Google Accused of "Cooking" Search Results and Charging MSFT Too Much

A reader writes "Google is being scrutinized by the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee for supposedly 'cooking' their search results. In an independent study comparing search results for products, Google Shopping consistently ranked 3rd. Eric Scmidt denied these accusations at a Senate hearing Wednesday." On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.

Comments

Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[zbobet2012]

Where the competition will do literally anything, including tipping the ears of politicians with insanely expensive lobbyist to run you through the mud.

Re:Welcome Google, to the big boy leagues

[MHolmesIV]

So... Uh... Google currently outstrips all other tech companies in PAC contributions (money raised from employees for the purposes of lobbying). I suspect they've been in the "big boy leagues" for a while now.

How can you not "cook"?

[Anonymous Coward]

All search algorithms are "Cooking" results. There is no God given search result set for any query. Microsoft is no saint when it comes to discriminatory pricing.

Senate should do something useful, such as looking into Troy Davis fiasco and the general and routine miscarriage of justice, and Microsoft should just keep their moth shut.

Re:Google bla bla bla

[mfh]

Meanwhile we're still at war... with ourselves, it seems

You know this certainly adds a new dimension to the phrase, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

The point is that when the USA is a continually devolving government that stands out by how often they trounce the rights and freedoms of the people they are corruptly guarding, well it certainly begs the question: when are they going to crumble from their own weight and stupidity?

Nobody shed a tear for the dinosaurs. Nobody will shed a tear for humanity.

What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[LWolenczak]

I'd hate to say this, but company $A having an algorithm that might be tuned however they damn well please does not constitute cooking... unless, there is a master defined algorithm that every search provider must follow. Yes... I can see the goose-stepping algorithm enforcement brigades now.

Now, are we going to start with the "In Soviet America Jokes", or are we going to just define the algorithm Führer and get over with it?

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[brusk]

Your definition of cooking is not the only, or even most, reasonable one. Sure, a search company can devise whatever algorithm it wants, but I think people have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect a baseline of impartiality in results from Google. If we define "cooking" against that expectation, it could include any tweaking that biases for or against certain pages because of Google's other interests. Ranking their own services higher in the results than where they would appear if a single algorithm were applied across the board would then be "cooking."

The question of what to do about this is a separate one. I might, for example, decide that the best course of action is to publicize Google's actions so that users of their search will be aware of this bias. There's no need to leap from pointing the practice out to legislating a master algorithm.

Re:What you call optimize, they call cooking?

[quickgold192]

I thought the same thing - I expect to see Google shopping results third in product searches just like I expect to see Google image results about 3rd in concrete-noun searches. It's another very specific Google search that's integrated into Google web search. What boggles me is that Scmidt denies it like it's illegal or something. Like you said - it's not "cooking" results. It's integrating services. (Of course, and it's true, "integrating services" has been illegal since the 90s, apparently. Ask Gates about that one.)

No. this is not accurate

[poetmatt]

Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.

When you search for a microsoft KB article on bing, do you complain that it showed up ahead of other relevant results? no.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[brusk]

Search is completely impossible to not have a bias. If it did so, it wouldn't be a search, it'd be a table of contents and also completely useless as a search. If they rank their own shit higher, well, that's their choice.

Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[RoFLKOPTr]

Of course there's no purely objective search. But if Company A builds into their algorithm that their own pages will always appear among the first five results, for example, it seems perfectly sensible for a Company B to point that fact out and say "We never do that. We rank all pages on the basis of a formula that does not consider who provides a particular web page," it would be a selling point for at least some consumers.

Right. Selling point. Competition in the open market of search engines. What we're talking about here is the fact that the government is taking legal action against Google for whatever it is they might be doing.

Re:No. this is not accurate

[martin-boundary]

Search is completely impossible to not have a bias.

That is neither relevant nor interesting. A more interesting question is whether the bias is deliberate and targeted or not.

Here's a target practice analogy: When you shoot darts at a target, you won't get all darts in the bullseye. You might even find that your darts land more often in the lower half of the board. That's bias, and it's not deliberate.

Now suppose that a champion throws some darts, and his darts all land in the upper left corner of the board. That's bias too, but it's clearly deliberate and targeted. If moreover there's money riding on the game, and the champion was expected to win, then there's a case for cheating.

In both cases, it's completely impossible to not have bias, ie to hit the bullseye every single time always.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[znerk]

This isn't antitrust. If you are using Google's services, then you have a choice immediately and obviously accessible; direct your browser to a different website. The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS, which forces the user to use it, even if it's only to download another browser. This activity, combined with the fact that it was incredibly difficult (some would say impossible) to purchase a PC at the time without a Windows(tm) license attached to it meant that they were leveraging their OS dominance to push their other software, which is how they got in trouble. If Google wants to link to Google services at the top of their search results, so be it. If Google wants to charge Microsoft one hundred million dollars for a single-line advertisement... hell, if Google wants to tell MSFT to go fly a kite, then so be it.

Last I checked, businesses were still able to define their own prices (in most cases), and to sell (or not sell) their products and services to whomever they want to.

Why should Google let MSFT advertise in the first place? This would be akin to a television station selling advertising space to a different television station.

Microsoft got slapped on the wrist for being a bully, and is now trying to be a tattletale and get the other kids in trouble.

--
"Sit them in the corner, mommy, they won't let me break their toys!"

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[veganboyjosh]

Friendly reminder:

Google's services aren't free. Gmail, Google Docs, Picasa, all the other "services" you're referring to aren't their services. Google sells advertising.

Pot meet Kettle, Black?

[guruevi]

I don't see Bing advertising Google nor Microsoft advertising Linux. It took many, many years and literally millions of dollars in fines for them to simply remove Windows Media Center from EU versions of Windows.

I think Google has explained before how part of their algorithm works - if the site is faster, it's higher ranked. Since Google -> Google crawling is probably in the sub 10ms delay range, it will be higher ranked.

Google does not have a monopoly, get over it already.

Re:The Google chairman was on a hot seat

[nbetcher]

He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.

The entire interview can be watched here .

Watching the section of the video you're referring to, he specifically answers that the reason they are third is because Google does a VERY good job at finding the ACTUAL product, versus (yet another) product comparison website. He states that if you were to use those other product comparison sites to find the same product, you will find they rank the product results (what website the product is ACTUALLY sold at) in their own method. Basically, Google does the best job, but doesn't make it the first link.

Say what you will, but I think we all know by now that Google tends to have the best search algorithms out there, mostly because they hire the best-of-the-best and because that is what the company was founded on.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the customer, you are the product.

Re:Why Is It The Government's Business??

[WorBlux]

Here's antitrust law in a nutshell..

Charging more than the competitiors? Must have a monopoly.

Charging less than the competitors? Must be unfairly undercutting them.

Charging the same as your competitors? Must be part of a cartel.

It's written very vaguely so whoever is successful yet unpopular can be prosecuted

advertising prices?

[drinkypoo]

On top of all that, Microsoft is alleging that Google overcharges them as much as fifty-fold for advertising prices as compared to other buyers.

That's fine. I allege that Microsoft is overcharging me as much as fifty-fold for a Windows license as compared to OEMs. A class action suit against Microsoft by all non-corporate windows users ought to be worth approximately sixty bajillion dollars.