Stuck In Google's Doghouse 165
hansoloaf writes "The NY Times is running an article about a business, Sourcetool.com that seem to be in a sort of a doghouse with Google. Initially Sourcetool uses AdWords to help build up its business. The business centers around providing links for business that sell industrial products. The owner, Dan Savage, explains in detail how Google over time used its AdWords bidding system to limit or reduce Sourcetool's ranking and revenue because the site's landing page is not 'googly' enough. Savage wrote a letter to the Justice Department as they are reportedly looking into Google and Yahoo's proposed deal." The article is nuanced in its observations about the complexity and ambiguity of anti-trust law. Even if Sourcetool and similar businesses aren't "Googly" — which is a Google proxy for "what the customer wants to see in search results" — should Google be able to pick winners and losers among industries and business models?
Not so simple once you really think about it (Score:5, Informative)
At first I thought this was going to be yet another "SearchKing"-like whine with cheese about how unfair Google was being to some sleazy parked domain hoarder. But that's not quite the case. Make sure you RTFA. I think the guy's website is relatively useful and well-organized. It sure doesn't feel like the usual AdWord gaming scheme.
I get the sense that Google is being hoisted by its own petard here. The fact that the article mentions the site in question might be in direct competition with one of Google's main partners is definitely interesting, coupled with the allegation that he knew of at least one other website who got a pass from the algorithm after being evaluated by a human being.
Here's an example. I searched for wood cutting [sourcetool.com] on Sourcetool. That's a pretty relevant list of results if you're a business looking for that kind of equipment. Now run the same [google.com] search directly into Google. See the problem? Yeah, the 5th hit is a Runescape page, for cryin' out loud. I'm sure I could possibly refine the search, but think about the ads that show up on the right side of the page. A link to Sourcetool and five seconds later I'm looking at what I actually needed.
Maybe Google is nervous about niche search solutions? I'm just not seeing their problem here.
If the article is correct, Google is not acting on good faith. To all the people who screamed about how Google is not a monpoly and made Microsoft jokes when Slashdot ran the Yahoo deal antitrust investigation, remember that Google does have more than 70% of the online ad market, and then put yourself in this guy's position. What are your options? MSN ads? You're screwed, because you can't take your business elsewhere.
And I have to say I was astounded at the money amounts mentioned... $600K per month? I'm definitely in the wrong business!
Re:Why not just improve the site? (Score:0, Informative)
That's fine, so long as you remember that Google's customers are those that actually pay it with real money for advertising, not us dweebs that just use it as a search engine.
It's an AdWords arbitrage site. It should fail. (Score:4, Informative)
That's an AdWords arbitrage site, one that buys cheap clicks to get traffic and sells expensive clicks to its own advertisers. Such sites are just another form of webspam. When Google raised their minimum bid for ads on search, many of those bottom-feeders dropped out, and ad clutter was reduced. Google revenue went down, too, but may recover in time.
Re:Search and money (Score:4, Informative)
But it shouldn't be up to a search engine to decide what is interesting or not.
Bullshit. Why are you the great arbiter, the Great Decider, on what a search engine should be?
Not to mention, that is exactly what search engines do--they sort through the more relevant (which are the "interesting"--links most of interest) first through algorithms for relevancy and traffic.
Re:It's an AdWords arbitrage site. It should fail. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, as far as I'm aware, you have it precisely backwards. If it's truly an arbitrage site, it should succeed, by definition, until the arbitrage opportunity runs out.
It seems to me that by increasing the minimum bid (mentioned in the grandparent), Google did cause the arbitrage opportunity to run out. So in fact, this link farm should no longer succeed. The market worked. What exactly is the problem here?
If the linkfarm guy wins.. (Score:2, Informative)
Name it something innocous, like [] Remember the Good Old Days
In fact, do that now, please - checking the box will remove Expert Sexchange, cnet, pricerunner, etc. etc. from the search "results"
[the list that givemebackmygoogle [givemebackmygoogle.com] is a good start for the block list]
Re:First amendment, right? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually.. this is about price discrimination, not choice of content: running an auction and specifying an exhorbitantly high minimum bid for one site (your competitor) and a different minimum bid for another site (your business allies) for the very same purchase.
This is not unlike Microsoft charging one price to OEMs who bundle Windows with every single PC and denying the discount to any OEM who sells any PC without windows on it.
In this case it's about the site containing a search service and directory of other sites (So it is in competition with Google's search feature)
Re:Why isn't "Expert's Exchange" in the doghouse t (Score:3, Informative)
One of the greatest annoyances of Google (to those of us techies searching for answers) is "Expert's Exchange". Google gets to see the answers, but anyone searching for those answers doesn't get them, but is told to sign up and pay money for a "premium subscription".
There are ways around this, but this is all an annoyance and a pain to deal with[...]
The answers -are- there, just scroll down past the point that mentions subscription and you'll find them. If scrolling is "an annoyance and a pain", try hitting the End key...
Re:Why isn't "Expert's Exchange" in the doghouse t (Score:3, Informative)
I used to do that, but I tried that the other day, and it didn't work. I am looking for answers, not to play games with that website.
Except that, not (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why not just improve the site? (Score:5, Informative)
And yet keywords are auctioned off to the highest bidders, which goes againt delivering the most relevant search result. Add that Google is an effective monopoly - i.e., wields predominant market power.
Saying that "keywords are auctioned off to the highest bidder" is so incomplete that it's basically wrong. The auction process does include a monetary bid, but auction is massively affected by something called "Quality Score."
If Site A bids $5.00 for the keyword "dog house", but its landing page has nothing to do with "dog houses," its ad will either not be displayed, or will be displayed well below Site B who bids $0.05 but has a landing page that is all about doghouses. Landing page/keyword relevance, responsiveness of the advertiser's web server, and previous click-through rates for that advertiser ALL are factored in when Google decides in what order to place the ads. In fact, if Site A has a history of very low CTR ads that aren't relevant to the keywords on which it bids, it will have to overcome a low quality score for ALL of its ads--it'll be "guilty until proven innocent."