Slashdot Mirror
In an Open Letter To EU's Competition Commissioner, 14 European Shopping Comparison Services Say Google is Not Making the Search For Products Fairer (bbc.com)
Google is not complying with European demands that it must make the search for products fairer, rivals say. In an open letter to the EU's Competition Commissioner on Thursday, they wrote: We are writing to you as leading European comparison shopping services (CSSs) to express our collective view that Google's "compliance mechanism" in the Google Search (Comparison Shopping) case does not comply with the European Commission's June 2017 Prohibition Decision. It has now been more than a year since Google introduced its auction-based "remedy", and the harm to competition, consumers and innovation caused by Google's illegal conduct has continued unabated. We therefore respectfully urge you to commence non-compliance proceedings against Google. BBC offers some background: In June 2017, European competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager ruled that Google had abused its power by promoting its own shopping service at the top of search results, and demanded that it provide equal treatment to rival comparison sites in future. She issued a record fine of $2.7bn -- the largest penalty the European Commission has ever imposed. She also demanded that Google end its anti-competitive practices within 90 days or face further costs. Google is still appealing against the fine, but has come up with a system that it says makes shopping fairer. It changed the shopping box, which is displayed at the top of search results, so that it is no longer populated with just Google Shopping ad results, but gives space to other shopping comparison services, who can bid for advertising slots.
It allows all of the 'stores' to bid on the items at the top. I mean do these ppl think that they get it free? Obviously not. Google is not giving away things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The shopping stuff isn't part of the search results, it's an advertising box at the top that used to display results from Google Shopping. Now it also displays results from other shopping sites.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can't say I like the way google has been going lately but Google's business is part helping people find things, part pointing them at particular things, why in hell anyone would think they should be forced to host their competitors in their place of business is a complete mystery.
Should they give free adds to Amazon ? After all Amazon serves as a shopping service ? What about Ebay ?
The EU has always been horribly obvious about being bought and paid for by European aristocrats, the ancien regime that never really went away, this is just a further attempt by them to shakedown a deep pocket.
I don't know about your browser but on mine it's one of a group of links at the top after a search.
Google's "compliance mechanism" in the Google Search (Comparison Shopping) case does not comply with the European Commission's June 2017 Prohibition Decision.
Is there a reason why we would expect those fellas to say anything different or in support of Google? They need to hammer and keep hammering hard till some court smacks them down.
Yeah, that's Google Shopping. But normally there is also a box below the menu bar and above the search results with shopping links.
Obviously if you have an ad blocker you won't see it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers." -- Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, 1998.
Aliexpress for cheap stuff I don't need real soon, Ebay for used stuff, local stores for stuff that's a ripoff to get shipped, Amazon for everything else. People use google's shopping results?
Because when you're cool, the sun shine on you twenty four hours a day!
I'm curious if the sites demanding the government force Google to link to them, for fairness, also are fair in that their search links to Google.
That would be fair, right? If I demand your search has to link to me, obviously I make my search link back to you, right?
Relevant results are landing pages that provide high utility, functionality, and are trustworthy for the majority of users entering said query for the users location.
It's really not complicated. Ads are plainly marked. If the service doesn't provide useful results, you are free to use other indexes. Contrary to popular belief, if Google didn't exist the majority of the network would still be (and is) indexed, one way or another. Google IS NOT the network, just the crutch Joe Sixpack has become dependant upon.
People need to get over their dependency of using one provider for all services. Whereas the said provider does a pretty good job, there are just as useful alternatives for all services they offer.
tcp/ip .. the cat's outa the bag
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
In their search results, on what page do they put the links to Google?
I'm happy to finding thrm anywhere on any of the sites from companies who are complaining. I don't see a link to Google at the top of any of these pages.
http://www.foundem.co.uk/searc...
https://www.redbrain.com/
https://pricespy.co.uk/search?...
The only mention I see of Google is that Redbrain promises advertisers that they can manipulate Google search results for them.
If these shopping sites are so much better and more efficient than Google in identifying deals, surely word would get out and their popularity would soar. What I find is that, so often, they link to sites that don't even have the product available. Mostly, the aggregators just clutter up the search results when I am trying to find actual vendors. Yes, Google should pay much more to governments in the countries where it operates, but fining them for ad practices that are the only possible means of supporting their many free services, is not the way to do it.
Seems so simple, and if fair, Google should be out of business very quickly. Perhaps even blocked in the EU.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
...sorting them not by relevancy but by how much they paid Google.
So much for "the most relevant, not the most fair".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
A monopoly implies that there's no alternative resources for consumers. The playfield is populated with players with equal funding/resources. If and when consumers find better value elsewhere, they will gain users. Currently we see consumers using Google. If you don't like it, do better than them. Otherwise STFU and man up, this world rewards those that do better than others for a reason.
Just because someone plays better ball than everyone, doesn't mean there's not equal opportunity for an even better player to shine.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2