Slashdot Mirror
New Study Accuses Google of Anti-competitive Search Behavior
An anonymous reader writes: Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu — the man who coined the term "network neutrality" — has published a new study suggesting that Google's new method of putting answers to simple search queries at the top of the results page is anticompetitive and harmful to consumers. For subjective search queries — e.g. "What's the best [profession] in [city]?" — Google frequently figures out a best-guess answer to display first, favoring its own results to do so. The study did some A/B testing with a group of 2,690 internet users and found they were 45% more likely to click on merit-based results than on Google's listings. Wu writes, "Search engines are widely understood as key mediators of the web's speech environment, given that they have a powerful impact on who gets heard, what speech is neglected, and what information generally is reached. ... The more that Google directs users to its own content and its own properties, the more that speakers who write reviews, blogs and other materials become invisible to their desired audiences."
And many don't want it inside their summary text simply because you should visit their page, and view their ads.
I don't think you understand what the study is about. It is not about sponsored and unsponsored. RTFA, or at least the abstract.
Type "Where is the best burger near me" and you get google + results mapped, along with other hits using Google's algorithm. None of these results are sponsored. Google's algorithmic results, the study says (and this is true in my rudimentary testing), are NOT mapped. Consumers (and businesses) are hurt by this behavior.
I don't think you understand what the study is about. It is not about sponsored and unsponsored. RTFA, or at least the abstract.
Type "Where is the best burger near me" and you get google + results mapped, along with other hits using Google's algorithm. None of these results are sponsored. Google's algorithmic results, the study says (and this is true in my rudimentary testing), are NOT mapped. Consumers (and businesses) are hurt by this behavior.
If I ask GOOGLE where the best burger joint is then I expect GOOGLE to respond.
Same as if I asked YELP where the best burger joint is then I expect YELP to respond.
I don't see the problem here.
I have an iphone and I many times have tried to ask siri questions and get a stupid response.
I immediately switch and ask google. I have actually gotten to the point that although it
is easier to ask siri a question I find myself taking the extra step to ask google first because
google is much more likely to give me a good response to my query.
Nobody noticed the so-called study was sponsored by Yelp, who is suing Google in Europe? So many news web sites reported Google screwing your search result, but so little mentioned who sponsored this.
-- do really expect people can pursue happiness with Bing?
Actually, Yelp paid for this study and staffed it as well...
See the footnotes of the first page in the first link in TFS
http://www.slideshare.net/lutherlowe/wu-l
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office