Slashdot Mirror
FTC Demands Search Engines Separate Paid Advertisements From Search Results
An anonymous reader notes that the FTC has sent letters to search engine companies (PDF) telling them to make sure advertisements are clearly distinguishable from search results.
"According to both the FTC staff's original search engine guidance and the updated guidance, failing to clearly and prominently distinguish advertising from natural search results could be a deceptive practice. The updated guidance emphasizes the need for visual cues, labels, or other techniques to effectively distinguish advertisements, in order to avoid misleading consumers, and it makes recommendations for ensuring that disclosures commonly used to identify advertising are noticeable and understandable to consumers. The letters note that the principles of the original guidance still apply, even as search and the business of search continue to evolve. The letters observe that social media, mobile apps, voice assistants on mobile devices, and specialized search results that are integrated into general search results offer consumers new ways of getting information. The guidance advises that regardless of the precise form that search takes now or in the future, paid search results and other forms of advertising should be clearly distinguishable from natural search results."
Google never indicated, to me at least, what was in the search results. I don't see how it could be deceptive.
And even if it was, does that matter, since I don't pay Google one red cent for the service?
I especially dislike Google's 'light pink' sponsored links that not every screen would render in a different color. There is no way this isn't intentional.
I might not notice the ads are trying to sell me targlferfs instead. I could easily buy the wrong thing because, as an average consumer, I'm a complete idiot!
Hey, this looks like just another white wash of the whole online space by the FTC. They fail to enforce a variety of rules then come up with a smokescreen one like this story highlights. Sure the FTC is supposed to watch out. But in this case, it is a non-problem, also known as a 'red herring' on their part.
http://www.aisnota.com/slashdot/ Welcome to Logic and the Future
Ouch. This is going to leave a mark. (Not that I'm unhappy about it.)
What pisses me off is scam artists using paid search ads for common open source software. Google for Open Office or 7-zip or VLC and the top paid ranks will redirect you to scams. Some try to charge you, others wrap the software you want in an installer that plants malware on your system. (If you're lucky. Often you can find worse)
Of course they could not get away with this targeting a for-profit company(They'd get sued in to the ground) but targeting free/open source/volunteer projects just disgusts me beyond words.
I wish Google would pay more attention to this.
If only the laws Congress passed were clearly notified with their sponsors, This Corporation or That Union.
But that would be addressing an issue at least 5 orders of magnitude bigger.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
not just search engine results, but identify them from even a website's local content. how many times have you gone to a site to download a file and had to figure out which button was the real download button?
You mean setting the advertisement background color to #fefefe instead of #ffffff isn't good enough for the Feds?
That requirement sounds reasonable. Google used to work that way: you had highlighted boxes at the top and on the right that contained the paid placements, and the unhighlighted regular search results in the body of the page. There's no technical reason it can't be done that way now. Lots of business reasons maybe, but no technical ones which is all the FTC should be caring about.
That doesn't mean the FTC should be unreasonably interfering in a search engines' business. But saying the search engine has to clearly indicate which results it's being paid to show people is hardly unreasonable.
By showing ads. That does not mean they are allowed to lie about results.
The last thing I want is advertising I cannot distinguish from real results.
Though it's been quite stellar for years, ever since the DoubleClick acquisition, Google's DNA has become more spammy [1]. Not that Bing is any saint [2], and Microsoft has it's sordid history with not showing "linux" search results (before Bing days).
This kind of intervention from big bad government might do something to keep the search engines from devolving into glorified billboards.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-blurring-the-lines-between-ads-and-search-results-2012-4
[2] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You negotiate for Y BELOW invoice these days. This is because of holdback and other BS.
seceed, not succeed.
And no, no we can't; gotta find another way... perhaps a method of sending a 'vote of no confidence' to those in charge?
Personally, I think we should all stop paying federal taxes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yeah, now FTC is somehow is going to make the search engines distinguish paid-ad from unpaid-search? How? Corporations are people. If A sells, but B pays google in some obfuscated way for the product of A, how can anyone untangle the web?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Corporations are not people.
2. I think at least the most transparent amount of fraud will be reduced by this.
The invoice thing is totally different.
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors. (Or using Flux).
The contrast on the background is much lower than the federal 508 standard for contrast and I think has changed to over the years to a lighter shade as Google "optimizes" it.
http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
One is an ad and one is a search result, is there much difference? Given the average quality of monitors, I think those are designed to fool even otherwise sharp eyes.
There is a border on the right of the ads but none on at the bottom. Google must be getting tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from the color change from blue to yellow, the ones shown in the example are about $50 to $100 for each click.
http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it
http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/
Guess they employ many behavioral psychologist super PHDs who tweaked the carefully and scientifically calibrated colors on ads and removed all contrast including borders to make many folks not realize where the ads end and the actual results begin. Forget about people going to paid websites and screwing websites that don't charge users that rank well organically because they're good and popular but don't give the Googolplex any money.
"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0
This space for rent.
Given that this isn't being broadcast in a one to many network, and that it's not interfering with communication infrastructure, why does the FCC have authority to do something like this?
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors
I was reading their corporate motto "Do no evil" on their site, and then I saw your post and upped the contrast on my monitor and then saw the entire text that was hidden earlier, "Do no evil - except when it makes us money. In that case, be very very evil." !
You and the FTC must really be on to be something here!!!
This space for rent.
By showing ads. That does not mean they are allowed to lie about results.
The last thing I want is advertising I cannot distinguish from real results.
Even if you don't like it, why shouldn't they be allowed to lie? Should we begin banning lying on the internet?
I actually think that, when it comes to regulating Internet or media companies, nothing could be more important than this.
This is the ultimate line in the sand for an advertising company (or a consumer of ads). I'm generally a defender of Google, but if they were to cross this line then - for the first time - I would think they have truly become the evil that they disavowed in their inception.
And this is about the Internet in general. We need to know whether content is paid or not if we are to preserve a space for the the unpaid. Otherwise, the paid opinion will always win out since it has the money to promote itself.
Because that is called fraud.
Lying in casual conversation and lying in this sort of service are quite different. What you are suggesting means I should be able to sell miracle water that cures cancer, when in fact it does not. If you can't see why that is wrong, I am afraid you are a lost cause.
Section 8, 3rd item.
You're welcome.
While the Interstate Commerce Clause may be stretched to meaninglessness in many cases, this is not one of those times.
I am trying to understand how this is different from the FTC's rule that you don't print advertisements in magazines that look like regular editorial content.
Other than "...on a computer!" of course.
How is it fraud? When I enter a search term into google, I am paying no money. Google hasn't promised me anything at all. I could search for the word dog, and see 10 results on the home page for the same dog website, and I still wouldn't have been defrauded in any way.
Because you expect a search back, not advertising.
Paying or not has nothing to do with it. The same way I cannot give you free stuff and make medical claims. Because that too would be fraud.
He wants corporate anarchy.
putting advertisement in as editorial content in print content is also considered unethical if not outright illegal.
corporatists want corporate anarchy. Any regulation is too much.
I see what you're saying, but what promises or claims has the search engine made to you? On what basis do you form the "expectation" that the displayed results are not advertising?
The fact that it is called a search engine and not an advertising engine?
If you really can't grasp this I am not sure I can help you.
What ticks me off about search is the number of hits that lead one to yet another search engine.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Don't you feel great about the fact that YOU are busting your ass so that the federal government can over-pay a bunch of useless bureaucrats to conduct studies and domineer over search services?
Tell you what feds, quit stealing from me and I'll figure out how to avoid the horrible perils of advertisements in my search results on my own.
The color shows up just fine.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I have never cared for flat monitors, are they really so bad you can't tell the difference between those? Looks ok to me but could use a border for clarity...assuming clarity is desired ;)
You probably can't see a diference in Bing at all then. Ad section is a slightly greenish background. Way too subtle IMHO.
Bing does have a light border at the right edge. If one tried to print the results page however that light border on one side wins over Google's VERY light border.
Both seem pretty borderline..... also the cure ;)
Bing-it-on....
lol, for all the advertising by Bing lately from the search box at least both result pages look nearly identical. Bing has one more ad and pushes the images a little higher up the page. Bing displayed 5 pic vs Google with 4, but the 4 had better variety.
Physicians for decades now have been allowed to take money from drug manufacturers and prescribe those drugs to patients without informing those patients that a cheaper or a generic drug is just as effective. No federal agency (FTC, FDA, FBI) or professional organization (ie AMA) has stepped in to even investigate this common practice.
Advertising in the doctor's office office has been soaring, with posters on the wall and flyers handed to patients hawking everything from prescription drugs and vitamins to therapeutic procedures and cosmetic surgery. You can no longer tell when a physician is offering genuine medical advice or trying to upsell you to something you don't need that could potentially cause harm from the side effects.
I chose to change doctors last year when I noticed pharma reps, with their suits and rolling breifcases, coming in and out of the office more than the patients were.
I really didn't have a problem with either on determining which were ads, I did however have a problem with "popular now" bar on bing that pops up. It wasn't overly obtrusive but I would rather not use it.
You mean you are looking for differences beyond the fact that Google is not the one creating the editorial content and are simply pointing you to someone else's content? I'm not sure there are other differences beyond the only one that matters.
You are so stupid as to expect that Google is giving you search results out of the kindness of their hearts? Do you really want to stick with that story?
Google created a color tan that very, very easily disappears at any screen with a remotely poor viewing angle. It's a very unique color that web designers specifically know not to use for that exact reason. That's why incredibly stupid people keep clicking on the results or even reading or considering them after doing a google search. They always claim they can't see the box and can't tell the difference.
Can't see them, and that's not because of my poor vision...
In fact anytime I use a browser without AdBlock and NoScript, I can't believe anyone would choose to suffer like that.
Try it! Library of Babel
Big Government sucks.
-- Jimtown Kelly
Don't avoid the question by focusing on the terminology. If there's a LEGAL definition of "search engine" and a company claimed to be one, then polluted their results with advertising, you can claim fraud by saying that they falsely labeled themselves a "search engine".
For the sake of argument and brevity, "search engine" was the generic term I applied. Obviously Yahoo!, Google, Bing, etc. are much more than that. To get around the terminology, how about the more broad "company which, among other things, provides internet search capabilities"?
Now, back to my point, what specific claims or promises have any of these companies made that give you the expectation that the information they display is untainted by advertising? We're clear on the definition of fraud, but unless you can demonstrate that the company has made false claims or deliberately created false expectations, you can't claim fraud.