Google Punishing Chrome Results For 60 Days 173
djl4570 writes "'Google is pushing its own Chrome browser down in search rankings for 60 days following reports that the company was involved in an ad campaign that paid for links to bolster search traffic. ... According to Sullivan, it appears that Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.' I see this as an astute move on Google's part. Rather than circle the wagons they say 'oops' and correct the problem. Google understands that such link pimping is a cancer that undermines the integrity of their search engine. That's why it isn't allowed and now Google is saying we don't support a double standard either."
Good for Google (Score:5, Interesting)
The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.
I am happy to see the fair business practice here. I do not always like what you're up to Google, but sometimes, like with mostly pulling out of China, and now this, I like what I see.
Marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
...and they're getting so much press in the news for doing so that the net result is much more promotion than Chrome would have seen otherwise. GENIUS!
Google still is different from other companies. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't have expected this level of integrity from any other company. There's been a lot of opinions floating around that Google aren't 'good guys' any more than others, but cases like this show that they really are different.
Bing demoting Firefox? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article mentioned the results for Bing and Google, so I decided to do a little investigation. If you search for "browser" on Bing, the top 10 results are quite similar, with one notable absence - no Firefox or Mozilla pages appear. Does this seem fishy to anyone else?
Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (Score:5, Interesting)
I gave this a try too, results as follows in order of first page
Bing: Generic, Opera, Generic, Safari, Generic, IE, Netscape, Opera, Generic, Generic
Google: Firefox, Generic, Opera, Safari, Generic, Generic, IE, Avant, Generic, Generic
Yahoo: Generic, Opera, Generic, Safari, Generic, IE, Netscape, Opera, Generic, Generic
Dogpile: Generic, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Generic, Generic, IE, Generic, MSN Explorer (IE?), Netscape
What surprised me:
1) Opera shows up so often, although this may be because of their huge mobile marketshare
2) IE doesn't show up more often. Maybe because it's on Windows PCs by default so less people search for it to download it?
3) Dogpile still exists. I don't think I've used it in the past decade until now.
4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
5) The only time Chrome showed up was on generic websites (IE: Wikipedia entries or CNet downloads) that included all of the major browsers
It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has 20,000 employees and their primary business is advertising -- 98% of their revenue, many billions of dollars every year, comes from advertising. So why would Google need to hire another company to advertise their Chrome browser? And why did *THAT* company need to hire *ANOTHER* company?
When you want to do something dodgy, while pretending to "do no evil", what better way than to hire someone else to do your dirty work for you. And when they get busted, you can just blame them and say "Hey, we didn't know anything about it".
Re:Good for Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Marketing (Score:4, Interesting)
no, it's just funny that we are all so cynical and desensitized to large (or even medium) sized companies burying crap like this; then when called out, shifting the blame; that we praise the few companies that do the right thing because it is so rare.
Where I work, we had an incident. There was about a week of thrash internally about how to handle it. In the end we handled it the right way for the consumers (and by extension the right way for the shareholders in the long view, though certainly not in the short view). I am proud of my company, but can not post more of it here :(
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would you have positive feelings over this? Google was caught doing the same SEO tactics they punished JC Penney for [cnn.com]. JC Penney even gave the exact same excuse, which was that they had no idea their external SEO company was doing such evil things. But this is worse, because Google is supposed to be the moral authority about this stuff since they are in a monopoly position when it comes to web search.
They had to do this after the huge amount of negative press yesterday, and they only did it after that press. But even worse, it doesn't even matter because the search term still returns Chrome as the top result via the sponsored links. How convenient for Google that it can pay itself and get the top result regardless of the neutral algorithmic results beneath, and therefore, regardless of whatever punishment it doles out to itself to make Google fans feel better about being Google fans.
No, this is nothing to feel positive about at all. If Google does the same things it punishes others for, it's no better.
Re:Good for Google (Score:5, Interesting)
They did something wrong - intentionally or not. It leaked. They fixed it immediately and "punished" themselves to try to compensate. That's already more than what 90% of the megacorps out there are able to do.
So that's why I say they are on the positive side of the pack. The pack being where 80% of the companies are. The 10% best are on the positive side, the 10% worse are on the dark side.
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow you have convinced yourself that you see hypocrisy. There isn't any. Google set down reasonable rules on how you can link. JC Penny, through another agency, violated those rules and got their rank hurt. Google, through another agency, violated those rules and go their rank hurt.
Google has responded consistently in both cases, even when it is responding to itself. Google isn't some monolith with perfect communication. The right hand did something stupid (hire a shady company and didn't oversee them) and the left hand smacked the right hand for it. This is a good thing.
The reason why people comment on it as being above and beyond kind of cool is that it is Google smacking themselves. It is one things for Google to smack JC Penny. Everyone expects that. It is another thing to smack themselves when one part of the company violates their own rules. This speaks of the quality of the firewall between the search folks and the rest of the company. If Google can confidently smack down its own internal divisions, it leaves you feeling confident that the results are truly as impartial as such a subjective thing can be. Can you honestly see Apple or Microsoft doing such a thing? They would just circle the wagons, justify their actions, and carry on. It is nice to see a touch of corporate integrity, even if it is for the obviously selfish reason of convincing people that Google's search is "fair".
Google considers its reputation to be an asset and guards it like one. It isn't infallible and its reasons for guarding their reputation are clearly selfish and profit motivated, but it is still a good thing. Doing good stuff for selfish reasons is better than acting like an asshole for selfish reasons.