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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

[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!

[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.

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: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.

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.