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.
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.
Right. Google Shopping was originally a price comparison service. There was no charge for being listed. Then it was changed to an paid ad service. All the links on it changed to Google ad links. Our Ad Limiter browser add-on, which hides all but one Google ad per search result, then started limiting the number of shopping results displayed. We finally allowed more ads to show through on explicit Google shopping pages.
Now, Google Shopping results have changed again, so that they look like real search results. They even have additional Google ads, with the light tan background. But in reality, every result on a Google Shopping page is a paid ad.
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.
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.