FTC: Google Altered Search Results For Profit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC: Google Altered Search Results For Profit

Posted by Soulskill on Friday March 20, 2015 @05:01AM from the shareholder-value dept.

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.

39 of 232 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I just don't care by DoofusOfDeath · 2015-03-20 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:I just don't care by jythie · 2015-03-20 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:I just don't care by Ash-Fox · 2015-03-20 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  They just told you idiots that shit
  Relevant article.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
3. Re:I just don't care by itzly · 2015-03-20 05:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
4. Re:I just don't care by BarbaraHudson · 2015-03-20 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re:I just don't care by puzzled_decoy · 2015-03-20 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  ....Google's search mechanism doesn't violate any of those, unless you are *really* stretching....
6. Re:I just don't care by ShanghaiBill · 2015-03-20 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:I just don't care by fustakrakich · 2015-03-20 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...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?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
8. Re:I just don't care by pla · 2015-03-20 05:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:I just don't care by larryjoe · 2015-03-20 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re:I just don't care by Charliemopps · 2015-03-20 05:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
11. Re:I just don't care by Ionized · 2015-03-20 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  oh, so despite google playing fast and loose with its own product rankings, it's still the best tool available?
  well then.
12. Re:I just don't care by itzly · 2015-03-20 06:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
13. Re:I just don't care by itzly · 2015-03-20 06:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
14. Re:I just don't care by blue9steel · 2015-03-20 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
15. Re:I just don't care by The+Grim+Reefer · 2015-03-20 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  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.
16. Re:I just don't care by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-20 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ... 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! by pecosdave · 2015-03-20 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Well no shit! by hjf · 2015-03-20 05:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:Well no shit! by Yebyen · 2015-03-20 05:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
3. Re:Well no shit! by John+Bokma · 2015-03-20 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  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
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
4. Re:Well no shit! by edtice1559 · 2015-03-20 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
5. Re:Well no shit! by stephanruby · 2015-03-20 06:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Well no shit! by spacepimp · 2015-03-20 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Well no shit! by squiggleslash · 2015-03-20 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Marketing over primary function of searching by whitroth · 2015-03-20 05:16 · Score: 3, Informative

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
And their point is? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2015-03-20 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 ... with negative results.
1. Re:And their point is? by itzly · 2015-03-20 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
But by oldmac31310 · 2015-03-20 05:25 · Score: 2

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

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
surprised? by shadowrat · 2015-03-20 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

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:Ridiculous by gnupun · 2015-03-20 05:26 · Score: 2

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.
Of course they did - they're in business. by pubwvj · 2015-03-20 05:37 · Score: 2

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? by CrashNBrn · 2015-03-20 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Like Bing and Yahoo? by Paradise+Pete · 2015-03-20 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Like Bing and Yahoo? by garyisabusyguy · 2015-03-20 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  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
  
  --
  Wherever You Go, There You Are
3. Re:Like Bing and Yahoo? by blue9steel · 2015-03-20 06:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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."
4. Re:Like Bing and Yahoo? by Oligonicella · 2015-03-20 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  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.
No surprise... FTC is just worthless bureaucracy by jlv · 2015-03-20 06:51 · Score: 2

This just in: FTC discovers that Macy's employees really don't refer their shoppers to Gimbels.
only surprised that this comes as a surprise by LodCrappo · 2015-03-20 07:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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