Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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?
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
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.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
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
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".
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Talk about a lesser of two evils....
My surprise overwhelms me. Just, how could they? I mean...I'm speechless
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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?
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.
Maybe that's wrong. But Google search is a monopoly and the impact of abuse is greater.
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.
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.
Oh, right - because they're a private, for-profit company and not a government agency or public utility.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
(You'll have to picture it in your mind - /. doesn't like ASCII art)
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.
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.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Google Further Crapifies Search, Exploiting Both Users and Advertisers. Not a very good deal for advertisers either.
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.
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?
This just in: FTC discovers that Macy's employees really don't refer their shoppers to Gimbels.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
-Lod
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.
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.
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!
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
can someone translate this into a /. car analogy for me?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Search: . . . Don't be evil
No Results Found.
Table-ized A.I.
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!"
Your "can not"s are made up entirely by you, those aren't the rules here in the USA, where this story is from.