and are subject to their whim. They may provide mostly fair results, but does anyone seriously think that any search engine has perfectly fair results?
I don't see why they are obligated at all to treat all websites equally.
Infact, I can't think of a single search engine that does treat all sites equal due to "adwords" and other such paid for advertising. Oh, I know, they're "labeled" as ads; Pffft, my grandma doesn't know that; She can't be convinced that the sponsored links aren't the top (and therefore "best") results. Strangely enough, she actually gets what she was searching for.
Screw "fair" results. Pure algorithmic results can and have been abused by link-farms. Google and other search engines manually de-rank link farms. I have personally reported such link-bait and watched them disappear from results the next day. BLAM, there goes your "pure algorithmic results".
Even if Google is being fair in this instance, its best to search multiple engines.
If only there was some service that allowed me to search multiple engines at once.
You would think that someone would create a Firefox plugin that does this...
Seriously, this is a non issue.
"Not really, tons of the drivers for Windows are terrible or nonexistent (esp. in the case of older hardware)." - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:53PM (#34391214)
My experience here has been different with some examples below:
E.G. #1 -> NVidia cards (big fan of theirs here, but I have used ATI/AMD cards too) - I know that NVidia builds FIRST for Windows (because of what you agreed on, that Windows has more games etc.)... this IS NVidia's "bread & butter" (along with the graphics workstation market, which *NIX's used to "own" going way, Way, WAY back to the days of Silicon Graphics' workstations etc.).
MS does a decent job in my experience thusfar, of housing an INCREDIBLE #'s of "native drivers" for equipment, especially "older/legacy" stuff - it MAY not be as "fully functional" as the OEM's stuff (NVidia's still an example here), but they work.
E.G.#2 -> I have an older HP scanner here, I rarely use it, but when I "hook it up"? Windows of all forms down to Windows 2000 have driver support for it, & it works picking up the equipment.
Now, granted: "1st round drivers just out of beta" usually DO have problems, but in the case of graphics cards? ATI was KNOWN FIRST for that, but they "cleaned their act up" & imo, around the time of the ATI 9800 series especially (when I owned/used ATI)...
---
"I think LDAP does this, iirc. I can't speak to whether it is easy to set up or not though." - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:53PM (#34391214)
Other things LEVERAGE "Lightweight Directory Access Protocal (LDAP)", but it's not really a "product", it's more of an API & toolset, sort of like RPC is over TCP/IP really - a generic term: BUT, it is a "Directory Service" of sorts... thing is though?
I had a discussion about this w/ my nephew this week (3rd yr. MIS/CIS & Security student @ RIT), & he was unable to tell me anything that was easier to setup, use, & mass migrate than AD + Group Policies either (for Linux)!
Now, you CAN "get a lot done" with *NIX's via PERL scripts or Shell Scripting (@ LOGON at least), just as you can with Windows Batch Files &/or PowerShell scripting (or even PERL)... but, it's not quite as SIMPLE as doing Active Directory + Group Policies (even though they have TONS of settings, this is just a matter of setting up a test workstation for a particular group/dept.'s needs, testing the apps they use, & then making std. settings for said group & its users... pretty simple, & SIMPLE? Well, imo?? It's good!)
---
"Why does it have to be fair?" - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:53PM (#34391214)
Aha, but the *NIX crew is always saying "Windows = EVIL" & "Windows is a monopoly" and "Windows comes preinstalled" & "Windows uses their money to stay #1"... with all that, you make an INTERESTING point:
NOTHING IN LIFE IS FAIR (not much @ least) - if you have the power, your biggest fear is losing that power... that goes all the way from the individual to the corporate body level... human nature.
What's that saying? Oh yes - "ALL IS FAIR in LOVE & WAR" (amend that & add "BUSINESS" to that group, lol!)
---
"The majority of people (at least now) absolutely do not see a need to change from what they have preinstalled." - by SirThe (1927532) on Tuesday November 30, @12:53PM (#34391214)
Right - NOW? Now, you're hitting on another point & one I think LINUX has an opportunity to "capitalize" on... times ARE HARD/TOUGH now... & what appeals to folks "low on their dough"?? Freebies do.
Now is the time that LINUX will make MORE "INROADS" into businesses at the server level due to low costing, and possibly into homes as well (due to students picking up on it now more than ever - they're a classic case of "low on dough" because a student's life, a full time student, is USUALLY
I don't buy google is a monopoly. They have MANY competitors in the market and they are not employing any tactics to drive those companies out except by providing better results.
Any programmer with smarts and a server can compete with google and win (providing they are smart enough to develop a better algorithm).
This whole thing is silly and a waste of time.
Is there a law that says search engines must be impartial?
No, but there are laws that can probably be invoked when someone claims to be impartial and isn't ...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
How dare they provide a free service, that doesn't do exactly what I want!
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Isn't the fact they wrote a algorithm to rate the content of websites proving they are not impartial?
Obviously they like different types of content better. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to filter out the crap.
Yes in the beginning users had options, now Google has massive market share and not many alternatives out there. Users are locked in and Google is expanding into new verticals highlighted by recent moves into Fashion, and Travel (amongst others). When growth in display ads are not meeting quotas, Google has to look into taking over new markets and easy to reach search verticals. Makes it very dangerous for freedom of information if Google is also plugging its own products.
www.newviewmedia.com
Competition law.
The government.
Sorry, I don't think for-profit corporations are exempt from the law. And you have a very naive view of market economics.
Exactly. I would pay for a tool that would eliminate these sites from search returns -- they make search much harder.
If any country launches any kind of investigation into any American company they are anti-American anti-business communist marxist fascist socialists!
They are not a monopoly in any way, shape or form. There are dozens of competitors that are available for every single one of Google's products. They have created no barrier to entry into any of their markets. There is no reason anyone needs to use any of their products, and you can never use a Google product once in your life and it will not change your on- or off-line activities at all.
You don't need it, there's dozens of competitors widely available for every one of it's products, and no one is forced to use Google or to do business with Google. There are exactly zero elements of a monopoly. They're just popular, and jealousy abounds in the corporate world.
This sentence no verb.
... try the following experiment.
Think of a book. An old book, one that's well known and in the public domain, and preferably on your bookshelf. Open a Google search page. Now open the book at random and type in a long phrase, in quotes - long enough that there should only be one reasonable match:
For instance: "I sometimes used to wonder whether it was possible she washed herself with a nutmeg-grater instead of soap" - from Charles Dickens' 'Great Expectations'
Now click Search. Note where the Google Books result is, and note where the Project Gutenberg result appears.
If you wanted to read that book, which of these would you rather have? - a formatted HTML page containing the entire text, or a dodgy-quality scan of a very old printed book (with, usually, random pages redacted)?
Hooray. It's about time!
"Do no evil"? It should be the "embodiment of all that is evil"
Read what other investigators have reported...
http://www.addmine.com/
So competition law says all companies that provide search results must do it in some special government mandated criteria?
They provide a service where they decide what websites are useful based on a term typed in by a user. Is it a surprise they would weight their own products better then people who know nothing about their weighting system?
It is bullshit and they should be left alone. Nothing about this is hurting competition from other search providers. It's not like they are the only game in town and are forcing other players out of the market.
What they are doing is 100% ok with me. They are not except from the law, but I can't for the life of me see how they are breaking a law.