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."
It's extremely important to have useful results in a search engine, quickly. Some of the worst offenders are when you try to define a word- the page is literred with shit links being like:
Definition of “frangible” | Collins English Dictionary ...
www.collinsdictionary.com English Dictionary
Definition of “frangible” | The official Collins English Dictionary online. Comprehensive and authoritative, rely on Collins for up-to-date English with insights into
Meanwhile, at the top of the page, Google has the actual answer (not every dictionary is shit, many have it in their summary text).
So overall the fast results are what we want out of a search engine- the answer.
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.
First of all, the notion that Google is directing people to their own services should surprise no one. Anyone who honestly expects them to be an unbiased party is delusional. Google is an advertising company (well over 90% of their revenue is advertising based) so everything they do should be viewed with that in mind. Providing unbiased search results is a second order consideration at best for them no matter what motto they claim to follow.
Second, is this really a problem? There are other search engines out there so if someone is unhappy with the answers they get then use a different one. Google has gotten to where they are mostly because they've provided a better service than their competitors. But there is very little keeping people using Google if there is reason to believe that has changed. Other search engines are only a URL away after all. I see potential for a problem but its a very small problem even in the worst case.
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."
Then users will slowly realize that the Google's search results are not trustworthy and they will move away from Google as the search engine. The market will correct itself.
Greatest asset Google has is the trust it has earned over the years. If it misuses it it will lose the trust and the company will lose. I am not saying Google will not engage in such behavior. All I am saying is, there are natural constraints and market feedback against abuse. So we do not need any serious government action to correct it. All that government sanction and fines and browser selection dialog did not cut Microsoft down to size. A competitor did. Google has good competition from Facebook, Twitter and other social media muscling into the internet ad business and search business. That will keep Google in check more than any remedy proposed by a professor, or a lobbyist, or a judge or a legislator.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
All I have to say is use another search engine if you don't like it. No one is forcing you to use Google.
Googe is a Basic Human Right. The US was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- do really expect people can pursue happiness with Bing?
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Well ... duh?
So, you ask Google a semantic/natural language question ... are you actually surprised that Google uses their own results to determine this?
Do you expect an objective determination of this? Would we need a court to decide who is actually the best?
You asked a search engine to give you a subjective response based on the information is has. Do you expect it to give you the results from Bing or Yahoo?
So, yes, the subjective evaluation as returned by Google using their own stuff as a basis is skewed to their own stuff.
Why is anybody surprised by this? Does anybody think Google is going to promote someone else's stuff?
Search results are a starting point. But if you want to know the best burger joint, eat there, or read a whole bunch of different review sites.
This seems to be a lot of hand wringing about the fact that some kinds of search results, which aren't based on objective facts, aren't returning objective facts.
Hell, I've seen user voted polls in newspapers which were as subjective and broken just because the stuff in the area where all the bars were got reviewed more. So all of the downtown stuff was reviewed more. That didn't make it better, just better known.
You asked Google to provide you what is essentially a distillation of opinions, and you're surprised it's not a 100% accurate set of results?
I just don't know why people are surprised by this. Whose stuff do you think Google should be promoting?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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