Google Faces EU Probe Over Doped Search Results 193
Barence writes "The EU has launched an investigation into whether Google is deliberately doctoring its search results to favour its own services. The search giant stands accused of artificially lowering the search ranking of competing price-comparison sites in organic and paid-for search results, in favour of Google Shopping. 'There is a growing chasm between the enduring public perception of Google's search results as comprehensive and impartial, and the reality that they are increasingly neither,' said Shivaun Raff, CEO of British price comparison site Foundem, which lodged the complaint with the EU. Google has denied any foul play. 'Those sites have complained and even sued us over the years, but in all cases there were compelling reasons why their sites were ranked poorly by our algorithms,' it claims."
Isn't this... (Score:3, Insightful)
...an old story? I'm pretty sure Google is on the line though.
Hope Google wins, for the sake of useful results. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope Google wins this one. Google search results are spammed with enough useless "price comparison" and "vertical search" sites as it is, their results really don't need any more - especially not forced upon them by Google. It's reached the point where it's very difficult to find actual reviews for certain products or sites selling them via Googling already, because the "vertical search" sites don't care about actually providing good information. (If you read Google's response [bbc.co.uk], the reason the company complaining got automatically downranked is because nearly all their content was duplicated - like many such sites, they offered absolutely nothing useful and were just sponging off their ability to draw people in by getting as high in the Google results as possible.)
Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
"There is a growing chasm between the enduring public perception of Google's search results as comprehensive and impartial...
Impartiality Checklist
[ ] Do they make money doing it?
[ ] Do they support a political candidate, viewpoint, or party?
[ ] Is what they're doing taxable?
[ ] Do they claim to know the truth, as opposed to still searching for it?
Note: If you checked any of the boxes, you can be certain they are not impartial.
Re:Was bound to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I find your phrase 'google something on Bing' highly amusing - and very revealing of the actual market situation ; )
Re:Isn't this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Google is on the line though.
Yes, I also have a feeling they have a clear conscience. As to the reason their own services are ranked high? Of all, surely Google knows how to optimize their pages for Googles page ranking algorithms!
If they really wanted to "do no evil" they would have a clean room team implement the SEO for their own services using only publicly published information. After all using some secret way to get to the top of the list has the same affect as building in a bias for your site.
Re:I shop online all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not ranked high because you're not relevant to the users' interest. 'Nuff said.
And who gets to decide that, the competition or a neutral party?
Re:I shop online all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
And who gets to decide that, the competition or a neutral party?
A few billion neutral third parties have said that they like Google's appraisal just fine. If their results weren't so in line with what people want and expect, users would have gone with a different search engine.
Re:Yeah, but they're *European* (Score:3, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be an issue. Is there a law that says search engines must be impartial? This is their company and their algorithm. Who the fuck has the right to tell them if they want to optimize it to make all websites with the word google in them go up in rank?
If their search results stop giving useful and valid results someone else will build a new and better search engine. See the history of search engines as a reference.
Google is not a public utility, they are a for profit company.
Re:I shop online all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
As Mike Muir once sang while with Infectious Grooves ..... "I hate stupid people!"
Re:Yeah, but they're *European* (Score:1, Insightful)
Because different rules apply to de facto monopolies?
Re:Isn't this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never thought "man, there aren't enough content-void link farms in the top 10 results from google!"
Think how many man-hours are wasted all over the globe clicking on that crap.
I want google to remove spam from my web searches just like the remove spam from my email. Evil is not google. Evil is any government that tries to dissuade them from performing that valuable function in the name of "competition".
So what exactly is wrong with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wouldn't Google push their own products to the front of search results? Are they barred from doing what we would expect from every other company in the world to do? Why is this investigated? Why does anyone consider this illegal, amoral, or wrong in any way? They can't promote their own products on their own website - Why the hell not?
They are not a nonprofit impartialsearch.org, they're not the government shoving this down our throats, they're a large corporation that is completely optional to use. There is no reason to expect their own products not to be first in every related search. There are Google logos on every page - it's not deceptive, you know who is providing this information. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this in any way, shape or form. It's companies with crappy products that lose money politicking/suing Google because they have money - That is the total sum of these stories. There's no rights violations, illegal activities or sketchy dealings here, just unmitigated greed and a failed political/legal system.
If Google didn't do this, if you searched for "Email" on Google and the first result was Hotmail, everyone would think they're complete idiots - employees, users, advertisers and competitors.