FTC: Google Altered Search Results For Profit

mi writes: We've always suspected that Google might tweak its search algorithms to gain an advantage over its rivals — and, according to an FTC investigation inadvertently shared with the Wall Street Journal, it did. Quoting: "In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC's bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and "scraping" content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals. For example, the FTC staff noted that Google presented results from its flight-search tool ahead of other travel sites, even though Google offered fewer flight options. Google's shopping results were ranked above rival comparison-shopping engines, even though users didn't click on them at the same rate, the staff found. Many of the ways Google boosted its own results have not been previously disclosed.

Comments

I just don't care

[DoofusOfDeath]

Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this isn't even close to the same thing as telco/cableco monopolies, just as google did it to yahoo/whatever else was cool before they were the search, this market has no barrier to entry. At any point a small start-up like duckduckgo could potentially displace them as the preferred search.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

And Google isn't required to "not be evil." Nor do they try. They just told you idiots that shit, and you were stupid enough to swallow it.

Re:I just don't care

[jythie]

You are thinking like a consumer, not a business owner. For consumers, sure they get worse results and can go elsewhere, but for business owners, the majority of their potential customers are going to use Google since it is the go-to for most people, thus it decreases your visibility and income. So it is a pretty big issue for people trying to reach an audience, which includes people who work for any company that has customers. Thus unless you're independently wealthy or work for a Google affiliated company, this probably affects you.

Re:I just don't care

[alphatel]

Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.

Hi #GoogleTrollArmy !

Re:I just don't care

[Ash-Fox]

They just told you idiots that shit

Relevant article.

Re:I just don't care

[itzly]

I care about getting good search results. Google choosing to put the better results lower in the ranking conflicts with that.

I'd care even more if I was running a business that's competing with one of google's businesses.

Re:I just don't care

[BarbaraHudson]

If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit. From a business standpoint, it was a stupid move, not to mention that they violated the DBAD rule.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.

People on Slashdot have an extremely simplistic (wrong) view of what falls under anti trust regulations. From Wikipedia:

Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:

- prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.

- banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.

- supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember that for the first two years, Microsoft's search was blatantly biased in favor of Microsoft. They probably still are, but I've avoided using them for quite a while. I periodically try other search engines, but usually the Google search results are better.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

What is really the difference here and Microsoft leveraging its OS to promote IE?

Re:I just don't care

[puzzled_decoy]

....Google's search mechanism doesn't violate any of those, unless you are *really* stretching....

Re:I just don't care

[ShanghaiBill]

At any point a small start-up like duckduckgo could potentially displace them as the preferred search.

Exactly. Any small startup with a several million servers, and datacenters on every continent, has the potential to disrupt the market.

I don't have any problem with Google promoting their own business, but that should be clearly marked as advertising, and not presented as unbiased search results.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.

When the market looks like this: http://static1.businessinsider... regulators tend to take an interest.

Re:I just don't care

[Kaenneth]

And yet /. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is market dominant and the practice is abusive. It is also anti competitive and could lead to it dominating new markets.

Re:I just don't care

[fustakrakich]

...unbiased search results

That does not exist, and if it did, it would probably be declared illegal in most countries. We can't allow them to link to copyright infringers now, can we?

Re:I just don't care

[pla]

Still irrelevant - Google doesn't "owe" you free advertising.

Google exists as a publicly-traded for-profit company. They "just happen" to provide a tool for free that lets you find things online, but they have absolutely no obligation to make that tool "fair". If they want to put things that make them money at the top of the list, they can.

If they wanted to sort their search results by the number of cat references per result, they could do that, too. And none of us have the least right to complain about it.

Don't like it? Use Bing.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

....Google's search mechanism doesn't violate any of those, unless you are *really* stretching....

I was challenging the "Google isn't a monopoly (because I can change to other search engine)" sentiment people often display here. Google most certainly have a *dominant position*, and as such are under constant anti trust scrutiny and the rules are different for them than for other companies (as it was and is for Microsoft)

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

So people who agree that the better results are harder to find are switching to search engines that outperform Google, right?

Re:I just don't care

[larryjoe]

The issue isn't one of market share, although 75% is definitely at least dominant. We're talking about monopolies in the sense of Microsoft and Intel, neither of which is a government-granted monopoly. The key is whether Google has a coercive monopoly that is able to restrain competition and operate without fear of competition. Near 100% market share is not necessary. That Google is able to employ such tactics with the implicit understanding that its customers will not abandon it for a competitor argues that it has coercive monopoly power. Whether this situation arises due to Google's ability or its competitors' incompetency does not detract from the coercive nature of Google's market position.

Re:I just don't care

[Charliemopps]

Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.

They have a monopoly over the search bar that's dead center at the top of phone that I'm not allowed to remove under penalty of law. So yes, they are.

Re:I just don't care

[itzly]

Which search engine are you talking about that generally outperforms Google ?

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet /. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'

Google gives them "free" shiny. And wow, do they sound like whiny little bitches when someone says anything bad about them.

Re:I just don't care

[Ionized]

oh, so despite google playing fast and loose with its own product rankings, it's still the best tool available?

well then.

Re:I just don't care

[Paradise Pete]

So people who agree that the better results are harder to find are switching to search engines that outperform Google, right?

You might as well be talking about Microsoft in the 90's. They could treat their users like pawns because they weren't going to switch anyway.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall IE ALWAYS being a steaming pile of junk. Thank heaven for Netscape.

Re:I just don't care

[Feral Nerd]

Still irrelevant - Microsoft doesn't "owe" you anything.

Microsoft exists as a publicly-traded for-profit company. They "just happen" to provide an operating system that is superior to the competition, but they have absolutely no obligation to market that tool "fairly". If they want to ship things with their OS that make them money at the top of the list, they can.

If they wanted to ship a video player with their OS that only plays cat videos, they could do that, too. And none of us have the least right to complain about it.

Don't like it? Use OS X.

There IFTFY.

Re:I just don't care

[ColdWetDog]

Much too nuanced ....

TL;DR - bring lawyers, guns and money.

Re:I just don't care

[garyisabusyguy]

Yeah, I suppose that there is still a pretty big Google fan base on /.

There will probably be a point in the future when Google has become recognized as Big Brother and the Snowden crowd turns on them, but that will probably be some time off in the future, long after Google's competitors have taken that stance

It may be difficult for people who have had Google for most of their life to realize that it is not a public utility, that it has to meet the desires of stockholders, and that it no longer even claims to 'not be evil' (dropped that in 2009)

Still, I am a little confused, what is it about the GP being honest that makes them a troll?

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

not only that, but google itself is ranked pretty damn high, so if they themselves linked to their own service, by extension (pagerank!) their webpages would be ranked pretty damn high... (no manual rank tweaking necessary).

Re:I just don't care

[cdrudge]

Blame that on your phone maker. My Galaxy S4 running a Google Edition rom I can move the search bar where ever I want, or even remove it.

Re:I just don't care

[itzly]

oh, so despite google playing fast and loose with its own product rankings, it's still the best tool available?

Yeah, like somebody can be the best husband/father, and a bank robber at the same time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop the guy from robbing banks.

Re:I just don't care

[stephanruby]

If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit.

How did you not know??? Seriously? It's a given that their own sites take precedence in the results.

This is a far cry from what Yahoo was doing ten years ago when they were ranking search results that were only tangentially related to your search because 3rd parties paid them to.

Re:I just don't care

[Ionized]

except that robbing banks is a crime, while ordering your search results however you like is not.

they made the product, they can decide how it functions. if they want to put google products first, that's their right. if you don't like it, use bing.

btw, i imagine that if you search on bing you will find MSDN, MSNBC, etc tends to dominate the rankings for their respective categories.

Re: I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

You can actually disable any major portion of your Android phone by going into the Manage Apps in settings.

Do a search for how to remove it and you'll find instructions.

Stock google has the ability to disable all of the nonessential apps (and even then, some can be disabled, screwing up your phone)

Re:I just don't care

[Jaime2]

Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.

This is the Federal Trade Commission. They issue fines for things like weight loss ads that present a highly one-sided narrative of the product, or to telcom companies that sell unlimited data services that have limits. They have the power to declare a practice deceptive and fine for it, even if the practice is legal.

Re:I just don't care

[itzly]

but they have absolutely no obligation to make that tool "fair". If they want to put things that make them money at the top of the list, they can.

As long as they comply with the anti-trust laws, which some experts didn't think was the case.

Re:I just don't care

[blue9steel]

Yeah, I suppose that there is still a pretty big Google fan base on /.

There will probably be a point in the future when Google has become recognized as Big Brother and the Snowden crowd turns on them, but that will probably be some time off in the future, long after Google's competitors have taken that stance

*Shrug* I'll switch when something else is better for searching. I used Alta Vista, then Yahoo, then Dogpile, now Google. Show me something else that is better and easier to use and I'll be using it by tomorrow. So far there are some interesting contenders but no one ready to take on the job as a full replacement.

Re:I just don't care

[blue9steel]

If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit.

Why, didn't you assume that already? I know I did.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just ridiculous. I have yet to see an android phone in which you could not remove the search bar.... and I've had 3 different nexus phones.

Re:I just don't care

[bhagwad]

And yet /. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'

Google gives them "free" shiny. And wow, do they sound like whiny little bitches when someone says anything bad about them.

If Google gives us free shinies, that means it's good for us. As a consumer, I will support Google because I get free shinies. What's wrong with that? The customer is happy.

Re:I just don't care

[Ionized]

are you a lawyer? care to cite the exact law they are breaking, along with court precedent of a comparable case?

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I flew on a United Airlines plane today. The built in TV screen in the seat in front of me showed a commercial for the United Mileage plus credit card and another commercial pimping United Airlines flights to other countries. On my way to the plane in the terminal I also saw billboards, flashing signs, and people also pushing for the Mileage Plus program and similar.

Would you really expect to see American Airlines adds? Is that unfair? I chose to fly United and while using their services they pimped their other products and even more services. OMG!

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like it? Use Bing.

Dear Moron,
You missed the point. For Bing and others to be able to exist, they absolutely do have the obligation to play "fair" in the capitalistic market.

Best wishes.

Re:I just don't care

[radarskiy]

A free market would care, because the players in the market need information to make efficient decisions between suppliers and their products.

Re:I just don't care

[itzly]

No I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the FTC has lawyers, and they produced a 160 page document about it. If you're interested in the details, I suggest you find a copy of the report.

Re: I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they looking for the missing 0.99% market share? This doesn't even add up properly.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, in light of the recent cases against Yelp and their manipulating of ratings for profit, I doubt this is even illegal so frankly the FTC has no teeth in a statement like this.

Re:I just don't care

[Ionized]

Yes they do, and yes they did. And yet, no suit has been filed.

Unless that happens, and unless Google loses, saying that Google violated anti-trust law is pure speculation on your part.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if their motto is "don't be evil", they do owe us unbiased search results, don't you think? Maybe they should have changed their motto a long time ago to reflect their dishonest practices.

Re:I just don't care

[biojayc]

What is the definition of unbiased? No matter what the algorithm is, it's biased toward things that the algorithm favors. It's the same thing with people complaining about Facebook changing their news feed algorithm. It's not like their first attempt was the "right" one, and any change is thus wrong because it's biased. How would you define an unbiased search?

Re:I just don't care

[The Grim Reefer]

Yeah, like somebody can be the best husband/father, and a bank robber at the same time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop the guy from robbing banks.

That's a really strange analogy in this case. You are claiming that Google is the best search engine-husband/father. But it's skewing the results in its favor. The bank robbing thing is too far removed to make any sense to me. It sounds more like it is the best father/husband but lies to its wife and children. Which obviously is not the "best" You're complaining that what it's best at is not good enough.

So even if Google is skewing its search results, it is still the best option? I would think that the competition would have an easy time to doing a better job if this was such a terrible thing. Frankly, I don't care. They are a company and they need to pay for their expenses and turn a profit somehow. If I was paying to use Google, that would be one thing. But I don't. It's free.

Re:I just don't care

[IamTheRealMike]

I care about getting good search results. Google choosing to put the better results lower in the ranking conflicts with that.

But Google doesn't do that, nor does the WSJ article imply it. Google chooses to add features to its search engine and sometimes those features, like embedded maps, rank higher than say MapQuest does. That's not putting "better results lower in the ranking", that's Google believing that an inline map works better than a link to another search engine where you get to re-enter your query. And I think it's right.

Re:I just don't care

[Chess_the_cat]

I was under the definite impression that Google did make a promise to deliver the most relevant search results. It's still on their support page:

"When a user enters a query, our machines search the index for matching pages and return the results we believe are the most relevant to the user. Relevancy is determined by over 200 factors, one of which is the PageRank for a given page. PageRank is the measure of the importance of a page based on the incoming links from other pages. In simple terms, each link to a page on your site from another site adds to your site's PageRank. Not all links are equal: Google works hard to improve the user experience by identifying spam links and other practices that negatively impact search results. The best types of links are those that are given based on the quality of your content."

I see nothing in there about cooking the results so that Google can make a few extra bucks.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to use google for searching. That's the damn point. They are a private company.

Re:I just don't care

[spacepimp]

Where is the lock in? Where are the predatory practices that make certain that no one can make a product that replaces Google? What are the costs associated with a user using Bing/DDG/Yahoo/dogpile or whatever?

Now if Google mandated that you could only use Chrome to use the search engine, or Chrome OS/Linux then this may be slightly similar to MS in the 90's. But this isn't even close. Also where is the FUD campaign where anyone using another browser or search engine is getting threatened with a lawsuit? Where is Google hiring proxy companies to prevent MS from working on Bing as a competitor? Where is the mandate that only Google can be used by any pc that is purchased?

Re:I just don't care

[spacepimp]

By nature of Google making the algorithm which ranks the results, it is inherently biased. The only way to prevent bias, would be to make the results pages completely randomized. Even then the randomization would hint at bias in the way it defined random. Google and their search results are and always have been a carefully manicured set of results, based off of choices of those behind it.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Th FTC doesn't enforce laws; they enforce self-created regulation. There's a huge difference. What the FTC should be is a consumer protection bureau. What it is, in reality, is a shakedown agency.

Re:I just don't care

[blang]

Well, if you are going to compete against google, what makes you think google should be obliged to promote YOUR business above their own?

Re:I just don't care

[squiggleslash]

No they don't, unless you're using a custom operating system. I installed the Bing app and disable Google services on my old Galaxy Nexus (which runs an official Google version of Android) and now that search box searches using Bing.

In fact it's kinda annoying, because I didn't do either of those in order to get that result (wanted to try the Bing app at one point and happened to have it on my phone, and in an entirely unrelated process was having problems with my handsfree and found the only way to cut off the - broken and unusable anyway - voice dialing was to disable Google search altogether.) But that's besides the point.

Try it. Disable Google Search (Settings -> Apps -> All -> Google Search -> Disable), reboot, install Bing from Google Play, run it, and reboot again. See what happens when you use that box now.

Re:I just don't care

[rsborg]

are you a lawyer? care to cite the exact law they are breaking, along with court precedent of a comparable case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Google has 70% of the search market. Many companies with much less market dominance have fallen under this act for a much smaller share of the market, because they could exert monopoly power (most likely due to network effects).

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Promissory Estoppel.

Our search results reflect an objective and unbiased listing order generated by an algorithm. Oh, and here's a White Paper on PageRank and specifically how it works.

Except, it doesn't work that way. It works however makes us the most money. If you lost money on the belief it worked they way we said, well, sucks to be you.

Re:I just don't care

[Coren22]

The whole point is that there is nothing you could call unbiased. Google was formed from the horrible search engines BECAUSE they ranked the results to make them more useful. You must be too young to remember what Alta Vista was like, literally pages of useless results before you found the nugget of what you were looking for. Google's search became popular simply because the results they offered were biased to give a better answer for the question you were asking rather then generically returning ever page that matched your search.

Re:I just don't care

[Coren22]

How could someone miss that Google does this? It is patently obvious, and it is a feature, not a bug. I would be highly confused if I searched for something on Google, and they offered a Bing Maps link to the address and a Yahoo Images listing of images that match my search.

Google is so popular because they optimized search to give you waht you were looking for. Every one of their competitors when they started gave a list of results that matched your query, Google offered a ranked list of results to a query. From the beginning all they have ever done was make their results a better ranked listing to give you a better answer to what you are searching for.

If instead what Google did was rank Google+ higher than Facebook in a search for Facebook, that would be odd as it isn't giving you what you asked for.

https://www.google.com/search?...

Look at that, no Google+ on the whole first page (if at all). I don't know that the people writing these reports actually remember what the internet was like before Google, but they sure do act like they don't understand how Google's algorithms work and what made Google better than anyone else.

I assume you remember the days of Alta Vista as I get the impression you are around 40. If I am wrong, you should be glad to not have to remember having to go through pages of results before finding what you were searching for.

Re:I just don't care

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/search?...

I don't see any abuse. Where is Google+ ranked above Facebook?

Re:I just don't care

[BarbaraHudson]

I'll take that last bit as a compliment :-)

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo, this. Google has brand recognition. I trust that their products do a good job without shenanigans so I will always prefer something with a Google tramp stamp over any competitor. If they put their products at the top of my results, they do it with my consent and blessing because I will always prefer a Google product over competitors. Anti-trust laws don't promise a right for companies to have protection to do a worse job.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

... and "Don't be Evil" turns into "Not obligated to do good".

Actually if I "don't like it" I choose to be very vocal in forums and will make a lifetime of being a PR nightmare for google. If you don't like that then piss off.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, Alta Vista. Didn't they use to offer from web hosting for like 5mb if you put banners on your site? Them and geocities. Call me crazy but I miss the early 90s Internet.

Sure, I had this lame dial-up, streaming video or even audio wasn't happening until cable modems (those were costly and not available everywhere) came up. We had unlimited aol coasters, and the ads were much lamer though less directed.

I do love me some youtube and some other streaming services, not to mention some of the free online storage and other potentially useful things, but the ads are crazy with out addons to handle them and the commercialization of things did more harm then good at the end of the day.

Basically I miss when only a only million people were online and we were all guys that played games, watched porn and shared music. Then it got popular and the playground changed.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google makes the results less useful to users, Bing and others have the opportunity to win away their users by doing better.
"Fairness" has nothing to do with it.

Re: I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if people happen to know that google's results were biased

Re:I just don't care

[Obfuscant]

That Google is able to employ such tactics with the implicit understanding that its customers will not abandon it for a competitor argues that it has coercive monopoly power.

Google customers will not abandon Google because Google is doing exactly what Google customers want: promoting Google things and things the customers have paid them to promote.

The USERS may or may not change search engines, but if they are like me they will base their decision on which search engine to use on how good the results are. As it stands, Google is still better for some things, others for other. Google has no way to coerce me into using it for any search, and proof of that is how easy it is to change search engines.

Oh, you thought YOU were the customer when you did a search? When you send a check to Google for their data you can be a customer. Until then, you are a product. Your click-throughs are what the customers pay for.

Re:I just don't care

[Obfuscant]

Telling OEMs that if they wanted to sell ANY Microsoft products on their system they had to sell Microsoft products on ALL of their systems is much different than Google promoting their own stuff on their own website.

Are you unhappy that the microsoft.com website doesn't sell RedHat subscriptions? Then why should you care that Google websites promote Google stuff?

Re:I just don't care

[larryjoe]

That Google is able to employ such tactics with the implicit understanding that its customers will not abandon it for a competitor argues that it has coercive monopoly power.

Google customers will not abandon Google because Google is doing exactly what Google customers want: promoting Google things and things the customers have paid them to promote.

The issue is one of competition and customer choice. That the lack of competition might have arisen from a combination of Google's competence and a lack of competence on the part of their competitors is orthogonal. Lack of competition is inherently anti-consumer because market forces are not allowed to influence pricing. This is true even if Google follows their slogan and is completely devoid of evil.

Oh, you thought YOU were the customer when you did a search? When you send a check to Google for their data you can be a customer. Until then, you are a product. Your click-throughs are what the customers pay for.

I have never been under any illusion that I am a Google customer. In Google's eyes, I am cattle.

Re:I just don't care

[Obfuscant]

I have never been under any illusion that I am a Google customer. In Google's eyes, I am cattle.

So we're left with the unacceptable situation of Google "coercing" customers to stay with them by doing what the customers want them to do. How awful. Laws must be passed. Every company that provides the service that the customer pays for must be hobbled so that customers are not unfairly influenced in their selection of vendors.

Re:I just don't care

[unity]

I recall alta vista quite well and I seem to recall a different reason for google becoming popular. It became popular because the search page and results were so lightweight and full of content instead of a bunch of crap you didn't care about.

Re:I just don't care

[Aighearach]

Search is free, and they're not compelling anybody to use it. Being a natural monopoly is in no way illegal. And you're allowed to enjoy the natural benefits of that. What is banned is only using it to harm consumers, as defined by price, and ability to compete. Listing your own stuff first doesn't affect anybody else's ability to have a search engine and order their own rankings. It doesn't stop them from doing anything. And since it is free, they can't be accused of gouging consumers.

It is just that simple. Customers have to be over-paying, or the competition has to be excluded, for there to be a problem. Google could totally leave the competition out of their search listing, and pretend they don't exist, and the competition could still run their own search engine, and advertise it, etc. To be doing something wrong, google would have to take control of some supplier, create a bottleneck, and use it as a choke point to keep the competition out of the market. If, for example, they were buying ISPs and dropping packets of search competitors, that would be illegal. Or if they intentionally bought up all the ISP service available, so the competition couldn't get internet hosting, and they were actually just idling the servers, or didn't need them, then that would be illegal. If they were using contracts with advertisers to prevent those people doing business with the competition, that would be illegal (for a monopoly, but legal for the little guy!).

None of that is accused.

There is nothing to accuse. It sounds like the document describes some legal things google is doing, that were investigated and found to be acceptable.

Re:I just don't care

[Aighearach]

Deceptive business practices are not legal.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Shopping results for a given query are ranked by the utility, the quality of the webpage, the reputation and trustability of the host page seller. All the aforementioned considering the location of the user.

  Verifiable high quality sellers with good reputation (for a given local) in combination with a high quality webpage offering the product produce the same ranks regardless of the host.

  No conspiracy here, the rules are all in their Webmaster Best Practices guidelines.

 

Re:I just don't care

[thegarbz]

A monopoly in one field does not make an action in another against anti-trust laws. For instance Microsoft got done for bundling IE with Windows where it had a clear monopoly on the market. If instead they bundled IE with flight simulator it doesn't matter.

Likewise Google is manipulating search results to boost it's own services to end users. The end users are however free to do as they please. That doesn't make them necessarily against the anti-trust law for the monopoly they have on internet advertising.

And regardless of what experts think, what really matters in this case is exclusively what the judge thinks and that hasn't been tested as far as I know.

Re:I just don't care

[thegarbz]

That Google is able to employ such tactics with the implicit understanding that its customers will not abandon it for a competitor argues that it has coercive monopoly power

It's implying no such thing. The actions of a company can not be linked to coercive power without understand the needs or wants of the customer first. There is some benefit to both parties that Google's results are promoted to the top and many customers like getting consistent and understandable results. I.e. if I type "maps" into Google I would see it as a sign of a failing search algorithm to not promote Google Maps to the very top of the list. It is incredibly interesting that Bing will also list Google as the top result for maps, and only lists itself as number 4.

Re:I just don't care

[Jaime2]

... but that's highly subjective. The fact that the FTC decided the practices are deceptive is what made them illegal. They were just anti-consumer behaviors before the FTC looked into it.

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

then you get M$ results first and the rest are just in some sort of utter shit order or missed altogether...

Re:I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job, but IMNHO (IANAL) Google search in that case would be considered a natural monopoly.

Re: I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to use it, and if you did, it would be free, you stupid motherfucker.

Re:I just don't care

[larryjoe]

That Google is able to employ such tactics with the implicit understanding that its customers will not abandon it for a competitor argues that it has coercive monopoly power

It's implying no such thing. The actions of a company can not be linked to coercive power without understand the needs or wants of the customer first. There is some benefit to both parties that Google's results are promoted to the top and many customers like getting consistent and understandable results. I.e. if I type "maps" into Google I would see it as a sign of a failing search algorithm to not promote Google Maps to the very top of the list. It is incredibly interesting that Bing will also list Google as the top result for maps, and only lists itself as number 4.

Coerciveness and lack of effective competition is orthogonal to both relative ability to competitors and benefit to consumers. Government entities including courts have sometimes made decisions based on the impact to consumers, but the coercive nature of a business and its ability to unilaterally impose its will on the market can still remain.

Re: I just don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I would if I paid United Airlines money to show my airline's ads on their planes and in their terminals.

This isn't about Google showing their own stuff, it's about them showing it above others who paid Google for ad space or keywords, when Google's stuff is less relevant.

Re:I just don't care

[lsatenstein]

You are thinking like a consumer, not a business owner. For consumers, sure they get worse results and can go elsewhere, but for business owners, the majority of their potential customers are going to use Google since it is the go-to for most people, thus it decreases your visibility and income. So it is a pretty big issue for people trying to reach an audience, which includes people who work for any company that has customers. Thus unless you're independently wealthy or work for a Google affiliated company, this probably affects you.

I really don't care what Google does, I only window shop at the vendor list that Google prepares, but I never make a purchase. I tend to purchase from smaller businesses that are local. I support my local merchants.

Re:I just don't care

[sjames]

No, but if they claim to have unbiased search results, they owe everyone unbiased search results.

Re:I just don't care

[amber_of_luxor]

There is no such thing as unbaised, in the world of search. What happens is that there are results that are more likely, and less likely to be what the person doing the search wanted. But even that is iffy.

The major, if not only virtue Google currently has over other search engines, is that it has indexed more content. However, that doesn't mean that the user seeking that indexed content will find it on Google.

A company willing to commit around US$100,000 up front for hardware, and then around US$10,000 a quarter for hardware, can have their own in-house search engine. A search engine that keeps track of the parts of the Internet that the organization is most focused upon.

Re:I just don't care

[sjames]

There most certainly is a such thing. For example, sort_results (put_us_first) is biased. Sort_results(likely_user_preference) is not.

Spin yourself around until you believe red==green if you like but make no mistake, that's just you playing word games in your head.

Re:I just don't care

[Coren22]

It became popular because the search page and results were so lightweight and full of content instead of a bunch of crap you didn't care about.

Which is another way of saying the same thing I just did. It wasn't full of crap because it weighted results by how popular (how many times it was linked to) a page was. This allowed them to show only the most useful results, and move all the worthless crap to the later pages of the search result.

Re:I just don't care

[TenOx]

When you present information ordered on number of hits, but put your own services first, even if they have magnitudes fewer hits, and you do not make that known with every search return -- oh, and you claim not to do evil (lying is evil), that is too much bias.

Why is this a mystery?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, Google has no obligation to rank things in a way that you think is logical or beneficial. They can display their search results however the fuck they please, if you don't like them head http://www.yahoo.com/ still works fine.

There's an ISO-standard crapload of people out there making money "bolstering your search results for your website." Some of them have long term repeat customers, so it seems likely there is method to that madness.

Why the fuck would we assume that people WITHIN Google would not be experts at making sure their product ranked well? When I worked for a telco, when I had a problem with my phone, I unfairly walked down the hall, unfairly talked to truly expert technicians, who quite unfairly fixed it for me. Compared to how people outside my company got service it's terribly unfair and clearly the FTC should have been involved in that too. Not.

Are ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you guys ready to start hating google yet?

Well no shit!

[pecosdave]

Are we going to investigate Amazon for presenting a stupid assed Kindle Fire as the first result whenever I search for "Nexus 9" on their engine next?

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this. The top 3 results for me are all Nexus 9s. The Kindle Fire is result #13.

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we going to investigate Amazon for presenting a stupid assed Kindle Fire as the first result whenever I search for "Nexus 9" on their engine next?

Or require Microsoft to promote other browsers than IE when you install Windows??

Re:Well no shit!

[sirshannon]

Sure, if they did that. But they don't when I check.

Re:Well no shit!

[hjf]

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

Re:Well no shit!

[pecosdave]

I just did the search again, you're right.

I did a search for another of my annoyances "Bluetooth Mouse", three of the first six were actually Bluetooth, quite an improvement, I must applaud them. I typed "HTC M8" and Firephone wasn't even on the first page. I assure you this change is within the past couple of months.

Re:Well no shit!

[pecosdave]

Recent change, I assure you. If you search for "Bluetooth Mouse" the third result is a non-Bluetooth Amazon basics mouse.

Bluetooth means not having to have a stupid dongle for everything you connect to your system! Not "Wireless with a USB port taken".

Re:Well no shit!

[Yebyen]

Microsoft also not only had(has) the #1 best-selling operating system in the world, it also _sells_ it. For money, to customers who buy it (sometimes indirectly, to many of whom are people that don't realize they had another choice.) People come to Google for their search, just like people come to Google for their other services, but nobody pays for search. Just like every other company that provides a multitude of services, including some loss-leaders, tries to promote their other profit-making services from their loss-leaders, Google uses Search to promote its other profit-making services.

If you knew that Google provides airplane ticket listings and you go to the familiar google.com interface and type in "airplane tickets", the bigger crime would be if Google couldn't show you their own airplane listings first (or the listing they sold to the highest bidder) because of their "privileged position as #1 search giant," but they were instead somehow obligated to maintain an objective criteria to find the most popular result and return it (read: and all the other more popular services) first. In spite of the fact that you came to Google asking Google for their help with plane tickets, a service which they even do provide, sometimes for a profit.

Where should you go to find Google flight listings? Yahoo? The fifth page of Google search listings? Hogwash.

Re:Well no shit!

[itzly]

The amazon mouse is the #1 best seller, though, and it's wireless. Likewise, if you search for bluetooth keyboard, the 3rd result is a non-bluetooth logitech wireless keyboard, which is also the #1 best seller.

Re:Well no shit!

[hjf]

If you think "no one pays for google" I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Well no shit!

[Yebyen]

Who pays for the Google search web service?

I'll admit, this page is amusing in the context of this discussion: honestresults.html

I know plenty of people pay Google, some pay for hosting of their business services, some pay for advertising placement in search results, but does anyone pay Google for Web Search (as a consumer of web search results?)

Re:Well no shit!

[John Bokma]

on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

It's a little less simple than that. On iOS you have to use Apple's browser engine. You are free[1] to wrap your own user interface around it, like for example Google's Chrome does. As a user I don't care much about the browser engine; it's like whining that mobile phones use USB to charge.

[1] free as in what Apple allows in its app store

Re:Well no shit!

[edtice1559]

Only because they abused a monopoly position. iOS is not a monopoly (less than 50% market share). Neither is Google. There's no issue with Google placing there results at the top of a list. The issue would be if they misrepresented the results as being the most relevant based on an unbiased algorithm. Clearly most of us on /. *suspected* that the algorithm was biased, but they never disclosed it and it's fair to say that a least *some* people may have been confused by the misleading practice.

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vendor Lock-in is a thing.

Microsoft was a full blown monopoly and through it's operating system had customers who COULDN'T leave as their software would only work within Windows. Hell just look at how many still rely on the other version of internet explorer to run.

Have a friend who runs an auto-shop, their Mitchelle OnDemand software which helps them out and costs a great deal to pay for still runs on IE 6. Let alone the in-house software many companies still use.

They had also setup and told officials that they had integrated Internet Explorer so completely into its Operating System that it couldn't be removed, not even by them.

By comparison, there is literally zero vendor lock-in with google.

Re:Well no shit!

[stephanruby]

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

I don't think anyone can accuse iOS's shrinking marketshare of being a monopoly. They're currently second and they will stay second for a long time.

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I enjoy that there is no date mark on the link

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another butthurt google fangirl.

Re:Well no shit!

[IamTheRealMike]

Microsoft was only fined in Europe. In America nothing much happened. Also: the fines were iirc not for bundling of the web browser but rather, the things they did to stop PC makers also including Netscape. Like threatening to punish them financially if they supported a competitor. That's a lot more cut and dried. You're right that bundling web browsers with operating systems was clearly the right move in hindsight and in practice Netscape might have been toast anyway. But maybe not: alternative browsers are doing better than IE is today, despite IE's bundling advantage. But being forcibly bankrupted by Microsoft if you included one of them crosses the line.

Re:Well no shit!

[spacepimp]

What about the lawsuits where no one else could have a browser installed in windows upon purchase? Or that you can't get a PC without paying for Windows whether you intended to use it with Windows or not?

Re:Well no shit!

[spacepimp]

Microsoft was fined, they paid fines, and they had forced official remedies mandated, which they violated as well. The latter part being within the last two you years. You should be ashamed of yourself for coming here and deliberately lying so you don't have a way to get called out for being a shill/asshat...
People like you keep conversations from moving forward. Nice to be that guy asshole.

Re:Well no shit!

[spacepimp]

Wrong. You can use a deprecated engine which is limited slow and inferior. So all those who want to compete with iOS cannot have a level playing field.

Re:Well no shit!

[spacepimp]

In the US they got away with murder, most likely because they gave the feds any piece of data and every back door they could dream of.

Re:Well no shit!

[squiggleslash]

That's because their search system is crap. You ask for a Bluetooth Mouse, they'll search for anything that has Bluetooth, Mouse, or the word "The" in it (yes, I know you didn't type "The" - that's how stupid it is) It's a rare day I search for anything and more than 50% of the first page of searches actually relate to what I wanted - as in, at the very least, have all the keywords I specified.

It has nothing to do with Amazon Basics, which I doubt even makes Amazon any more money than their regular inventory.

Re:Well no shit!

[Anubis IV]

And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.

Opera Mini, released 2010, and Opera Coast, released 2014
Google Chrome, released 2012
News regarding Firefox, due for release at some point soon

iOS requires that if you use a browser engine in iOS, it must be their version of WebKit for iOS, which is how Chrome and Coast work, but there are ways around even that, and there's nothing stopping you from building a better browser than theirs on top of their engine, which is exactly what others have done. Additionally, Opera Mini gets around the engine issue by moving the rendering to cloud servers. No idea how Mozilla is approaching it.

Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.

The distinction that people always seem to forget is that it generally isn't a matter of what you're doing, but is rather a matter of how you're using it. Going off your own example, there's nothing inherently illegal about bundling a browser with your OS. We see devices do this all the time; most of the console manufacturers have built-in browsers with no way to change them, for instance. And there's nothing inherently illegal about doing so well in business that you end up dominating a market; Amazon controls something like 90% of the eBooks market, for instance. But, especially as you get larger, you have a responsibility to not engage in practices that stifle or cripple competition. The market is supposed to be an even field to compete on. You're not allowed to rig the game.

In the case of Microsoft, there were allegations that they were intentionally rigging APIs in Windows to cripple competing browsers. On top of that, downloads back in the day took quite awhile to finish, so the fact that IE was bundled on the disc for a unrelated product that had a dominant market position (Windows) provided them with a seemingly unfair advantage over the other browsers (I don't know that I agree it was unfair, but whatever). The biggest issue, however (at least in the US case), and the piece that everyone forgets, is that they had reached a settlement back in '94 with the FTC that explicitly disallowed them from bundling other products with Windows, since the FTC had accused them of abusing their dominant position in the OS market to gain illicit advantages over their competitors.

THAT'S what made their bundling of IE illegal. Were iPhones in a similar market position and being used to allow Apple to push out competition in related markets, you can bet that Apple would have regulators breathing down their neck too. As it is though, Apple may be a big company, but their influence is no greater when it comes to these areas than that of their primary competitors.

LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.

Well, yeah. So is Apple. So is "don't be evil" Google. Suggesting Microsoft isn't evil like the rest of them is just naive. They just took it a step too far and got slapped.

Re:Well no shit!

[rsborg]

Wrong. You can use a deprecated engine which is limited slow and inferior. So all those who want to compete with iOS cannot have a level playing field.

Cite? You can only use webkit on iOS. btw, when you say "competing with iOS" you weaken your argument by way of sounding like a prat.

Re:Well no shit!

[spacepimp]

I went to pull up a link, and it seems as they changed this in the latest release of iOS (8.1) . As for using a limited subset of javascript that was quite old, while using a different set for Safari, didn't have any other browser on the same playing field, or responsiveness or capabilities.

I could give a toss what you think, and this information is publicly available. Don't be a ponce limey.

http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/...

Re:Well no shit!

[John Bokma]

Good to know I was not wrong ;-).

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

But geekwire told me Windows was #2: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/windows-outpace-macios-2015-androids-lead-reaches-1-billion/

Re:Well no shit!

[hjf]

That's why I never answer to AC.

Re:Well no shit!

[thegarbz]

Yes Microsoft is evil for the action not because of what they did, but because of the power they had at the time.

OSX is a minor player in a tightly closed ecosystem that people buy into. There's absolutely no way anyone can argue that OSX has a monopoly on anything, they can bundle what they want without major wide reaching influence.

Windows on the other hand was the only product available on any new computer. You could literally not buy a computer without Windows at the time. They didn't get in trouble for bundling ie with the OS, they got in trouble for bundling it with something that was in turn forced down the end-users throats in an anti-competitive way meaning that there was no way anyone could buy a PC at the time without getting ie despite the existence of other OSes at the time.

Re:Well no shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a serious question? Every search is an individual payment. You're paying for the service simply by using it and exposing your searching habits for consumption to the "big data gods". Search for shoes? Expect some ads on every site using AdSense which sells you shoes.

Re:Well no shit!

[Yebyen]

So, nobody then.

I do not see how advertisers paying for eyeballs diverted from search results is the same as anyone "paying for search results" with their search queries. "You tell me what you're looking for and I'll tell you where to find it."

If this is what passes for quid pro quo then all those ad sellers might as well pack up and go home.

Do bartenders usually serve alcohol for the satisfaction of knowing what kind of drink is most popular? No! They do it because they have a liquor license and they will customarily be paid for the drinks they pour. You can't simultaneously be both the product and the consumer. Those are separate services, even if they are happening at the same time on the same networks and servers.

What I hear is "nobody actually pays money for search results."

How to Deal with Bullies

[alphatel]

G have been slowly creeping to the dark side for some time now. Everything is about profit, like any corporation, and there's nothing truly free even when they hand it to you gift-wrapped. And to top it off they are more than happy to use the media to toss aside the FTC's original case dismissal and settlement, when in fact it's pretty clear they did abuse their search power. G is a monopoly. You know it. I know it. We refuse to change our habits and as such continue to empower them.

People rallied against Microsoft for less. We now see how inconsequential a browser is to any OS experience, and G quickly overcame IE and FF simply by producing the best webkit experience.

So we have one choice here. Find and use a new preferred search engine. I know this whole idea sucks because other than porn, most other search engines suck for everything. But if we keep empowering G, they can keep buying their way out of these things and mocking us. I am tired of being laughed at by my search engine, letting it scrape every other site, ranking them based on how much money G will make, and paying them for the hard labor.

No listen, I am serious! I might actually start using a different engine if you can show me it's just half-damn decent.

Re:How to Deal with Bullies

[ScentCone]

Everything is about profit, like any corporation

Like PETA, the Sierra Club, and the Corporation For Public Broadcasting?

it's pretty clear they did abuse their search power

No, it's pretty clear only that you're asserting that, and don't consider it appropriate for people to start a company, write their own software, offer it to you to use at no charge to you in the way they see fit. How awful! Let me guess, you just came from a post graduate seminar on "triggering," and having a company sort their search results as they please brought back a traumatic memory of not understanding the Dewey Decimal System as a little kid, and thinking that the hot, but kind of stern librarian was really out to shame you, personally. Gah! Three more triggers in there at least! You probably should sue Slashdot for allowing someone to type those things without shielding you from them.

G is a monopoly. You know it. I know it.

Other than the part where they have competition, you are in no way obliged to use them, they aren't restraining anybody from going elsewhere for search, mail, apps, etc., all also available for free from other providers. So no, I don't know it, and you're just saying it because you are simply incensed by the notion of someone succeeding, and talking about it is yet another Trigger (!!!) that brings back that guy in elementary school who could always beat you at chess and whose mom sent him to school with a more attractive and healthy looking lunch every day.

People rallied against Microsoft for less.

Yes, they did, and that was BS, too. But times were different, and not as many other OS solutions were available, and that muddied the waters. Still, they got hosed.

We now see how inconsequential a browser is to any OS experience, and G quickly overcame IE and FF simply by producing the best webkit experience.

And despite that fit of time-traveling perspective on your part, you can't wrap your head around the fact that another search engine could be hatched out at any time by anyone, and quickly eclipse Bing, Google, et al, in exactly the same way.

So we have one choice here. Find and use a new preferred search engine.

But we can't! Google has a monopoly!

most other search engines suck for everything

Oh, so that's your actual complaint. You hate Google because they're competent. Oh no, another traumatic Triggering!

No listen, I am serious!

No, you're the least serious person in the room.

Re:How to Deal with Bullies

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Other than the part where they have competition, you are in no way obliged to use them, they aren't restraining anybody from going elsewhere for search

You're confused. Obviously, I, as an individual, can use Bing, DDG or others. However, I, as a member of a company that wants to make money, have to make sure that when the 95% of people who use Google try to find [X], they can find me. It's a monopoly of eyeballs for their true customers.

It's a network effects problem.

Re:How to Deal with Bullies

[ScentCone]

However, I, as a member of a company that wants to make money, have to make sure that when the 95% of people who use Google try to find [X], they can find me.

No, you're under no more of an obligation to do that than you are to run print ads in the local newspaper. If you like what Google has to offer, use it. If you find using them so distasteful, use the many other options.

If your position is that business owners are compelled by the very nature of Google's usefulness to take advantage of what they're offering, and they have no choice in the matter because they're slaves to the usefulness of it, being foolish if they don't make money ... then why aren't you cutting Google the same slack for following their own noses when they see a way to make their product more attractive to use? Or do you only sympathize with less successful people?

Re:How to Deal with Bullies

[Aighearach]

What you're describing is a "natural monopoly" where they're used because they're better. It is totally approved of by US law. They're also allowed to enjoy the natural benefits of their position. They're not allowed to harm consumers, defined as making them pay more. Search is free, nobody had to over pay. They're not allowed to use tactics to keep the competition out. And they're not accused of that. They are absolutely allowed to be more successful than the competition. They're allowed to be more profitable. And they're allowed to put their own needs first. If they buy up the ISPs and refuse service or raise prices on the other search companies, that is when there would be an issue of preventing competition. Preventing competition never means just that you didn't help them out, or give them free advertising.

Re:How to Deal with Bullies

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I understand what a natural monopoly is. Natural monopolies (Microsoft, Google) are totally, and explicitly, not allowed to use their monopoly powers in one industry (OS, Search) to promote their power in another (Internet Browsers, Travel). They also are pretty regulated in behavior and prices(ala AT&T).

The only advantage a natural monopoly has over a non-natural monopoly is that it won't be broken up.

You really should do some research, because your ideas are incorrect.

Did anyone NOT think this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ on a bike FTC, you've solved all other problems I guess?

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

So will GM have to send me to MercedesBenz bank for financing a new car? Will they have to sell me a Chrysler now too?
Of course Google will prefer their own brands.
As does Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and all the others which have complementary products and services

Re:Ridiculous

[gnupun]

Of course Google will prefer their own brands.

The problem here is Google has over 75% of the search engine market and is pretty much the gateway to the Internet to many users. It should not be abusing that monopoly to unfairly promote their other non-monopoly services over that of their competitors' services.

As does Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and all the others which have complementary products and services

Maybe that's wrong. But Google search is a monopoly and the impact of abuse is greater.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can literally switch search engines upon their very next search and never go back. Where is the problem? The troublesome monopolies restrict your choices, that's a problem.

Re:Ridiculous

[gurps_npc]

If GM claimed to offer anyone that wants it help you finance any new car, then yes GM would be required to send you to Mercedes Benz Bank. That is why they don't claim to do it. Google on the other hand does claim to be searching everything, not just their own services.

Google is first and foremost a SEARCH engine, and as such they claim to show you other people's products, then yes, Google should not give special treatment to their own brands.

Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo similarly can not give special treatment for their own brands when they claim to be showing you everything

If you offer a service claiming to show everything, then no you can't rank yourself first or best. Doing so is a lie and lying to obtain business is fraud. Which is why they are in trouble.

So would you be, as you seem to think it is OK to falsely advertise what your business does.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they can give special treatment to their own brands. It is THEIR search results. They can order them however they wish to order them. Should they be required to indicate in a more clear fashion that they have promoted their own products, possibly. But to suggest that it is false advertising shows a complete and utter lack of understanding on both the definition of false advertising and the realities of selling a service.

Re:Ridiculous

[gnupun]

Where is the problem?

The problem is the browser they switch to is very likely inferior to google search, so they won't switch search engines. Meanwhile Google is promoting their inferior non-search services on their search service to the detriment of the customer. Do you see the problem now?

Re:Ridiculous

[deKernel]

Prove to me that their non-search services are inferior. They might inferior to you, but they aren't inferior to me. Now do YOU see the problem? Oh, that is right, you view is obviously correct for ALL people.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Google clearly shows that the fucking ad is not a search result. It's not a "result" it's an ad, or a search in a different search tool. Is it wrong for google to show image search results when you search for "picture of beach"? Is it wrong to show flight search rsults when you search for "flights from Dallas to Denver"?

Re:Ridiculous

[spacepimp]

the browser they switch to is likely inferior to Google search? WTF does this even mean?
A browser is not a search engine. People can change search engines and not need to change the software they are using to do so.

Re:Ridiculous

[Aighearach]

If the problem is that the competition is inferior, you should be blaming the competition. It is like when the loser of the race complains, "gosh, he shouldn't have won, he's so fast it just isn't fair!"

Re:Ridiculous

[Aighearach]

Your "can not"s are made up entirely by you, those aren't the rules here in the USA, where this story is from.

Marketing over primary function of searching

[whitroth]

I've been complaining for a few years now - the last five or so, google search returns a much worse signal-to-noise ratio. And they keep taking away search tools, *and* theyve begun ignoring search criteria. Just last year, I was looking for high leather men's boots, with criteria of -"ladies" -"womens"... and among other things, saw a sponsored ad (a *complete* waste of the advertiser's money) that had "womens/bold" in the text.

So much technical computer info is buried in rubble....

                mark

Re:Marketing over primary function of searching

[squiggleslash]

That might actually be an artifact of the same bugs that caused Google recently to embarassingly change searches like "famous female scientists" into "Searching instead for 'famous male scientists'. Click here to search for 'famous female scientists'"

There appears to be a lot of crap in Google's algorithms they're still trying to dig out that assumes synonyms of completely opposite words. Which is one of the many reasons why Google's searches tend to be miss rather than hit nine times in ten these days.

Re:Marketing over primary function of searching

[Aighearach]

The part you're missing is that google's algorithms don't attempt to understand the words. That is why they actually can index and search foreign language pages effectively. My wife searches for stuff in Thai all the time. Google didn't have to add any special Thai support for that. All they do identify strings and substrings. It is all based on what patterns exist. It is all just identifying lexical units and what other lexical units are used in relation to them, with no attempt at all at semantic understanding. So in your example, it tells you that in English it is more common to talk about "male scientists" than "female scientists." Indeed, even news articles reporting on the gender imbalance in science is likely to use the term "male scientists" and not the phrase "female scientists." Even without any sexism, just the nature of having an imbalance means that in many cases you would pair one group with the position that lacks parity, and the other group with the people not choosing that position. So you might talk about "male scientists," and then about "female students" not choosing a career in science. Once you understand that, then you can just click on the link and get to your results without embarrassment.

In the old days when google had a clear and literal search syntax, you could avoid those problems by just quoting phrases or word groups, but that doesn't work well anymore.

And their point is?

[Nethemas the Great]

The FTC is seeming to suggest that it would be more proper for the Apple store to introduce customers looking to buy an office PC to Microsoft offerings first because they have a larger market share. Or Verizon to show plans from TMobile ahead of their own because they're more economical.

Just because Google happens to offer services that incorporate non-Google offerings doesn't mean they don't have a right to serve their own interests. If I'm using Google I expect to be shown Google offerings. If I'm using Travelocity I expect to be shown Travelocity services. It's nice that they incorporate their competitors offerings as an option but I certainly don't expect them to say, "we suck, why not check out this offer from Expedia".

Re:And their point is?

[itzly]

The FTC is seeming to suggest that it would be more proper for the Apple store to introduce customers looking to buy an office PC to Microsoft offerings first

The Apple store is not an internet search engine. Your analogy makes no sense.

Re:And their point is?

[hjf]

So, why was MS fined for bundling IE?

Re:And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple store does have a search feature. The analogy applies.

Re:And their point is?

[gurps_npc]

No that is not what the FTC is saying. Google's business is to search websites. They are intentionally downgrading the quality of the search for their competitors. Apple store does not in any way claim to offer non-apple products.

The fact that you don't see that indicates your knowledge of economics and business is severely lacking.

Nor is it 'nice' that Google shows non-competioros offerings, it is a REQUIREMENT to running a search service. A search service that only shows your own products is not a search service, it is a search function for your products.

No one is saying that Google can't serve their own interests. What they are saying is that Google must first serve their customers interests, than their own interests.

The fact that you don't see that indicates you fail to understand rather basic concepts.

Re:And their point is?

[Nethemas the Great]

I think you need to work on your abstraction skills. "Search" is a product just as much as a "PC" is a product.

Re:And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The google product "search result" doesn't look like a search result at all.

It basically says "we have a tool for that, take a look" Below it is the actual search results.

I can't imagine there is any confusion. It certainly doesn't look like their competitors are lowered in results unless you consider being in the search results section rather than the "app" section is demoted.

Re:And their point is?

[Nethemas the Great]

That was the EU not the US. To my knowledge the only major FTC action against Microsoft was United States vs. Microsoft which ended with a settlement to disclose their APIs. That case however, presumed Microsoft to be a monopoly and was prosecuted accordingly. It is a bit harder to argue that Google is a monopoly. They have plenty of competitors both large and small in both their aggregate services as well as individual services.

Re:And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's knowledge of economics and business is lacking? Google's business, like every other, is to make money. They might even do so by prioritizing their services over others within their search results. There is no lock in what-so-ever to using their search service. People using their free search service are not their customers, they are product.

You might want to stop projecting your desire for how things work onto the world that doesn't work that way.

Re:And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a bunch of idiots decided to fine them. We should learn from the past so that we do not repeat it. Just because something was done in error in the past does not mean that we should repeat said error.

Re:And their point is?

[Nethemas the Great]

Nor is it 'nice' that Google shows non-competioros offerings, it is a REQUIREMENT to running a search service. A search service that only shows your own products is not a search service, it is a search function for your products.

Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?

No one is saying that Google can't serve their own interests. What they are saying is that Google must first serve their customers interests, than their own interests.

That is a nice idea--for the customer. However, this anti-capitalistic idea doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially in the US. Neither is it routinely and commonly practiced nor is it enforced. In practice a business first serves its shareholders, the scraps and trimmings go to the customers.

Re:And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they are saying is that Google must first serve their customers interests, than their own interests.

In what way does presenting their own services first not serve the customers interest? The customer searched for a service, a list of services was presented. Exactly where in this process was the customers interest not served? Let alone not served first?

However you view googles rankings (whether they are fair or not) the search engine itself has no indication from "airline tickets A to B on Y" that the user would prefer any one service over another. So to suggest that any given alternative ordering of the results would always serve the customers interest more than their own interest indicates that you fail to understand the basic concepts.

Re:And their point is?

[itzly]

Apple stores are designed for selling Apple products. Anybody walking in such a store knows this. Apple doesn't even try to pretend to be selling a wide range of brands.

Re:And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You had to pay for IE as part of purchasing Windows. IE was not free to develop so it had an unfair advantage against other retail products that could not bundle with the dominant OS. I'd be interested to hear how Google search, which can be switched from at any time, is similar to the MS circumstance.

Re:And their point is?

[itzly]

Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?

That would be covered under the US antitrust laws. There are several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

However, this anti-capitalistic idea doesn't have a leg to stand on

It's not anti-capitalistic to enforce an equal playing field. And apparently, the experts of the FTC thought they had a leg to stand on.

Re: And their point is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize there is a search function in three separate locations... one device wide, one one for applications, one voice assistant.

I wonder if it prioritizes integrated or sponsored searches.

Re:And their point is?

[blue9steel]

Google's business is to search websites.

Sorry, that is incorrect. Google's business is selling context sensitive advertising space, providing free search to consumers merely gives them additional means to do so.

Re:And their point is?

[McFly777]

Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?

That would be covered under the US antitrust laws. There are several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Google may be big, but it isn't that big. IMHO. Nor has it colluded with competitors to set prices.
As to the first concept (effective monopoly) I go to Bing all the time, for various reasons. Sometimes, I have searched Google first, and am looking for a different ranking algorithm, in order to see if I can find other high quality links which Google missed somehow. Sometimes, I just like Bing's presentation. Sometimes, I don't have any reason at all. Even though I tend to go to Google first, I know other people who use Bing primarily. There are yet other engines as well, and the cost to switch is exactly zero, so I don't see how lock-in comes about.

Now if you wanted to claim that there is an issue of fraud, you might have a better point. I don't think that would fly either, but I have heard of stranger things.

Google: FTC Alters Nothing for Reality

[Bob_Who]

Talk about a lesser of two evils....

DuckduckGo

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this whole idea sucks because other than porn, most other search engines suck for everything.

When I am researching online, DuckDuckGo is the best. Their results are peppered with advertising disguising itself as real information.

Porn? Bing rocks.

Google is my last choice.

But

[oldmac31310]

My surprise overwhelms me. Just, how could they? I mean...I'm speechless

Re:But

[itzly]

Even if people aren't surprised, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Re:But

[OhPlz]

Why shouldn't it be? It's their search engine. Who says search engines have to be unbiased?

Re:But

[itzly]

Google presents itself as an unbiased search engine. This search engine has a huge market share. They also have other businesses that have nothing to do with searching. Using their search engine, the prevent fair competition on their other activities. That is not allowed according to the Sherman Antitrust Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Of course, that is the heart of the issue. Lawyers and judges will have to debate the finer details.

Re:But

[OhPlz]

Google presents itself as an unbiased search engine.

Oh yea? Google presents their name, a text box, and a button. If you manage to find the "about" link at the bottom, all it basically says is "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Nothing about bias. If Google's services are better than the competitions, placing them first actually would make the results more useful and would make their services more accessible.

The concept of "fair competition" is truly lost in this day and age. How is it fair to force Google to not place their own services ahead of other results? It's their search engine. They built it. Why should some third party be able to force them to place other results first? At most, I could see maybe requiring them to disclose why some results were promoted, like what is done with sponsored links.

It's the consumers that have the power of choice here. There are alternative search engines. Some popular for the very fact that they're not Google. The fact that people are too lazy to use them doesn't mean that what Google is doing is wrong.

surprised?

[shadowrat]

ever notice how the products recommended for your car just happen to be made by the same company that made the car? Ever notice how the manual for your new hiking boots claims they will work best with the leather sealant made by the same company? Ever notice how the helpful recipes found on the packaging of food items happen to have ingredients that all come from the same food company? why would anybody expect anything different?

Re:surprised?

[phorm]

Not a strawman at all.

News at 11... companies promote their own products. If other companies DON'T want Google to aggregate data, they can block Google. But they DO want Google traffic, they just want to be #1 in the traffic as well.

They're still in the list, but I don't see anything that says they have a right to be #1.

Re:surprised?

[Charliemopps]

ever notice how the products recommended for your car just happen to be made by the same company that made the car? Ever notice how the manual for your new hiking boots claims they will work best with the leather sealant made by the same company? Ever notice how the helpful recipes found on the packaging of food items happen to have ingredients that all come from the same food company? why would anybody expect anything different?

50 wrongs don't make a right. Consumers have always expected the manufacturers of their products to give them honest advice about how to care for their products and not to use their position as the manufacturer to force you into situations that actually harm your own interests. The fact that most businesses abuse that expectation does not make it any less egregious that Google has followed in their footsteps.

One of the best examples is Transmission oil... The differences between Manufacturer and After market brands is simply patented detergents the manufacturer refuses to license to after market suppliers. The viscosity, temperature expansion characteristics and ware modifiers are all identical, yet they'll void your warranty if you use them. The OEM brands sell from $12 to $50 a quart compared to $5 for an aftermarket, and are clearly a way to further gouge the customer. It's disgusting that these sorts of scams are allowed to continue, but they are, so the best we can do is call attention to them. At least with Google there are alternatives.

Re:surprised?

[edtice1559]

Most big companies have conflicts of interest. The Google search team wants to present the best possible results. Other parts of Google want their results on top. Either answer is acceptable. What is not allowed is to *claim* that the search team is acting in an unbiased way (just happen to select other parts of Google) when, in fact, they are picking other Google products regardless of quality. In every business transaction, conflicts of interest have to be disclosed. The results are presented as objective, but they're not. It's a garden variety fraud. It probably didn't fool any of us on /. But that's not the test the FTC uses. It's the impact on the least sophisticated users that matters the most as they are the ones needing the most protection.

Re:surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the CEO says the rankings aren't cooked, the services aren't clearly Google-branded, and Google is scraping content from competitors, that's a big problem.

Re:surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice how google searches don't mention anything about them putting their own stuff on top? That's the difference. If they put a disclaimer on every search result (something like "recommended results by google" for the shit they pull, and "page-ranked" for proper results) then nobody would be angry. It's the sleazy way they do it that gets people upset.

Re:surprised?

[blue9steel]

Consumers have always expected the manufacturers of their products to give them honest advice about how to care for their products and not to use their position as the manufacturer to force you into situations that actually harm your own interests.

Lol, since when?

Re:surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google is promoting their own services and products over others... or even someone else's product due to payment, I want to know that.

If Company X pays Google to move up in the ranking, I'd like to see a "Sponsored" symbol/text being mentioned.

If Google is promoting it's own services or products, it's like they are paying themselves. Sort of. They should have to say it's sponsored. Well, somehow. There's a free speech issue, but I want truth in advertising laws.

I would even like to see TV shows be required to mention all their sponsors during the credits. I want to know if they are being paid to say certain things during the program.

Re:surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

>yet they'll void your warranty if you use them

Not if the oil being used says it is a compatible replacement for the manufacturer's brand. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and all that.

Many other countries have similar rules by different names, of course.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush and Obama listen into your phone calls. News at 11.

Of course they did - they're in business.

[pubwvj]

Of course they boost their own interests.
They're in business and they're only human.
Well, actually, just about any species would do it.
It's the natural order.

Like Bing and Yahoo?

[CrashNBrn]

You mean like how Bing and Yahoo (powered by Bing, but not the same results) promote their own "versions" of things ahead of other search results?

Search for CSS/HTML via Yahoo (the default in FF now) - you will get a slew of "MDN" (mozilla developer network) results, top-listed. Or how Bing promotes Bing Videos|Images instead of Google's?

We're pretty much talking about Google top-listing ONE of their "own" results. That hardly affects any business, nor is it a credibility hit. Their own service/info is still relevant to the search at hand.

I think we'd all be happier if Google would just stop ignoring our search terms.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Paradise Pete]

You mean like how Bing and Yahoo (powered by Bing, but not the same results) promote their own "versions" of things ahead of other search results?

Protip: If you ever end up in traffic court, "I wasn't the only one speeding" is not a recommended defense.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[garyisabusyguy]

However, when you are pulled over saying to the officer, 'I was not watching my speed, but I was moving with traffic', may well prevent you from ever having to appear in traffic court in the first place

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[BarbaraHudson]

However, when you are pulled over saying to the officer, 'I was not watching my speed, but I was moving with traffic', may well prevent you from ever having to appear in traffic court in the first place

As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[OhPlz]

There are laws that set the speed limit on a road. What laws would prevent Google from favoring its own services in search results? It's their services, it's their search engine, it's their search results.

A better question is, why wouldn't Google favor their own services?

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[blue9steel]

As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"

To which the correct answer is "I would have liked to but it was impossible since I knew exactly where I was."

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[sumdumass]

Which law is in violation that google would be in court over?

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you want to enrage and confuse a cop. I recommend being polite and not using words over 2 syllables.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Oligonicella]

My wife was given a ticket. She was traveling the highway with a cluster of other cars. When she asked why she was singled out the officer said "You ever go fishing? You ever catch every fish in the pond?" No, moving with the traffic won't do you any good. Trying to debate your way out will do you ill. You were speeding, that's it.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are you supposed to say? 1. "Yes officer, I was going 15 over the limit!" or 2. Lie, and say "I was only going the limit."

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sufficient to simply say: "Yes Officer, I know the speed I was going at"

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[BarbaraHudson]

No, you say "Yes officer, I know what speed I was going." No admission of anything.

Now the officer can't try to bump the speed up 10-20 miles an hour over what you were doing for a bigger ticket. At the very least, it will lessen your pain. Or they can decide to go after a bigger, stupider pigeon rather than waste time writing you up for a pittance that they know will probably be contested in court.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are you suggesting that I should be looking at the speedometer instead of the traffic around me?"

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[damn_registrars]

That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"

The last time I was pulled over for speeding - a couple decades ago - I recall the question was "Do you know why I pulled you over?". I honestly answered, "No, I do not" as I was genuinely not speeding. In fact, the officer pulled a number out of thin air for my alleged "speed" that was beyond the abilities of the car I was driving (with a carbureted 70hp 4cyl engine) considering the mass of people in it (pushing 1,000 lbs including myself) and the proximity to the stop light that I had to stop completely for (about 40 feet).

He still insisted on writing a ticket. I returned to contest it when the time came up. Not a minor use of my time as it was a fair distance from home but it needed to be done. I started with a meeting with the DA who was willing to reduce the speed dramatically and offer me a plea bargain on account of the fact that I had a perfectly clean record.

One requirement of the plea was that the ticket would not be reported as long as I was not pulled over again in their county for 2 years. I haven't been back there since. The irony is I was in their county to go to the casino down there (when I was younger and less careful with my money), and I never went back there either. So that 100% bogus ticket cost them even more.

Why didn't I contest it down to zero? Because the only way to do that was to go back to their county for a second visit to the courthouse, and I never wanted to go back. The plea bargained payment was less than the value of my time and gas for a second trip.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[dpidcoe]

"are you suggesting you can't split your attention between traffic and your cars instrumentation? Maybe we need to reevaluate your ability to safely operate a vehicle"

Which is why you either say "yes, I know how fast I was going" or grin and invoke the 5th amendment.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure fucking gold right here.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[jrumney]

As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Recommended defence when you rear-end a police car: "sorry officer, but I was watching my speed, not the road".

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"

That would be nice. The cops that pull me over always say, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Assholes.

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[TenOx]

"Do you know why I pulled you over?" I was kinda hoping it was to talk about smartphones, that's it, isn't it? ;)

Re:Like Bing and Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

And still you have people calling it a free country.

(Going with traffic is a valid reason for exceeding the speed limit in most free countries.)

How are they allowed to do this?!

[jpellino]

Oh, right - because they're a private, for-profit company and not a government agency or public utility.

Re:How are they allowed to do this?!

[itzly]

They weren't allowed, that's why there was an anti-trust probe.

Re:How are they allowed to do this?!

[ScentCone]

They weren't allowed, that's why there was an anti-trust probe.

Please cite the court documents that found Google to be a monopoly, and which defines their obligations to write their search engine routines against their own interests as the owners and operators of that service. Be specific, so that we don't have to guess where you got the court order and related documents.

Wait, let me put on my "shocked" face . . .

[mmell]

(You'll have to picture it in your mind - /. doesn't like ASCII art)

DUH!

[swschrad]

Google is a business. those other guys are competitors. "mine is better and cheaper." Flo had to get the idea from someplace for that riffleboard.

Really?

[pruedz]

That why I feel that is right to sue KFC for not serve me Big Macs...

Alter Ego

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, the Harrison Wells of the internet world.

Google Further Crapifies Search

[Presto Vivace]

Google Further Crapifies Search, Exploiting Both Users and Advertisers. Not a very good deal for advertisers either.

Google censoring search results - not new news

[zerofoo]

Google has been censoring searches relating to firearms for years now. Here's an article from 2012:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fr...

I love Google and most of their products, but they are far from impartial providers of a search service.

No surprise... FTC is just worthless bureaucracy

[jlv]

This just in: FTC discovers that Macy's employees really don't refer their shoppers to Gimbels.

Are we talking about the avertised links?

[Karmashock]

Or the ones below that?

Because if google is screwing with the links below the 'advertised" pit then that is a bit fucked up.

I wouldn't throw hand cuffs on them for that. Its totally legal. But it is misrepresentation because the implication is that they're not doing that.

I'm happy with them doing it so long as they're open about it.

Re:Are we talking about the avertised links?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I understand, it's about the boxed results with e.g. Google Maps when you search for a location, or Google Flights results when you search for flights. It's not about ranking of the links.

only surprised that this comes as a surprise

[LodCrappo]

Why would anyone assumed they weren't using their search engine to promote their services? Why shouldn't they, for that matter? It seems like common sense for Google to do this and for users to expect this.

Re:only surprised that this comes as a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a service or product that one provides and has a monopoly on to leverage a service or product that provides but does not have a monopoly on could be considered an anti-competitive tactic. Microsoft got slapped for doing just this; they used Windows (a monopoly) to leverage Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player (not monopolies)

Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to see what happens when they start censoring / promoting various results based on their political agendas...or even better, the political agendas of the highest bidders. At what point would people abandon their "Google can selectively alter its results outside of its standard ranking system whenever it feels like it" mentality?

Oh shut up already FTC.

[nashv]

In other news, a local baker put a huge billboard on the entrance of his shop with ...gasp...his own name and cupcake flavours! Oh the anti-competitive horror! The other bakers didn't have a chance!

I don't understand

[rsilvergun]

can someone translate this into a /. car analogy for me?

Explains this

[Tablizer]

Search: . . . Don't be evil

No Results Found.

You mean the CIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop calling this entity Google and start called it by it's real name: The CIA

"do no evil" my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck happened to "do no evil" as a company motto? ..... annnnd now I hate google.

Re: "do no evil" my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's service should be renamed "advertising engine" not "search engine"

Funny Ive been doing that for years

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL http://www.senuke.com/xcr/

1st page ranking within a couple of days... free trial...

Do you expect Apple to sell MS Surface tablets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a business. Not a charity.

If they don't like the search results, use a different fucking engine or make your own.