Did they clearly identify that try we're advertising their own products?
Did their advertisements look like ads or regular listings?
Considering listings are typically alphabetical, it would be hard for them to secretly manipulate the listings. Not so with Google.
Did you forget what happened to AT&T? Even after the monopoly was broken up it just became smaller monopolies.
It wasn't advertisements but a list of their services.
I get what you're trying to say but my point is that it has always existed in one capacity or another. Where's the line that says one is antitrust and not the other?
Did you forget what happened to AT&T? Even after the monopoly was broken up it just became smaller monopolies.
It wasn't advertisements but a list of their services.
I get what you're trying to say but my point is that it has always existed in one capacity or another. Where's the line that says one is antitrust and not the other?
I don't see anyone arguing that AT&T or the Baby Bells weren't monopolies or that their market position was a good thing. Do you have a point? I'm pretty sure you don't.
You obviously didn't read all the previous comments or you'd know the point I was trying to make. Why weren't telcos hit with antitrusts suits when they prominently advertised their services while competitors were put all the way back under T?
I don't see anyone arguing that AT&T or the Baby Bells weren't monopolies or that their market position was a good thing. Do you have a point? I'm pretty sure you don't.
You obviously didn't read all the previous comments or you'd know the point I was trying to make. Why weren't telcos hit with antitrusts suits when they prominently advertised their services while competitors were put all the way back under T?
Were they disguised as actual listings? I have no problem if Google lists their own services as clearly marked adds on the top or side. But it gets fishy when they're the top results of normal results (which people assume are unbiased). Since Google's algorithms aren't transparent, we have to assume they're being ethical. And we question their integrity when their own services appear "naturally" above competing services and the non-paid results.
Were they disguised as actual listings? I have no problem if Google lists their own services as clearly marked adds on the top or side. But it gets fishy when they're the top results of normal results (which people assume are unbiased). Since Google's algorithms aren't transparent, we have to assume they're being ethical. And we question their integrity when their own services appear "naturally" above competing services and the non-paid results.
I can't remember a time when Google sponsored (ad) results weren't shown in on a different color background from the non-sponsored ones. Microsoft has copied the same way of differentiating sponsored results, tho the color Bing uses is pretty darn subtle, almost unnoticeable, compared to Google's. Maybe "back in the day" Google didn't ID them?
I can't remember a time when Google sponsored (ad) results weren't shown in on a different color background from the non-sponsored ones.
And that part everyone is fine with: clearly marking and allocating space for ads around the search results. That's how they make money.
The problem is when the actual search results are being skewed to direct people to Google's content (or content which directly benefits them in some way).
You deride me for making a bad comparison (YP+plumbing+plumber listing manipulation vs Google+news+news search result manipulation) and yet you try to do the same but can't remember the details?
I remember that there was a section at the start of the YP dedicated to large advertisements. However, it didn't look like the listings at all. This is comparable to what Google currently does with ads by putting them alongside the search results in clearly marked boxes.
However the actual YP listings were, as Pendergast stated, in alphabetical order. Yes there were ads embedded in the listings, but again, they didn't look the same as the listings themselves (nor change the ordering of them).
And that part everyone is fine with: clearly marking and allocating space for ads around the search results. That's how they make money.
The problem is when the actual search results are being skewed to direct people to Google's content (or content which directly benefits them in some way).
As far as I know Google search results haven't been shown to be "skewed" have they?
The whole issue is pretty much driven by competitor Microsoft who is seeing their market and mindshare being gobbled up by Google month after month. If they can't compete by offering more features in a better product than I guess they're hoping for the EU to help them out in making Bing a European success by forcing Google to market for them. Almunia may end up doing MS bidding but it too soon to see for sure. As mentioned elsewhere Almunia would like to get some kind of agreement before the year is out that satisfies both the EU authorities and Microsoft as the primary complainant.
As far as I know Google search results haven't been shown to be "skewed". The whole issue is pretty much driven by competitor Microsoft who is seeing their market and mindshare being gobbled up by Google month after month. If they can't compete by offering more features in a better product than I guess they're hoping for the EU to help them out in making Bing a European success by forcing Google to market for them. Almunia may end up doing MS bidding but it too soon to see for sure. As mentioned elsewhere Almunia would like to get some kind of agreement that satisfies both the EU authorities and Microsoft as the primary complainant.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the EU isn't influenced at all by business and self-interest, nor am I any fan of Microsoft. However, the overall case here is about antitrust and whether or not Google is using it's dominance in one market to unfairly compete in others. You can create conspiracy theories and distractions all you like, but the heart of the matter is whether Google is indeed doing that or not. If so, then action needs to be taken to prevent it (legislation, fines, whatever).
I'm not naive enough to believe that the EU isn't influenced at all by business and self-interest. However, the overall case here is about antitrust and whether or not Google is using it's dominance in one market to unfairly compete in others. You can create conspiracy theories and distractions all you like, but the heart of the matter is whether Google is indeed doing that or not. If so, then action needs to be taken to prevent it (legislation, fines, whatever).
Absolutely 100% correct. Has that been shown to be the case? Not that I've read.
"They might"
" Even if they don't they might someday"
"Can't prove they don't"
All in all it sounds like more of a preemptive action on the part of the EU to me, driven by the inability of European competitors to successfully challenge Google's Search and their complaints because of it.. IMO the courts and governments bodies are simply another tool of big tech's drive for revenue by hobbling the competition.
Absolutely 100% correct. Has that been shown to be the case? Not that I've read.
"They might"
" Even if they don't they might someday"
"Can't prove they don't"
All in all it sounds like more of a preemptive action on the part of the EU to me, driven by the inability of European competitors to successfully challenge Google's Search and their complaints because of it.. IMO the courts and governments bodies are simply another tool of big tech's drive for revenue by hobbling the competition.
Heaven forbid that the EC would try to stop things before Google has become so entrenched that they're unstoppable. /s
As far as I know Google search results haven't been shown to be "skewed" have they?
The whole issue is pretty much driven by competitor Microsoft who is seeing their market and mindshare being gobbled up by Google month after month. If they can't compete by offering more features in a better product than I guess they're hoping for the EU to help them out in making Bing a European success by forcing Google to market for them. Almunia may end up doing MS bidding but it too soon to see for sure. As mentioned elsewhere Almunia would like to get some kind of agreement before the year is out that satisfies both the EU authorities and Microsoft as the primary complainant.
EDIT: The BBC has a current story on Google Search alternatives. Worth a look if you want to give another search provider a spin.
How would you know if the results are skewed? Is it transparent? I don't think so.
Also, weren't there stories about how Google+ results would list above Facebook? Which is more relevant?
And doesn't have Google +1's improve your SEO rank?
Which search provider is transparent about the way specific results are ranked? Certainly not Bing. Not DuckDuckGo. Not Yelp. As far as Facebook and Google I've no idea if Facebook results ever appear before Google+ ones. I would guess if the Facebook one is more relevant it will but dunno.
Do Google +1's improve a site's rank? Just do a search like I did since I didn't know the answer (I'm guessing you think you do). Here's an article at Mashable explaining it. http://mashable.com/2012/02/21/google-plus-1-seo/ "A Google +1 can indirectly (bold mine) lead to a better page rank. A greater number of +1’s increases a link's potential for a high CTR, which could lead to increased social sharing, and in turn can increase its Google search rank. What’s important to note here is the correlation, not causation, between +1's, other social shares, and search rank.
The bottom line is, the SEO effects of a +1 are very indirect, which means traditional SEO practices should not be ignored. SEO methods such as link building, relevant keywords, and URL structure have a more significant impact on page ranking."
So in your view and that of JRagosta the potential for some future abuse needs to be neutered well in advance to prevent it from maybe perhaps somehow someday becoming a reality. Am I getting it right?
Comments
Did you forget what happened to AT&T? Even after the monopoly was broken up it just became smaller monopolies.
It wasn't advertisements but a list of their services.
I get what you're trying to say but my point is that it has always existed in one capacity or another. Where's the line that says one is antitrust and not the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Did you forget what happened to AT&T? Even after the monopoly was broken up it just became smaller monopolies.
It wasn't advertisements but a list of their services.
I get what you're trying to say but my point is that it has always existed in one capacity or another. Where's the line that says one is antitrust and not the other?
I don't see anyone arguing that AT&T or the Baby Bells weren't monopolies or that their market position was a good thing. Do you have a point? I'm pretty sure you don't.
Were they disguised as actual listings? I have no problem if Google lists their own services as clearly marked adds on the top or side. But it gets fishy when they're the top results of normal results (which people assume are unbiased). Since Google's algorithms aren't transparent, we have to assume they're being ethical. And we question their integrity when their own services appear "naturally" above competing services and the non-paid results.
It's been so long that I honestly don't remember.
I can't remember a time when Google sponsored (ad) results weren't shown in on a different color background from the non-sponsored ones. Microsoft has copied the same way of differentiating sponsored results, tho the color Bing uses is pretty darn subtle, almost unnoticeable, compared to Google's. Maybe "back in the day" Google didn't ID them?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=how+is+peanut+butter+made&go
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+peanut+butter+made
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I can't remember a time when Google sponsored (ad) results weren't shown in on a different color background from the non-sponsored ones.
And that part everyone is fine with: clearly marking and allocating space for ads around the search results. That's how they make money.
The problem is when the actual search results are being skewed to direct people to Google's content (or content which directly benefits them in some way).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's been so long that I honestly don't remember.
You deride me for making a bad comparison (YP+plumbing+plumber listing manipulation vs Google+news+news search result manipulation) and yet you try to do the same but can't remember the details?
I remember that there was a section at the start of the YP dedicated to large advertisements. However, it didn't look like the listings at all. This is comparable to what Google currently does with ads by putting them alongside the search results in clearly marked boxes.
However the actual YP listings were, as Pendergast stated, in alphabetical order. Yes there were ads embedded in the listings, but again, they didn't look the same as the listings themselves (nor change the ordering of them).
As far as I know Google search results haven't been shown to be "skewed" have they?
The whole issue is pretty much driven by competitor Microsoft who is seeing their market and mindshare being gobbled up by Google month after month. If they can't compete by offering more features in a better product than I guess they're hoping for the EU to help them out in making Bing a European success by forcing Google to market for them. Almunia may end up doing MS bidding but it too soon to see for sure. As mentioned elsewhere Almunia would like to get some kind of agreement before the year is out that satisfies both the EU authorities and Microsoft as the primary complainant.
EDIT: The BBC has a current story on Google Search alternatives. Worth a look if you want to give another search provider a spin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23318889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As far as I know Google search results haven't been shown to be "skewed". The whole issue is pretty much driven by competitor Microsoft who is seeing their market and mindshare being gobbled up by Google month after month. If they can't compete by offering more features in a better product than I guess they're hoping for the EU to help them out in making Bing a European success by forcing Google to market for them. Almunia may end up doing MS bidding but it too soon to see for sure. As mentioned elsewhere Almunia would like to get some kind of agreement that satisfies both the EU authorities and Microsoft as the primary complainant.
I'm not naive enough to believe that the EU isn't influenced at all by business and self-interest, nor am I any fan of Microsoft. However, the overall case here is about antitrust and whether or not Google is using it's dominance in one market to unfairly compete in others. You can create conspiracy theories and distractions all you like, but the heart of the matter is whether Google is indeed doing that or not. If so, then action needs to be taken to prevent it (legislation, fines, whatever).
Absolutely 100% correct. Has that been shown to be the case? Not that I've read.
"They might"
" Even if they don't they might someday"
"Can't prove they don't"
All in all it sounds like more of a preemptive action on the part of the EU to me, driven by the inability of European competitors to successfully challenge Google's Search and their complaints because of it.. IMO the courts and governments bodies are simply another tool of big tech's drive for revenue by hobbling the competition.
Heaven forbid that the EC would try to stop things before Google has become so entrenched that they're unstoppable. /s
With any luck Apple won't ever have the EU hobble a part of their business if Apple gets too good at what they do in some area ./s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As far as I know Google search results haven't been shown to be "skewed" have they?
The whole issue is pretty much driven by competitor Microsoft who is seeing their market and mindshare being gobbled up by Google month after month. If they can't compete by offering more features in a better product than I guess they're hoping for the EU to help them out in making Bing a European success by forcing Google to market for them. Almunia may end up doing MS bidding but it too soon to see for sure. As mentioned elsewhere Almunia would like to get some kind of agreement before the year is out that satisfies both the EU authorities and Microsoft as the primary complainant.
EDIT: The BBC has a current story on Google Search alternatives. Worth a look if you want to give another search provider a spin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23318889
How would you know if the results are skewed? Is it transparent? I don't think so.
Also, weren't there stories about how Google+ results would list above Facebook? Which is more relevant?
And doesn't have Google +1's improve your SEO rank?
Which search provider is transparent about the way specific results are ranked? Certainly not Bing. Not DuckDuckGo. Not Yelp. As far as Facebook and Google I've no idea if Facebook results ever appear before Google+ ones. I would guess if the Facebook one is more relevant it will but dunno.
Do Google +1's improve a site's rank? Just do a search like I did since I didn't know the answer (I'm guessing you think you do). Here's an article at Mashable explaining it.
http://mashable.com/2012/02/21/google-plus-1-seo/
"A Google +1 can indirectly (bold mine) lead to a better page rank. A greater number of +1’s increases a link's potential for a high CTR, which could lead to increased social sharing, and in turn can increase its Google search rank. What’s important to note here is the correlation, not causation, between +1's, other social shares, and search rank.
The bottom line is, the SEO effects of a +1 are very indirect, which means traditional SEO practices should not be ignored. SEO methods such as link building, relevant keywords, and URL structure have a more significant impact on page ranking."
So in your view and that of JRagosta the potential for some future abuse needs to be neutered well in advance to prevent it from maybe perhaps somehow someday becoming a reality. Am I getting it right?
EDIT: You may not realize that DuckDuckGo results are very often coming from other search providers such as Yahoo or Microsoft.
http://help.dukgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources
http://help.dukgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216405-advertising-and-affiliates