Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC: Google Altered Search Results For Profit

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

20 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. I just don't care by DoofusOfDeath · · 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 · · 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 itzly · · 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.

    3. Re:I just don't care by BarbaraHudson · · 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.
    4. Re:I just don't care by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    5. Re:I just don't care by fustakrakich · · 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!”
    6. Re:I just don't care by pla · · 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.

    7. Re:I just don't care by larryjoe · · 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.

    8. Re:I just don't care by Charliemopps · · 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.

    9. Re:I just don't care by itzly · · 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.

    10. Re:I just don't care by itzly · · 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.

    11. Re:I just don't care by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. Well no shit! by pecosdave · · 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 · · 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 stephanruby · · 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.

  3. Marketing over primary function of searching by whitroth · · 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

  4. surprised? by shadowrat · · 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?

  5. Like Bing and Yahoo? by CrashNBrn · · 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 · · 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 blue9steel · · 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."