Google Punishing Chrome Results For 60 Days

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Punishing Chrome Results For 60 Days

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday January 4, 2012 @04:00AM from the sounds-about-right dept.

djl4570 writes "'Google is pushing its own Chrome browser down in search rankings for 60 days following reports that the company was involved in an ad campaign that paid for links to bolster search traffic. ... According to Sullivan, it appears that Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.' I see this as an astute move on Google's part. Rather than circle the wagons they say 'oops' and correct the problem. Google understands that such link pimping is a cancer that undermines the integrity of their search engine. That's why it isn't allowed and now Google is saying we don't support a double standard either."

173 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First post! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:02 · Score: -1

Google has moral consistency.
1. Re:First post! by Joikas · 2012-01-04 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yep, you remember when Steve Jobs said "Do no evil is a load of crap"? He was absolutely correct about Google.
2. Re:First post! by postbigbang · 2012-01-04 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, none.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
3. Re:First post! by icebraining · 2012-01-04 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's Don't be evil, not do no evil.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
Chrome sucks anyways... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:02 · Score: -1

with crappy XHR support, and no blob support I don't really want to develop for them anymore....
1. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by semi-extrinsic · 2012-01-04 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  For me, it was the fact that the only Chrome plugin that enables Vim-like keybindings sucked, so I went back to Firefox with Pentadactyl.
  
  --
  for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
2. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by sakdoctor · 2012-01-04 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  What's crappy about Chrome's XHR support? Are you referring to this? http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35705
  (Browser geek. Genuinely interested)
3. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  Chrome intentionally doesn't allow the blocking of ad resources before they are downloaded, which cripples AdBlock Plus. This is likely so Google can still report "ad views" to its advertisers. Combined with the bundling of the closed Flash plugin after all the talk about openness when they removed H.264 support, I lost interest in Chrome.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
4. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by drinkypoo · 2012-01-04 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  That's OK, Chrome now has a memory footprint just like Firefox's, and if you google around you can find lots of examples of people complaining that it is now just as [un?]responsive as Firefox. I haven't confirmed this personally but people I "talk" to most days on G+ and FB have done so. So there is really no reason to give a crap about Chrome any more...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  News at 10. Google gets paid by advertisers for ad clicks, not ad views.
6. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by cl0s · 2012-01-04 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think this has a little more to do with security than anything else. Whether the Ad is loaded or not it's hidden so that a user CANNOT click it and therefore Google does not get paid. Worst it looks like an impression with no clicks unlike Firefox you don't get the impression but you also don't get the click which is better for stats as far as Google goes.
7. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by Joikas · 2012-01-04 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  News at 10. Google gets paid by advertisers for ad clicks, not ad views.
  You're being ignorant. Google gets paid for impressions if they're image ads or video ads.
8. Re:Chrome sucks anyways... by Jeremy+Visser · 2012-01-06 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, that's the one.
  The main problem is that it's currently impossible to send binary data via XHR in Chrome without it getting eaten. What appears to happen is that everything gets "encoded" in UTF-8, which obviously is going to be a dog's breakfast. Even when using a BlobBuilder I just could *not* prevent things getting eaten when passing to xhr.send().
  Firefox has a xhr.sendAsBinary() method that "just works". Nothing more needs to be said. Use xhr.sendAsBinary() instead of xhr.send() and all your problems are gone overnight. Oh, except for the fact that sendAsBinary() is non-standard and not supported in Chrome.
  I ended up choosing the latter of two workarounds: using FileReader.readAsDataURL() (which encodes into base64) and unpacking the data: URL on the remote end, or using a FormData() object and using FormData.append() to place my File inside there.
Wha? by pinkj · 2012-01-04 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Feeling...positive...feelings...towards...billion dollar...corporation...must search for...negative...feelings...for another...corporation...!
1. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Best. First. Post. Ever!
  (for values of Ever! where Ever! is less than 21 minutes)
2. Re:Wha? by Canazza · 2012-01-04 04:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  and values of First Post are <=10 posts.
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
3. Re:Wha? by DCTech · 2012-01-04 04:40 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Oh please, they were caught and had to have some PR route out of it. This has been going on for months. It only became news now that big sites picked it up.
4. Re:Wha? by Pieroxy · 2012-01-04 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  Oh please, they were caught and had to have some PR route out of it. This has been going on for months. It only became news now that big sites picked it up.
  So?
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
5. Re:Wha? by DCTech · 2012-01-04 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So evil is only evil when you're caught, I presume. On top of that they didn't even accept responsibility. They blamed someone else.
  
  Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.
  Just the same way like JC Penney and others did, but back then people were outraged by the seo spam. But now that it's Google it's somehow holier than thou and Google is supposedly acting unlike any other company... by acting the same way those other companies acted!
6. Re:Wha? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why would you have positive feelings over this? Google was caught doing the same SEO tactics they punished JC Penney for. JC Penney even gave the exact same excuse, which was that they had no idea their external SEO company was doing such evil things. But this is worse, because Google is supposed to be the moral authority about this stuff since they are in a monopoly position when it comes to web search.
  They had to do this after the huge amount of negative press yesterday, and they only did it after that press. But even worse, it doesn't even matter because the search term still returns Chrome as the top result via the sponsored links. How convenient for Google that it can pay itself and get the top result regardless of the neutral algorithmic results beneath, and therefore, regardless of whatever punishment it doles out to itself to make Google fans feel better about being Google fans.
  No, this is nothing to feel positive about at all. If Google does the same things it punishes others for, it's no better.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
7. Re:Wha? by DCTech · 2012-01-04 05:14 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  +1 Insightful comment and seems like Google fanboys are raging with modpoints again, down-modding anything critical of Google. Way to stay classy Slashdot.
8. Re:Wha? by Joikas · 2012-01-04 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  +1 this is so spot on. It amazes me that you guys let Google get away with this but when others do the same it's suddenly bad.
9. Re:Wha? by oakgrove · 2012-01-04 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Are you the new InsightInterestingin140FellowBytes?
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
10. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  wha
11. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  95% of the people that visit this site should be shot on the basis of constituting a misappropriation of elements. its hardly a surprise that people here react like emotional little girls instead of logical intellectuals weighing points/counterpoints before drawing a conclusion.
12. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  So how exactly could they have handled the situation to your satisfaction?
13. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  God forbid google advertise google products on its own website....I mean, that would be the same as movie companies advertising upcoming movies on a DVD!
  At least I can skip those first few paid results. O.o
14. Re:Wha? by cl0s · 2012-01-04 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Google loses money by placing it's ads as that could have been a paying customers ad in that position that they would have actually had outside money coming in paying for. I'm sure the same happened with JC Penny, their organic search results might have been penalized for a period of time but they were free to advertise in the paid search results.
  They took the steps to correct the issue, it was only 1 day after it was even discovered. I don't see how they could of done something about it before they knew anything about it. I'm not saying Google is an angel by any means but I just don't see why they would go through the hassle and take the risk of PAYING for something like this to a third party than doing it themselves internally, for FREE. After all, they control the search engine. It is just not in their DNA, but then again things happen when you "blow-up".
15. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit nonsequitur.
  
  Having explained how it happened doesn't mean they're not accepting responsibility. They've clearly accepted responsibility. It's right there in the title of the summary.
16. Re:Wha? by Joikas · 2012-01-04 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Google loses money by placing it's ads as that could have been a paying customers ad in that position that they would have actually had outside money coming in paying for.
  No they don't. IN FACT, they're taking the bids others pay up by doing that. This means they're artificially charging other browser makers more per click because now they have to outbid Google. If that's not evil I don't know what is.
17. Re:Wha? by bhagwad · 2012-01-04 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  So you tell me what they could have done to make you happy.
18. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  The double standard on this site is appalling.
19. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  SEO on Ron Paul, of course.
20. Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  Listen bonch, Google will not benefit from this if they had done it intentionally because I don't think they are so dumb as to game their own search engine.
  It's a new year. Relax a little. Why don't you give up this shilling job and try to find a real job that will help mankind? Enjoy life...
21. Re:Wha? by dudpixel · 2012-01-04 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  what if google also gives itself the same punishment as it gave others...? not saying that makes it right...nor is it a positive in itself...but it is interesting to see.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
22. Re:Wha? by Shihar · 2012-01-04 17:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Somehow you have convinced yourself that you see hypocrisy. There isn't any. Google set down reasonable rules on how you can link. JC Penny, through another agency, violated those rules and got their rank hurt. Google, through another agency, violated those rules and go their rank hurt.
  Google has responded consistently in both cases, even when it is responding to itself. Google isn't some monolith with perfect communication. The right hand did something stupid (hire a shady company and didn't oversee them) and the left hand smacked the right hand for it. This is a good thing.
  The reason why people comment on it as being above and beyond kind of cool is that it is Google smacking themselves. It is one things for Google to smack JC Penny. Everyone expects that. It is another thing to smack themselves when one part of the company violates their own rules. This speaks of the quality of the firewall between the search folks and the rest of the company. If Google can confidently smack down its own internal divisions, it leaves you feeling confident that the results are truly as impartial as such a subjective thing can be. Can you honestly see Apple or Microsoft doing such a thing? They would just circle the wagons, justify their actions, and carry on. It is nice to see a touch of corporate integrity, even if it is for the obviously selfish reason of convincing people that Google's search is "fair".
  Google considers its reputation to be an asset and guards it like one. It isn't infallible and its reasons for guarding their reputation are clearly selfish and profit motivated, but it is still a good thing. Doing good stuff for selfish reasons is better than acting like an asshole for selfish reasons.
23. Re:Wha? by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-01-05 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Prove what you say it true.
  It's the lowest bar anyone this side of the Enlightenment will ever request of you.
  We're waiting.
Good for Google by PickyH3D · 2012-01-04 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.
I am happy to see the fair business practice here. I do not always like what you're up to Google, but sometimes, like with mostly pulling out of China, and now this, I like what I see.
1. Re:Good for Google by JoeMerchant · 2012-01-04 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.
  Sorry, but with a name like "Unruly Media," wasn't someone keeping an eye on them?
2. Re:Good for Google by ilovegeorgebush · 2012-01-04 04:43 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Happy? I don't think we should be praising Google for doing what they should be doing.
  
  --
  ilovegeorgebush
3. Re:Good for Google by bonch · 2012-01-04 04:45 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Unfortunately, this punishment--which isn't a punishment at all since paid Chrome links still appear at the top of the page for the search term they're demoting it for--is not as severe as it was for other companies whose SEO tactics Google has taken issue with, including JC Penney, who gave the exact same excuse that Google is giving! JC Penney also claimed they had no idea what their outsourced SEO company was doing.
  So while I expect a bunch of comments praising Google for being so awesome because it demoted a result for the term "browser", they only did it after a big round of negative news yesterday, from SearchEngineLand to the Washington Times, and Chrome still appears at the top of the results anyway (a sponsored result that Google pays itself for!).
4. Re:Good for Google by DCTech · 2012-01-04 04:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's how corporate world works. You establish new entities to do the dirty work for the "clean" parent company. For example, see this patent laundering done by Apple.
5. Re:Good for Google by Pieroxy · 2012-01-04 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  Happy?
  I don't think we should be praising Google for doing what they should be doing.
  Given how many companies do it, I'd say they're out of the pack. Shouldn't we praise companies that are out of the pack, and on the positive side of it?
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
6. Re:Good for Google by c · 2012-01-04 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  > Sorry, but with a name like "Unruly Media," wasn't someone keeping an eye on them?
  Because they're an advertising company. You have to automatically assume they're lying about everything. If they'd been called "Proper Media" there'd be a Google spy-mobile permanently parked outside the office.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
7. Re:Good for Google by geekoid · 2012-01-04 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  Of course we should, but some people are myopic morons that have an irrational hatred of organization.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:Good for Google by Wovel · 2012-01-04 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  And of course the article you read yesterday was 100% accurate and you fell for the deception that was supposed to make you think it wasn't.
9. Re:Good for Google by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  This is Slashdot. It will seek any reason to feel good about supporting Google. Outside of this place, people have been ripping the company to shreds over this.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
10. Re:Good for Google by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:05 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  How is Google on the positive side of it just because so many companies do the wrong thing? They are the curators of the web, for god's sake. They dole out punishments to other companies over things like this. As a position of authority, they should be above it. There's really no excuse.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
11. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up, stupid^H^H^H^H Bonch.
12. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Hey Bonch, up to the same old Google hate again? Fucking loser.
13. Re:Good for Google by drinkypoo · 2012-01-04 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  We should thank companies for doing what they should be doing, but we should only praise companies when they go above and beyond what we should consider a minimum performance.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  What's wrong Bonch? Your OverlyCriticalGuy pseudonym on a posting break? Just use an open proxy, jackass. But that would be giving you too much credit. Fucking boring fuck. Can't for fuck's sake somebody kick these trolls and astroturfers off of Slashdot permanently? IT IS AFFECTING YOUR REVENUE, GEEK.NET. SERIOUSLY.
15. Re:Good for Google by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  "Fair business practice"?! They just got caught doing the same SEO tactics they've punished other companies for! They slapped themselves on the wrist only after a huge explosion of negative press across the web yesterday.
  What Google did is the exact opposite of fairness. It would be like praising a cop for no longer beating his wife.
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
16. Re:Good for Google by Pieroxy · 2012-01-04 05:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They did something wrong - intentionally or not. It leaked. They fixed it immediately and "punished" themselves to try to compensate. That's already more than what 90% of the megacorps out there are able to do.
  So that's why I say they are on the positive side of the pack. The pack being where 80% of the companies are. The 10% best are on the positive side, the 10% worse are on the dark side.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
17. Re:Good for Google by Joikas · 2012-01-04 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  They didn't "punish" themselves in any way. Whole google.com should be removed from search results since they were gaming it. They didn't even punish it for search terms like browser. It's still on top thanks to ad spots!
18. Re:Good for Google by revealingheart · 2012-01-04 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's accurate. Google claims that Essence Digital and Unruly Media misinterpreted what Google wanted, and should have inserted Chrome advertising alongside content; not being content in itself, sponsored or otherwise.
  An initial report: Google’s Jaw-Dropping Sponsored Post Campaign For Chrome
  Follow-up: Google: Yes, Sponsored Post Campaign Was Ours But Not What We Signed-Up For
19. Re:Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Please, someone, think of the REVENUE!
  The parent was written by NicknameOne, who also controls the accounts flurp, Galestar, and likely others.
20. Re:Good for Google by PickyH3D · 2012-01-05 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I actually agree with the assessment, but the idea that they're at least doing 50% of the right thing beats nothing for me, and I generally dislike Google these days.
  Now, I will say that I just did a rudimentary Google search for "google chrome," and it did come up with a Google page to download Google Chrome as the top result. Not http://www.google.com/chrome, but effectively identical. Based on their claim and actual result compared to their complete wiping of JC Penny, et al, for the exact same behavior, I must say that I am much less thrilled than I previously was.
  They have done much less than slapping themselves on the wrist because the result is the exact same, and it still stays on Google the entire time. I'm not bothered by the ads, but only because I do not know if they also banned JC Penny from that.
Marketing by Dan+East · 2012-01-04 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

...and they're getting so much press in the news for doing so that the net result is much more promotion than Chrome would have seen otherwise. GENIUS!

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Just hang on for a moment. What you're saying is that if Google does something bad they should take the blame but if they try to fix what they did wrong they don't get any credit?
2. Re:Marketing by fallen1 · 2012-01-04 04:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Isn't it amazing that by actually doing THE RIGHT THING and accepting responsibility, they gain more press than if they had just said "The bloggers did it." and washed their hands of the situation.
  Maybe they, and other companies, can actually learn from this? You know, a) try not to fuck up in the first place and b) when you do, take responsibility and FIX IT.
  Uncommon outbreak of good sense, perhaps?
  
  --
  Dream as if you'll live forever.
  Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
  ~Anonymous~
3. Re:Marketing by jduhls · 2012-01-04 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered if Verizon created/destroyed it's $2 "fee processing fee" for the same small reason: to create at least one positive feeling for a giant faceless person...oops...corporation.
4. Re:Marketing by gzipped_tar · 2012-01-04 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  This is far from purely marketing. The quality of the search results is what make Google alive and a winner in the first place. Google has little other choice but doing so, even if it means a short-term dip for Chrome in their own search results.
  And a little good PR after it doesn't hurt, anyway. I think Google deserves it.
  
  --
  Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
5. Re:Marketing by bonch · 2012-01-04 04:37 · Score: -1
  
  Of course, the "RIGHT THING" costs them nothing, as the search term that Chrome is being punished for--"browser"--shows a paid-for Chrome link right at the top of the page, which cost them nothing since they pay themselves!
6. Re:Marketing by Atzanteol · 2012-01-04 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Of course, the "RIGHT THING" costs them nothing, as the search term that Chrome is being punished for--"browser"--shows a paid-for Chrome link right at the top of the page, which cost them nothing since they pay themselves!
  Really? It costs them nothing? Then they should buy out *all* the ad spaces! They'll make a fortune!
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
7. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  It deprives them of the bids other browser makers would pay for that spot. So it actually does penalize them.
8. Re:Marketing by networkBoy · 2012-01-04 04:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  no, it's just funny that we are all so cynical and desensitized to large (or even medium) sized companies burying crap like this; then when called out, shifting the blame; that we praise the few companies that do the right thing because it is so rare.
  Where I work, we had an incident. There was about a week of thrash internally about how to handle it. In the end we handled it the right way for the consumers (and by extension the right way for the shareholders in the long view, though certainly not in the short view). I am proud of my company, but can not post more of it here :(
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
9. Re:Marketing by DCTech · 2012-01-04 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  But they *didn't accept responsibility*. They transferred the blame to elsewhere. It's even in the summary.
  
  Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.
10. Re:Marketing by bonch · 2012-01-04 04:54 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  How about they shouldn't do it in the first place, since they've attacked other companies over the exact same SEO tactics? If a company acts like a moral authority, does the very thing it preaches against, and then slaps itself on the wrist only after being exposed, that's not something worth getting credit for. That's something that should remain a black mark, if only to keep them more honest. It's like the stereotypical religious believer who sins all weekend and then asks for forgiveness on Sunday, as if that suddenly negates everything prior.
  It's not even a punishment, because Chrome still has a sponsored link at the top of the results for the term "browser," which Google pays itself to place there! Google deserves to be held to an even higher standard not only because of its moral position as web curator but also the inherent conflicts of interest that come with it. This is nothing to cheer Google over, and the consensus on the search engine blogs yesterday was that this is barely a punishment at all, all things considered. Contrast to the hugely negative publicity given to JC Penney in early 2011, who gave the exact same excuse Google is giving today--that they had no idea what their outsourced SEO company was doing.
11. Re:Marketing by geekoid · 2012-01-04 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  And? Unruly Media did this, not Google.
  Google did not hire out to a company to have them pay bloggers for sponsorship. And the history of Google show they have always been against such a thing.
  This is what happens when you contract out work that then gets contracted out. The original company has little or no control over the end results.
  Even though This isn't what Google hire the company to do, and it is explicitly what they don't want anyone to do, they STILL take the hit and accept responsibility.
  Did you read the article? What am I saying, of course you did. Only an Asshole would make a comment without reading the article.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
12. Re:Marketing by DCTech · 2012-01-04 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Google didn't do anything about this until it hit news yesterday. It has been going on for quite a while. Companies don't just give money to other companies. They expect reports of their services. Google has known this. They did nothing until it hit news yesterday and it made them look bad and hypocritical.
  
  On top of that it's not like their Chrome marketing is so clean anyway. They still keep paying OEM's and shareware/freeware authors to bundle Chrome with their computers or software. Every time someone installs Chrome the authors or OEM's get paid per install. Just like with toolbars and other low adware shit.
13. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  You know, OverlyBonchCriticalBonchGuy, people are getting really sick of your astroturfing campaign. Really. At least try to mix in some facts with all the hate and lies.
  
  How about they shouldn't do it in the first place
  Shouldn't do what? Use sub-contracters? Are you really that stupid? Google did not do this. A company they contracted the work to contracted the work to yet another company that did. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF
  Captcha: agitated. HAHAHA
14. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Um, what is so bad about paying someone to get chrome bundled with the computers they sell? How does it differ from getting Internet explorer by default?
15. Re:Marketing by bonch · 2012-01-04 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Well, NicknameOne, what Google shouldn't do, obviously, is "inadvertently" hire SEO companies that turn around and do the exact same things Google polices others for.
  If Google is not to blame because it was all done by a company they contracted, then they also shouldn't get any credit when they try to fix the bad publicity. And they shouldn't have punished JC Penney for the exact same thing, because JC Penney also claimed it was the actions of a contractor that they knew nothing about.
  You can't have it all.
16. Re:Marketing by DragonWriter · 2012-01-04 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  But they *didn't accept responsibility*. They transferred the blame to elsewhere. It's even in the summary.
  They accepted accountability, since they are punishing Chrome results in google search the way they would punish the results of other items promoted by paid-link campaigns.
  "Responsibility" can be used to mean either "accountability" or "blame" or, well, lots of other things. But I think, in this context, accountability is the important thing.
17. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  You know, a) fuck up by deliberately gaming the system and b) when you get caught doing it, take responsibility and claim you'll FIX IT.
  There, fixed that for you.
18. Re:Marketing by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-01-04 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Except that they did shift the blame and their so-called punishment of themselves is laughable. It's funny though how the Google cultists eat this up. Secondly if this advertising wasn't what they wanted why wasn't it stopped long before it became public that they had made this deal?
19. Re:Marketing by sexconker · 2012-01-04 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  You know, OverlyBonchCriticalBonchGuy, people are getting really sick of your astroturfing campaign. Really. At least try to mix in some facts with all the hate and lies.
  
  How about they shouldn't do it in the first place
  Shouldn't do what? Use sub-contracters? Are you really that stupid? Google did not do this. A company they contracted the work to contracted the work to yet another company that did. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF
  Captcha: agitated. HAHAHA
  Google should review the work that it contracts out to make sure it is in line with their standards and guidelines.
  In fact, I am certain that they did, and the fact is such practices are within their standards and guidelines (the whole "I make the rules, I don't have to follow them" clause).
  The fact is they got caught and are now blaming a scapegoat who did exactly what they contracted with them to do.
  I bet you believe Bing copies Google's search results, too.
20. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Google should review the work that it contracts out to make sure it is in line with their standards and guidelines.
  They do, stupid. But they aren't psychic. It's quite obvious to any thinking individual that a sub-sub-contractor left out details they didn't think were pertinent. They just wanted their money and did what they thought they could get away with to get it. The contractor is wholly the blame and Google is taking the fall and demoting their browser in the search results in the world's leading search engine for 2 months. But that isn't good enough for haters like you, I know.
  You say:
  
  In fact, I am certain that they did,
  Then you follow up with:
  
  I bet you believe Bing copies Google's search results, too.
  Let me ask you this "sexconker", how does it feel to be such a blatant hypocrite? Does it hurt? You should cut your fingers off for their treachery.
21. Re:Marketing by sexconker · 2012-01-04 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Internet Explorer is a key component of the operating system. People used to sell operating systems and list built-in programs and features as selling points. Then one day cry babies cried that nobody was downloading their shitty media players and other crap and Microsoft couldn't do that anymore with Windows Media Player, IE, etc. Most of MS's advertised features (all their media center and "to the cloud" bullshit) now have to be manually searched for and downloaded. Basically all theWindows Live! crap.
  Years ago, people were dumb enough to think that a browser was not a key piece of software for a personal computer. Today, for many people, the browser is the ONLY piece of software. It is unthinkable to ship an operating system today without including a web browser. Hate Microsoft for being forward-thinking, I guess.
  And of course, OEMs were "paid" (sold volumes of keys at a discount) to build systems with Windows pre-installed. They weren't paid cash money to add something that people actively didn't want until Norton/RealNetworks/browser toolbars/etc. crawled into their ass.
  Besides that, the post you're replying to was about bundling Chrome with software installers, just like how Java asks you to install shit you don't want (with the default being yes). Installer bundling is bad because the software is unwanted (it has to ride on the qualities of the software actually being requested), and most users will not understand why "the internet is different".
  The quality of the software being bundled is moot - the issue is the lack of desire/need for the software, and the lack of knowing that you're getting it (most users won't notice the checkbox to disable it, or will be afraid to change any options if they do see it).
22. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  You are missing my point though. Google is paying OEMs to have chrome as the default browser on computers they sell. What is so bad about that? I agree a browser is needed. Probably the only thing that is needed. But I do not see the problem in having chrome as the default browser on a computer I buy. I can always switch later if i do not like the choice.
  Actually, when chrome is bundled with software, it usually gives you the explicit choice. For example with Avast:
  http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-10409905-12.html
  There is no default selected to just mindlessly "next" out of the screen. There isn't really any trickery here. So again, what would be the problem with this type of bundling?
23. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  Because you are very stupid, you feel you must always resort to your standby tactic of "Every AC who criticizes me = registered user who criticized me recently", even though it never works. After all, you can never think of anything else to try.
24. Re:Marketing by bonch · 2012-01-06 10:38 · Score: -1
  
  You're the same anonymous guy who replies to everything I post, even days after the discussion was active. Same writing style and everything. It's completely obvious, and it does work because look how upset you get. I bet you have to resort to open proxies just to keep posting.
25. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-06 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  There is no anonymous guy who replies to everything you post. I see a lot of anonymous replies to you that I don't make. For instance, the grandparent of this post is mine, but the first AC reply to you in this thread is not. Nor do you actually think it is, no matter how much you wish to.
  I do reply to you somewhat frequently, but I have no account nor any need or desire for one, and there are plenty of other people I reply to as well. I tend to focus on posters who are especialy prolific and dishonest, and you are both.
  You've never said anything that has "upset" me, nor is it possible that you will. This is not because I am particularly unflappable, but because you are simply not creative or intelligent enough to think of anything that will do it. It is for this reason that you simply repeat the same unsupportable accusations and then lie to yourself about having put your critics in their place.
  I rarely post more than two or three times per day regardless of how many different threads I'm involved in, and the closest I've ever come to using a proxy is posting from my home computer after coming back from work. Not that you really thought I use one anyway.
  The accusations you level against me and others are not things you actually believe to be true, but rather things you wish were true because they feed into your desire to be seen as the persecuted gadfly of Slashdot - something that you are not, and never will or can be.
26. Re:Marketing by bonch · 2012-01-06 11:41 · Score: -1
  
  There is no anonymous guy who replies to everything you post.
  ...followed by...
  
  I do reply to you somewhat frequently
  Come on. And the fact that you're still replying to me means you're tracking my profile to see if I've posted anything new.
  Next.
27. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-08 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  There is no contradiction there. And I track threads, not user profiles.
Google still is different from other companies. by satuon · 2012-01-04 04:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wouldn't have expected this level of integrity from any other company. There's been a lot of opinions floating around that Google aren't 'good guys' any more than others, but cases like this show that they really are different.
1. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:14 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Oh whatever. This isn't about integrity, this is about putting your hand in the cookie jar and getting caught... now, it's all about damage control, and they chose the smartest way of controlling said damage.
  Yes, Google is different than most other companies out there. Not because they're good guys or have any sort of high moral compass ... but because they're *smart*.
2. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Spad · 2012-01-04 04:27 · Score: 2
  
  Weirdly, I think I'd take Smart Evil over the usual Dumb Evil we have to put up with, at least they probably won't cause as much collateral damage whilst blindly fumbling around trying to rule the world.
3. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Did you even fucking read the story? Google hired a service to promote a video of theirs. That service went and had some bloggers promote the video. ONE of the bloggers didn't abide by the rules and therefore was violating a policy.
  So not only was it just one accidental occurrence, but Google was two steps removed from it. Now they're manning up and accepting responsibility even though they by no means have to - they could very easily just say "oh, the marketing company fucked up".
4. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Wovel · 2012-01-04 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Integrity? They got caught and are trying to cover their asses. This is actually the opposite of integrity. Integrity would be not doing it in the first place.
5. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:09 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Level of integrity? Huh?! Google just got caught doing the exact same thing that JC Penney got totally reamed for early last year. JC Penney even gave the same excuse, that they didn't know what the SEO company they hired was doing. They're not different at all from the others.
  The punishment isn't even a punishment, because Google pays itself to place a Chrome ad at the top of the search results regardless of what the search engine actually returns beneath it.
  It almost sounds like you were already a supporter of Google, and you are using this as an excuse to shrug off negative criticism. Getting caught being hypocritical isn't something worth praise, nor is it proof that they're different--it's proof that they're the same!
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
6. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by oakgrove · 2012-01-04 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, Google didn't actually do anything. Read the article. Please.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
7. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The punishment isn't even a punishment, because Google pays itself to place a Chrome ad at the top of the search results regardless of what the search engine actually returns beneath it.
  Of course it is. They have to outbid other browser makers for that spot. That is money Google would get from a third party had it not.
  Google did something against its guidelines and is standing up for the punishment. It is the very definition of integrity.
8. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Joikas · 2012-01-04 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I only contracted a hitman to kill your wife. I did nothing wrong myself!
9. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Your analogy fails as Google never asked for nor implied in any way that they wanted the services performed for them to be in any way illegal or unethical. The fact that you conflate someone intentionally hiring someone to commit murder and this sub-sub-contractor trying to deliver a little more search engine "optimization" than Google asked for is telling. Why don't you just admit that you hate Google and the fact that they did the right thing here just fills you with that much more impotent rage?
10. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Joikas · 2012-01-04 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Google was fully aware of it. Companies give REPORTS of what they do. You don't just buy services and not expect them not to report what they have they have done or what they're going to do. That would be just waste of money.
11. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm...did Google have explicit (or implicit) knowledge of this particular action taken by a twice removed sub-contractor who, btw, has no obligation to report directly to Google in anyway contrary to your own personal fantasy. But back to my question, believe Google or believe Joikas-random-slashdotter with UID of 2million 5 hundred thousand and something.
  *Jeopardy moment*... 11 milliseconds later...I'm going with Google, Bob...
  Bob: Tell him what he won! *cheers*applause*
  Oh well, Joke-us.
12. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Joikas · 2012-01-04 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Which means they're only bringing the price up for other browsers while they themselves don't need to pay anything. Yeah, that's completely not evil!
13. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by 0xABADC0DA · 2012-01-04 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  You would have a point if Google gave something up, but they still display a massive ad for Chrome on their start page (roughly the same size as the Google logo) and other properties, and a sponsored ad for 'browser', and top results for 'chrome' and 'browser' still have Chrome listed through wikipedia and other second hand sources.
  How many people do you think manage to get past the huge logo-sized ad, the banner ads, and the 2nd hand sites without reading about Chrome or being able to download it? If you give up something worthless to you, it shows nothing about your integrity.
14. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by sexconker · 2012-01-04 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, Google didn't actually do anything. Read the article. Please.
  Google contracted for certain advertising work to be done.
  The contractor contracted with an advertising agency to do the actual work.
  The ad agency drew up a specific plan (in the form of reports of what was to be done, where, when, how, etc.).
  The contractor reviewd the reports, approved, and forwarded them to Google, adding their own reports on the ad agency itself.
  Google reviewed the reports and sent an approval to the contractor.
  The contractor then sent their approval to the ad agency.
  The work was done and was delievered to the contractor (in the form of reports of what was done, where, when, how, etc.).
  The contractor reviewed the work and paid the advertising agency. They then delievered the work (the reports) to Google.
  Google reviewed the work and paid the contractor.
  At no point in the process did Google, or the contractor, say "This is not what we want.". In fact, at every point possible they said "Yes, this is good and we will give you money for it.".
15. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Google contracted
  
  The contractor contracted with
  UnrulyMedia smelled Google money and did what they thought they had to do to get it. Period. They did not in any report back to Google that they were involved in unethical behavior. If you have proof that they did, please present it. You don't because there isn't any. You are just hating Google to be hating and it is disgusting. There, I said it. Reading lies written by you, sexconker, is disgusting. Do you not have anything better to do?
16. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by scot4875 · 2012-01-04 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I only contracted a hitman to kill your wife. I did nothing wrong myself!
  Yeah, as if we weren't sure before, now we know you're arguing from an intellectually dishonest position.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
17. Re:Google still is different from other companies. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah.... those crazy Google guys, I mean.. they don't need to pay for any ad spots on Google domains. well, that's not why they're crazy. No what makes them crazy is that they sell those spots to anybody at all for any reason. I mean, they could just use them all for themselves and make CRAZY MONEY!!
  oh ... wait. You mean Google makes money by selling those spots, and by occupying that spot themselves they lose money? Shit ... that's kinda exactly what happens when you buy ad space. Receive ad space, deduct money. goddamn those evil google people who figured out that the ad space was worth more than the money. Which ....... is the same evil reasoning anybody buying ad space uses.
in other news by nimbius · 2012-01-04 04:07 · Score: -1, Troll

another major multinational conglomerate finds its just easier to do it and say "oops, sorry" than to adhere to the standards they have no inherent business interest in adhering to in the first place.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  How was this moderated up? It's incomprehensible. What is the antecedent of "it" in "just do it"? At first I thought it was "behave nicely" (i.e., "adhere to standards") but then the rest of the comment makes zero sense.
2. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  What is the antecedent of "it" in "just do it"?
  Cheat until caught.
3. Re:in other news by khallow · 2012-01-04 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  another major multinational conglomerate
  What's the name of this major multinational conglomerate?
4. Re:in other news by PPH · 2012-01-04 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe.
  But keep in mind that many corporations don't present a unified face to the public. Or maintain a consistent internal corporate culture. It may very well have been one rogue employee (or department) that got it in their head to bump up their own product's ranking. And someone else stepped in and corrected them. Stuff like this happens all the time. The speed with which they admit and correct their own errors is the sign of a healthy corporate culture (of course, the guilty party might have been transferred to their IE6 support group).
  Try working for a company where the culture is broken, or co-opted by various internal factions. And management is powerless to fix the problems. That's when the cancer has set in. Pretty soon they aren't fighting for the company any more (ethically or not). Everybody is cutting side deals with vendors, taking their stock options, and otherwise trying to feather their own nest.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
So To reduce the page rank of a competitor... by spyroux · 2012-01-04 04:08 · Score: 1

I just pay for some banner and report that to Google ?
Bing demoting Firefox? by slthytove · 2012-01-04 04:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article mentioned the results for Bing and Google, so I decided to do a little investigation. If you search for "browser" on Bing, the top 10 results are quite similar, with one notable absence - no Firefox or Mozilla pages appear. Does this seem fishy to anyone else?
1. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by MightyYar · 2012-01-04 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  My #2 result on Google is Firefox, and the #1 is actually a news link so I'm not sure that even counts.
  Bing gives me: 1. Wikipedia, 2. Opera, 3. Wikipedia again, 4. Safari, 5. CNet, 6. IE, 7. AOL, 8.Opera again, 9. Whatbrowser, 10. Online dictionary
  So no Chrome, no Firefox, but also not a list I could really find a fault with (except for useless duplicates and general Bing uselessness). Firefox is mentioned in the #1 and #3 links.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by SJHillman · 2012-01-04 04:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I gave this a try too, results as follows in order of first page
  Bing: Generic, Opera, Generic, Safari, Generic, IE, Netscape, Opera, Generic, Generic
  Google: Firefox, Generic, Opera, Safari, Generic, Generic, IE, Avant, Generic, Generic
  Yahoo: Generic, Opera, Generic, Safari, Generic, IE, Netscape, Opera, Generic, Generic
  Dogpile: Generic, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Generic, Generic, IE, Generic, MSN Explorer (IE?), Netscape
  What surprised me:
  1) Opera shows up so often, although this may be because of their huge mobile marketshare
  2) IE doesn't show up more often. Maybe because it's on Windows PCs by default so less people search for it to download it?
  3) Dogpile still exists. I don't think I've used it in the past decade until now.
  4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
  5) The only time Chrome showed up was on generic websites (IE: Wikipedia entries or CNet downloads) that included all of the major browsers
3. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by The+Moof · 2012-01-04 04:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
  And they have since 2009. Yahoo uses Bing for its search result.
4. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by GuldKalle · 2012-01-04 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't Bing and Yahoo running on the same engine?
  
  --
  What?
5. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by TeXMaster · 2012-01-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
  Yeah, they have been the same search engine since something like mid-2010. Did you miss the news?
  
  --
  "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
6. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by gzipped_tar · 2012-01-04 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  3) Dogpile still exists. I don't think I've used it in the past decade until now.
  And is the only one with Netscape in the top ten results ;-)
  
  --
  Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
7. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by gzipped_tar · 2012-01-04 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  oops strike that. My visual_grep function needs some bug-hunting again. XD
  
  --
  Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
8. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by synapse7 · 2012-01-04 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Searching bing for "web browser" and the first listing is Opera then Safari.
9. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by omnichad · 2012-01-04 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, it would still be correct, since Netscape is only on dogpile due to it being an aggregate search engine and including Bing results.
10. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  I see what you did there. Very clever, tricking me into visiting Bing.
11. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by larry+bagina · 2012-01-04 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  He binged the news, that's why he didn't know.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
12. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by drinkypoo · 2012-01-04 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  1) Opera shows up so often, although this may be because of their huge mobile marketshare
  The paranoid view would be that most users won't go for Opera, so if they should happen upon it they are more likely to reject alternative browsers and wind up an Aieee! user.
  
  4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
  One would expect so.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by Sloppy · 2012-01-04 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Think about why and how people link to browsers. The thing about MSIE is that everyone who is able to use it, already has it preloaded. You'd expect there to be few links to it. Opera is almost the opposite; almost nobody gets Opera without downloading it from a web page. Firefox is somewhere in between; some people get it by going to a page and downloading it, and some people have it preloaded with their distro or get it through a package manager.
  Thus, Opera will have lots of links to it, because following a link is how you get Opera. Also, Opera users tend to be bubblingly happy with it, and advocate (and linking is a way to advocate). Firefox has some, and with MSIE you'd expect to have few.
  If I were naively writing a search engine that associates URLs with linking or otherwise related keywords, I bet the first release of my search engine would rank Opera's page as highly relevant to that term, too, and MSIE's page less so.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
14. Re:Bing demoting Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Opera shows up so often also because they are commonly mistaken with Oprah:
  http://my.opera.com/chooseopera/blog/2011/05/25/oprah-winfrey-we-will-miss-you
Strange praise for Google by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-04 04:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Like cheering a guy on when he stops beating his wife.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Strange praise for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think a better analogy would be cheering on a bank for publicly announcing and refunding all clients who were victims of fraud performed by an employee.
2. Re:Strange praise for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Like cheering a guy on when he stops beating his wife.
  Or praising /.ers for keeping their flawed analogies to themselves.
3. Re:Strange praise for Google by ElitistWhiner · 2012-01-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Consciousness raising tends to become cheerleading behind a noble cause such as education in abolition of " double standards"
4. Re:Strange praise for Google by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2012-01-04 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Welp, this is Slashdot, which will seek any reason to 1.) absolve Google of guilt, and 2.) somehow differentiate Google from the "other companies." Here, Google can actually get caught doing what it punishes others for and get praised for it. Someone even used the phrase "level of integrity." That's the very last thing Google has earned from this!
  
  --
  "Sufferin' succotash."
5. Re:Strange praise for Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  "Welp"??
It is still search result manipulation by atchijov · 2012-01-04 04:14 · Score: 1

I am not sure if this is a good marketing/political move on Google part. They demonstrate to the whole world how easy it is for them to "alter" search results. So today they choose to alter it one way, but what prevents Google to do it other way tomorrow?
1. Re:It is still search result manipulation by gl4ss · 2012-01-04 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  without doing rtfa, they probably hired some "SEO experts" for marketing.
  think about how stupid that sounds? because the seo expoerts excell in manipulating search results. while g could have just manipulated them on their end to begin with and are now manipulating them down(doesn't matter, they'll still push it through their services as usual anyhow).
  more than altering the results I despise altering what I typed to the search engine so i'll get shown double the ads. doesn't matter, can't link on the google ads anyways(haha, since apk advertised that 60k+lines host file solution to adverts, I've been using it. a quite nice internet accelerator). but I have noticed that often if you just copy paste to the links the adverts claim to take you.. you don't get to what the advert was claiming you'd end up at!
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:It is still search result manipulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Competence and reliable does. If Google fixed results nobody would trust on them.
3. Re:It is still search result manipulation by gzipped_tar · 2012-01-04 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I believe this is a wise move for Google. The general user won't care this much anyway. Those who are likely to manipulate search results, esp. in the way not approved by Google, will look at this as a powerful warning and are discouraged.
  
  --
  Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
4. Re:It is still search result manipulation by mjwalshe · 2012-01-04 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  as a "SEO" expert (ie Matt Cuts knows my name) working for a big company no way would I our my colleagues ever suggest this - the risk is immense and if any one in our group of companies did this I would be lobbying the MD to have the marketing people involved fired.
  
  Matt C should be at the next Google board meeting demanding someones head for this.
5. Re:It is still search result manipulation by sexconker · 2012-01-04 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  as a "SEO" expert (ie Matt Cuts knows my name) working for a big company no way would I our my colleagues ever suggest this - the risk is immense and if any one in our group of companies did this I would be lobbying the MD to have the marketing people involved fired.
  Matt C should be at the next Google board meeting demanding someones head for this.
  As an "SEO" expert, the world hates you because you are advertising scum and you do a job that any monkey could do if they just read the Google FAQ and properly set titles and meta tags.
  Just FYI.
6. Re:It is still search result manipulation by mjwalshe · 2012-01-04 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  Actually for toy sites it might be but doing it right for a multi million page site built over the course of several years and using multiple CMS its actually bloody hard work!
  
  And how brave of you to hide behind a pseudonym - I see my job as protecting all the stake holders IE including the the poor bastards who will be laid off if the company messes up a transition on a website.
  
  BTW last year I found a single mistake that had cost one small part of the company getting on £1/2 Million in less than a week.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 04:17 · Score: 0

...... was convincing the world he didn't exist. ~ Charles Baudelaire, "The Generous Gambler" (Feb. 1864)
This is just good PR as this article is proof of concept!
People refuse to see the obvious and look from their boat over the water service, but they never look what is actually in the water! People often do not like the reality and truth cause it is too negative too live with! And that is ignoring the problem! Which again makes them part of it! ^^
When's it gonna happen? by TheTrueScotsman · 2012-01-04 04:21 · Score: 1

Sounds great. Looking at it raises a couple of questions though: 1) When are they going implement this? Googling 'Chrome' from machines in Switzerland, Miami and Chicago still gives the 'Download and install Google Chrome' link in the prime position. 2) Wouldn't any other company have been banned and have to resubmit?
1. Re:When's it gonna happen? by SJHillman · 2012-01-04 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think they planned on automatically shoving Chrome on page 3 of any search so much as lowering it's weight in their search method. If you Google "Chrome" you will still get the web browser because even with a lower weight, it still vastly outweighs most other results for "chrome". However, if you search for something like "web browser" then the effect is much more apparent.
2. Re:When's it gonna happen? by TheTrueScotsman · 2012-01-04 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. So they went from top position to (er...) top position. They're really stamping their authority on this one.
  My point is: shouldn't the whole site (google.com) be completely removed from the search indexes?
3. Re:When's it gonna happen? by geekoid · 2012-01-04 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
4. Re:When's it gonna happen? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-01-04 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  So then they aren't really punishing themselves. They remove sites for doing the same thing yet despite claims of no double standard they do have a double standard towards themselves.
It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by rudy_wayne · 2012-01-04 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Google has 20,000 employees and their primary business is advertising -- 98% of their revenue, many billions of dollars every year, comes from advertising. So why would Google need to hire another company to advertise their Chrome browser? And why did *THAT* company need to hire *ANOTHER* company?
When you want to do something dodgy, while pretending to "do no evil", what better way than to hire someone else to do your dirty work for you. And when they get busted, you can just blame them and say "Hey, we didn't know anything about it".
1. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by SJHillman · 2012-01-04 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Their revenue comes from displaying advertisements... I don't think that's the same as marketing or creating advertisements.
2. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by daniel142005 · 2012-01-04 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly. It's actually a well known fact that Google sucks at marketing their own stuff. A perfect example is their Nexus One phone.
  The leader of marketing (and brainwashing) is (IMHO) Apple, because no matter what it is, they can spin it to get people to buy it. Apple could probably find a way to successfully market dog shit if they wanted to.
3. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Nice one, trying to steer the discussion negatively toward Apple. If you think about it (or not), this is all probably Apple's fault anyway!
  
  Brilliant.
4. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by DragonWriter · 2012-01-04 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  Google has 20,000 employees and their primary business is advertising -- 98% of their revenue, many billions of dollars every year, comes from advertising. So why would Google need to hire another company to advertise their Chrome browser?
  Google's primary business is delivering ads to users via the internet on behalf of other firms which create and manage advertising campaigns.
  What Google paid another company to do was to create and manage an advertising campaign.
  Both of these activities might be described as "advertising", but they are very much not the same thing, and competence at one is pretty much entirely unrelated to competence at the other.
  What Google does -- and what radio stations, TV stations, billboard owners, and other "advertising delivery" companies do -- is not the same as what agencies that create and execute advertising campaigns do, although both classes of firms derive their revenue from "advertising".
5. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't advertising, this is SEO. You would think google would know how to game their own search engine.
6. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by Renevith · 2012-01-04 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  And when they get busted, you can just blame them and say "Hey, we didn't know anything about it".
  What? That's the exact opposite of what Google is doing. I've heard of not reading the article, but did you even read the summary's title?
7. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by SJHillman · 2012-01-04 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Google doesn't want to game their own search engine. The entire point of the article is that they're "punishing" themselves because a sub-contractor did try to game Google's own search engine and Google is saying "Hey, look, we control the damned thing and we don't want to give ourselves an unfair advantage so don't come bitching to us if we catch you trying to game our system and then we punish you for it."
8. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by steelfood · 2012-01-04 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  There is that. There is also the fact that if they put up advertisements for their own browser, they'd be subject to anti-trust violations, in fact the same ones that Microsoft were convicted of violating when they bundled IE with Windows.
  Letting a 3rd party handle it is not an anti-trust violation, because then it'd be subject to existing agreements Google had with the 3rd party. As well, the 3rd party is free to market Chrome however it desires (not specifically limited to Google search results or products), and theoretically be subject to the same policy restrictions that any other marketing company would otherwise be under.
  They pushed the Chrome results back for the very same anti-trust reasons. If they had a double standard, that can and probably does constitute as an anti-trust violation. But if they subject their third party (and the client of their third party, which just so happens to be themselves) to the same rules as they subject every other marketing agency, then they are more likely in the clear.
  In Microsoft's case, had they made their browser integration switchable via an API or some such, they'd also be in the clear. But since they didn't, they got slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit (and got away scott free IMHO, but that's another thing altogether).
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
9. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by Kalriath · 2012-01-04 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  So what you're suggesting is that Apple should create a marketing firm, and Google should contract them? Yeah, they'll get right on that.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
10. Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' by Rich0 · 2012-01-07 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. The guy who turns out magnet wire for an MRI and the nurse who sticks IVs into your arm are arguably both in the healthcare industry, but clearly they have somewhat different skillsets.
Google Search results are seperate from the biz by LostCluster · 2012-01-04 04:30 · Score: 2

Google has always maintained that their search results are totally unbiased and not influenced by ad sponsors, the companies other businesses, and anybody trying to spam the system. This seems like an internal dispute between the search team and the Chrome team...
Oh Crap by Wovel · 2012-01-04 04:49 · Score: 2

We got caught. Google assumed they were the only ones in a position to recognize their deception. They were wrong.
1. Re:Oh Crap by geekoid · 2012-01-04 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Except that had nothing to gain. It make no sense what so ever for Google to do this.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Oh Crap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  I know you didn't read the article. No, actually you probably did. But the knee-jerk *MUST HATE GOOGLE**RAGE***RAGE* just kicked in and you couldn't stop it. It is assholes like you that are hurting geek.net and slashdot.org. I might see what I can do about that:)
3. Re:Oh Crap by pclminion · 2012-01-04 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. Google is doing FAR MORE than necessary. Google owns the damn search engine, remember? If they want to give higher rankings to their own stuff, they can just MAKE IT HAPPEN. No need to hire a marketing firm and spam the web with links. Get it?
  Link spamming is something anyone can do. Google can create an advantage for themselves by doing it, but so can you. There is no uneven playing field here. In fact, I don't think Google is morally obligated to do anything at all -- any company could do the same thing to manipulate their own search rankings. Purposefully hurting their own search ranking is a bit of above-and-beyond behavior that makes me think there might be a few good people left at Google, after all.
I seem to remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:19 · Score: 0

"Do no evil is a load of crap."
-Steve Jobs
Day 61 back to normal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 05:37 · Score: 0

Day 61 back to normal?
...what about the 61st day and on? by cap'n+z00mpix · 2012-01-04 05:45 · Score: 2

will they go back to manipulating results after this two month face saving period? Google-san - what say ye?
1. Re:...what about the 61st day and on? by tekrat · 2012-01-04 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  And here I was, thinking that "Japanese Iambic pentameter" was a dead language....
  
  --
  If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
OK Google, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 06:16 · Score: 0

but what about the chrome ad, that I see every time when I search in your search engine for "browser" or similar? HOW exactly is this NOT evil?
Get over it Google, you thrive in an inherently evil system, the advertising system (ie giving to thhe people with money, more money by deceiving ignorant/lo IQ people). You put the rich first in your results. Just placing them in a slightly different background and under a faint "advertisement" banner, its a good thing, but doesn't relief you from the burden of sin. In the end, everyone with a common sense can understand that the advertisements indirectly are affecting the pagerank.
Seems MS is demoting Chrome as well by daboochmeister · 2012-01-04 07:39 · Score: 1

Gee, what a surprise. Search for "browser" on Bing, and Chrome's homepage is hit #72. Well ahead of it are highly relevant things like: Netscape (I kid you not, a link to Netscape's home page is #8, on the first page ... who knew it was even still around??); that the BOLT browser is discontinued; Zac, a specialized browser for autistic children (surely a worthy effort, but more relevant than Chrome?); Orca (the browser variant, not the aquatic variant); blog articles about people browsing in bookstores and grocery markets; etc. etc.

IE's home page is hit #6 in Bing. (I'm actually surprised it wasn't higher). By the time you get to the Chrome homepage link, you've read 4 articles on how IE9 use is growing faster than Chrome use. It's not until link #76 that there's an article whose main point is that Chrome use growing.

Search on Google for "browser", and IE's home page is hit #8, right in the mix with Firefox, Opera, Safari.

Hmm ... sometimes, it's not that bashing MS is so fun, it's that they make it so easy.

--
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
1. Re:Seems MS is demoting Chrome as well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's 4th on the list when I search for "browser". http://i.picpar.com/3c78bdc06791296cf8aee20ccd79cb52742cf41f.PNG
2. Re:Seems MS is demoting Chrome as well by daboochmeister · 2012-01-04 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Strange. You actually have a paid ad for Chrome in position #1 as well!
  
  I was going to go all conspiracy theory and suggest they may have changed it over the course of the day -- but I just did it again, and again got exactly position #72 (though this time, somewhere in the 50s, there was an article on Chrome overtaking Firefox that wasn't there before). It's still way behind Crazy Browser (whatever that is), lynx, evolt, etc. Possibly you're a regular Bing user, and it's factoring in your search history or whatever it's determined to be your personal preferences? I only use Bing occasionally.
  
  --
  "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
See the douchebag sexconker run by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:06 · Score: 0

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38587742
Chrome confirmed for botnet. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:10 · Score: 0

The /g/ joke came true.
Google Chrome is technically a good browser. The marketing folks are to blame. Firefox got its market share mostly through word of mouth with very few adverts such as the New York times advert back in 2004. Meanwhile Google is making very cringeworthy adverts such as the Justin Bieber one and the Hatsune Miku one in Japan. I hope Google decides to compete on technical merits from now on and tone down the adverts. A web dominated by Chrome would be just as bad as one by IE.
Cooking evidence for anti-trust case? by dristoph · 2012-01-04 08:38 · Score: 1

It seems to me that this would be a great way for Google to appear innocent of cooking their search results to favor their own products and services, as implicated by Senators calling for an anti-trust investigation of the company. By making this "mistake", they appear as though they are neutral to their own algorithms and must employ the same efforts as any other company to optimize their placement in their own search results, whether this is genuinely true or not. It seems to me that this self-imposed punishment will cost them a whole lot less than an anti-trust battle or any court orders resulting from one.
This is Creating a Dangerous Level of Policing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-04 08:58 · Score: 0

Google's campaign was not to acquire links for the purpose of manipulating search results. In fact, the campaign itself did not solicit links at all. The campaign was for video advertisements. Website publishers would get paid when one of their viewers watched the video about Chrome. Some of those publishers decided to add a link to Google Chrome on the same page. They received no additional money for including the link. They were not directed to include the link.
I understand why Google would devalue links like this, but penalize a website for it? When they didn't ask for the link at all, much less pay for it? That is ridiculous.
Google? Fucking Idiots! by randyleepublic · 2012-01-04 20:36 · Score: 1

The search UI is weak sauce and getting weaker. The only app UI that is any good is Maps. (Which is very good - those guys should run the company!) Postini totally sucks. And now they are enforcing a moronic password policy on Google accounts - "Please use a password you haven't already used." Derrr. The pointy hair count is rising in Mountain View!

--
Social Credit would solve everything...