Posted on 12/01/2010 6:48:40 PM PST by Still Thinking
I did a search at Google today for “cars” and was shocked. Rather than list links allowing me to search for “cars” on Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Voila, Naver and Yandex, Google instead favored its own search results. I’m glad the EU will be investigating whether this favoritism violates anti-trust laws.
Consider the evidence. Here’s a search on Google for cars:
As you can clearly see, none of the competing search engines I’ve named are listed in the top results. Rather than show them, Google instead shows pages about cars that it has collected across the web using its own technology.
Google’s behavior like this is preventing its competitors from receiving valuable traffic, clearly something Google has done to ensure it remains dominant. I mean, consider that you can indeed search at Bing and find results for cars:
Or you can search on Baidu and get results for cars:
But a search for “cars” at Google reveals none of this, to the searcher. It sends them directly to sites about cars! By doing so, rather than sending searchers to other search engines, Google abuses its dominant market position to prevent competing search engines from doing well.
How might “unbiased” search results at Google look, if we could finally get some decent “search neutrality” laws. I’ll simulate this for a search on “cars” not with an illustrated mockup but instead actual links that you can click on, so you can experience the better experience searchers would have, if Google wouldn’t favor itself. Here’s my interactive demo:
You searched for “cars”
About 6 results (0.08 seconds)
cars – Bing
bing.com/search?q=cars
cars – Yahoo! Search
search.yahoo.com/search?p=cars
百度搜索_cars
www.baidu.com/s?wd=cars
Yandex: has found 31 million answers
yandex.com/yandsearch?text=cars&lr=200
cars :: 네이버 통합검색
search.naver.com/search.naver?query=cars
Voila – Recherche de cars
search.ke.voila.fr/S/voila?rtype=kw&bhv=web_fr&profil=voila&rdata=cars
Please try the demo about to understand directly how much better Google would be as a search engine, if rather than favoring its “own” results, it instead made you leave to conduct your search elsewhere.
Time to get serious. I’ve watched the various arguments from some vertical search engines that Google is somehow “favoring” its own vertical search engine to harm them. On the face of it, it’s easy to get worked up and decide there’s some wrong doing.
Google points you to its own shopping search rather than a competing shopping search engine! Google even puts a box right within its own search results to entice you there, as you can see in this search for macbook pro:
How unfair to other shopping search engines. Please, someone, some government body, step in and prevent this from happening! Please ensure that Google doesn’t favor its own services this way!
If you step back from the rhetoric, the political jockeying, the concerns that Google is just too big so let’s use any argument to stop it — if you logically think about this argument from a user perspective — it makes no sense.
Google is a search engine. A search engine’s job is to point you to destination sites that have the information you are seeking, not to send you to other search engines. Getting upset that Google doesn’t point to other search engines is like getting upset that the New York Times doesn’t simply have headlines followed by a single paragraph of text that says “read about this story in the Wall Street Journal.”
It’s insane. It really is. A person comes to Google for answers. Back in the “old” days when search engines were just getting started, that generally meant simply getting lists of web pages (though even back then, even before Google, search engines also had some vertical search engines).
Over time, it has made more sense for search engines like Google — or Bing for that matter — to provide a better search experience by creating vertical search engines and blending them into regular search results (see Search 3.0: The Blended & Vertical Search Revolution for more about this).
It’s their job. If they are not allowed to do this, they cannot serve their users well. They are ultimately forced to do the idiotic thing I illustrated above and say to searchers, “Go away and search elsewhere.”
Let’s go back to that shopping search. Exactly how is Google favoring itself, again? It has a dedicated shopping search engine that lists external sites, destination sites — sites that are not on Google, for the most part. While some small shopping search engines may wish they had this traffic, they’d get it at the expense of these destination sites.
Back to that European Union investigation. The news about it came out today, and the EU statement says it will investigate allegations in both Google’s editorial and paid results. The statement stresses that it’s just an investigation, not a conclusion:
This initiation of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has proof of any infringements. It only signifies that the Commission will conduct an in-depth investigation of the case as a matter of priority.
For one long account of Foundem’s side of things, a UK-based shopping search engine that’s become a cause célèbre around this issue and which helped prompt the investigation, I recommend reading this story from The Register.
Certainly on the advertising front, both the EU and the US have supported more restrictions about what a publication can do versus its editorial content. Google ultimately is a publication, a guide to the web. Like a newspaper, it can publish whatever it wants. That’s been supported in the US; we’ll see if the EU takes a different view. More important, we’ll see if the EU decides to apply rules about what a search engine can or can’t do versus what Google can or can’t do.
Bing, Google’s chief competitor in many countries, highly touts its own vertical search engines. If it’s unfair for Google, as a search engine, to “favor” its own vertical search engines, then the same should be true for all search engines.
Also see my prior post on this topic, The New York Times Algorithm & Why It Needs Government Regulation. It takes the poor wisdom of an New York Times editorial suggesting that Google needs regulation and flips things around to illustrate how newspaper-like search engines are — and how no newspaper would want to be examined this way. It also touches on things that can be concerning about Google. Goodness knows, it’s not perfect.
But on the vertical search engine front, where does it end? Shopping search not allowed, but not image search? News search but no blog search? Only web search? Even that? Will Google be deemed so dominant that the only way to ensure competition is to literally force it to send people away to competitors?
Postscript: Google now has a blog post up about the issues.
Also you can think of it as a GIGANTIC Yellow Pages!
I have no problem with their placement algorithms ~ and have used them to my advantage from time to time.
Let a thousand flowers bloom paid for by other people!
You were searching for the band and instead were directed to automobiles?
I think the author missed the point, but can’t tell if they missed it on purpose, by accident, or actually don’t believe the point has any merit.
It’s not that Google provides results for a search. It’s that google provides results for shopping items that take you to places to buy things for which google gets paid.
The user might think google knows you want the cheapest prices, or places close to your home, or places with cheap shipping; but google’s ranking of results puts stores/websites which make google money higher than other web sites that might sell the product more cheaply.
Now, I’m not saying the point is worth being investigated over, or that google doesn’t have the absolute right to freely provide ANY type of results they want to provide — after all, we freely choose to use google, and if we don’t like the results we can choose another search engine. Google at least will allow you to search for other search engines.
But the point being made isn’t as assinine as the article suggests.
I did a search at Google today for “cars†and was shocked. Rather than list links allowing me to search for “cars†on Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Voila, Naver and Yandex, Google instead favored its own search results. I’m glad the EU will be investigating whether this favoritism violates anti-trust laws. Consider the evidence. Here’s a search on Google for cars:As you can clearly see, none of the competing search engines I’ve named are listed in the top results. Rather than show them, Google instead shows pages about cars that it has collected across the web using its own technology.Google’s behavior...
If I wanted The Cars, I would search on “the cars”.
If you googled “Cars” and hit the Do I Feel Lucky tab, you would have gotten one hit on the Disney movie Cars.
That occurs because the excerpt was copy/pasted from a source that used "smart quotes" or other non-ASCII characters (e.g. the fancy quote/apostrophe characters in Microsoft Word or typesetting programs).
Those non-ASCII characters are sometimes represented by a multiple byte sequence (e.g. Unicode). If your browser and/or operating system don't know how to translate the multi-byte characters into the intended fancy character, they may just print a separate character for each byte of the sequence, so you see 2-3 characters of garbage instead of the quote or apostrophe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.