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.
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
Steve Jobs: "Damn! I ~knew~ we should have called our company 'Gapple' !"
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
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.
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.
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!
As always in cases like this or similar to this:
1. The majority don't care
2. The majority are stupid
3. The few people who care, don't matter numerical-wise
4. Biggest companies set the standard
5. People are used to [large company]
6. If you don't use [large company] - you will get flak when something goes wrong.
See also: Microsoft, IE6, Windows Vista...
Steve Jobs: "Damn! I ~knew~ we should have called our company 'Gapple' !"
"It's an apple infused with Gallium"
> 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?
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.
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.
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
You're an idiot. I'm not even going to start in on all the reasons you are completely wrong.
I'm not a "Linux fanatic," 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. And that surely isn't due to their stuff being better (or cheaper, in some cases).
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.
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)
[...] now, it's still not)... apk
You're an idiot. I'm not even going to start in on all the reasons you are completely wrong.
The part in bold is the only one you need to know.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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)).
Fair enough.
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!).
I can certainly agree here.
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.
Not really, tons of the drivers for Windows are terrible or nonexistent (esp. in the case of older hardware).
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)).
I think LDAP does this, iirc. I can't speak to whether it is easy to set up or not though.
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??
Why does it have to be fair?
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.
The majority of people (at least now) absolutely do not see a need to change from what they have preinstalled.
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
Sure, that's true enough as well--lots of software is made only for Windows. However, there are increasingly more alternatives for Linux that nullify these advantages.
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 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.
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.
Nope, he's right, you're an idiot. The MS products that are on top, largely are there due to anti-competitive/illegal practices where they were found to be in violation of the law (and found guilty in multiple court cases). But by then, the damage was done. The only product group that does not fit into that category is the xBox/xBox360 line. EVERY other product Microsoft has fits it.
Windows 95/NT-> squashed competition (Novell, OS/2, SunOS/Solaris, numerous others) with numerous anti-competitive acts
DOS -> added code to Win3.x to report unwarranted errors if non-MSDOS used... or code (in some versions) that would prevent Windows from running at all
Early Windows (1.x/2.x)->DeskView and numerous others killed in similar tactics
Disk Compression -> Stole code from Stac Electronics
Office -> created "compatibility issues" in the final release of Win95 (that weren't in the earlier betas) with WordPerfect/Lotus and others.
Internet Explorer -> that's been covered ad-infinitum here, so I wont even get into it.
Windows Phone -> trying to force licensing agreements on the likes of HTC, Motorola and others for non WP7 phones (ie: Android).
Linux -> threatening lawsuits over 200+ patents that Microsoft claims they own that Linux et al are infringing on (umm... which ones?)
Should I go on? Maybe I am getting senile, but I cannot think of a single product that won on merits besides the xBox line of consoles and games.
Guess that either (a) makes you an idiot, or (b) makes you Steve Balmer or one of his media guys trying to keep your job. So, which is it? (a) or (b)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
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.
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.