FTC: Google Altered Search Results For Profit 232
mi writes: We've always suspected that Google might tweak its search algorithms to gain an advantage over its rivals — and, according to an FTC investigation inadvertently shared with the Wall Street Journal, it did. Quoting: "In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC's bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and "scraping" content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals. For example, the FTC staff noted that Google presented results from its flight-search tool ahead of other travel sites, even though Google offered fewer flight options. Google's shopping results were ranked above rival comparison-shopping engines, even though users didn't click on them at the same rate, the staff found. Many of the ways Google boosted its own results have not been previously disclosed.
I just don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.
Re:I just don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google exists as a publicly-traded for-profit company. They "just happen" to provide a tool for free that lets you find things online, but they have absolutely no obligation to make that tool "fair". If they want to put things that make them money at the top of the list, they can.
If they wanted to sort their search results by the number of cat references per result, they could do that, too. And none of us have the least right to complain ab
Re:I just don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
but they have absolutely no obligation to make that tool "fair". If they want to put things that make them money at the top of the list, they can.
As long as they comply with the anti-trust laws, which some experts didn't think was the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... and "Don't be Evil" turns into "Not obligated to do good".
Actually if I "don't like it" I choose to be very vocal in forums and will make a lifetime of being a PR nightmare for google. If you don't like that then piss off.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you are going to compete against google, what makes you think google should be obliged to promote YOUR business above their own?
Re:I just don't care (Score:5, Interesting)
I care about getting good search results. Google choosing to put the better results lower in the ranking conflicts with that.
I'd care even more if I was running a business that's competing with one of google's businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
But Google doesn't do that, nor does the WSJ article imply it. Google chooses to add features to its search engine and sometimes those features, like embedded maps, rank higher than say MapQuest does. That's not putting "better results lower in the ranking", that's Google believing that an inline map works better than a link to another search engine where you get to re-enter your quer
Re: (Score:2)
Which search engine are you talking about that generally outperforms Google ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
oh, so despite google playing fast and loose with its own product rankings, it's still the best tool available?
well then.
Re:I just don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, so despite google playing fast and loose with its own product rankings, it's still the best tool available?
Yeah, like somebody can be the best husband/father, and a bank robber at the same time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop the guy from robbing banks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
except that robbing banks is a crime, while ordering your search results however you like is not.
they made the product, they can decide how it functions. if they want to put google products first, that's their right. if you don't like it, use bing.
btw, i imagine that if you search on bing you will find MSDN, MSNBC, etc tends to dominate the rankings for their respective categories.
Re: (Score:2)
are you a lawyer? care to cite the exact law they are breaking, along with court precedent of a comparable case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Google has 70% of the search market. Many companies with much less market dominance have fallen under this act for a much smaller share of the market, because they could exert monopoly power (most likely due to network effects).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do, and yes they did. And yet, no suit has been filed.
Unless that happens, and unless Google loses, saying that Google violated anti-trust law is pure speculation on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like somebody can be the best husband/father, and a bank robber at the same time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop the guy from robbing banks.
That's a really strange analogy in this case. You are claiming that Google is the best search engine-husband/father. But it's skewing the results in its favor. The bank robbing thing is too far removed to make any sense to me. It sounds more like it is the best father/husband but lies to its wife and children. Which obviously is not the "best" You're complaining that what it's best at is not good enough.
So even if Google is skewing its search results, it is still the best option? I would think that th
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the lock in? Where are the predatory practices that make certain that no one can make a product that replaces Google? What are the costs associated with a user using Bing/DDG/Yahoo/dogpile or whatever?
Now if Google mandated that you could only use Chrome to use the search engine, or Chrome OS/Linux then this may be slightly similar to MS in the 90's. But this isn't even close. Also where is the FUD campaign where anyone using another browser or search engine is getting threatened with a lawsuit? W
Re:I just don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Bing and Yahoo? (Score:4, Interesting)
Search for CSS/HTML via Yahoo (the default in FF now) - you will get a slew of "MDN" (mozilla developer network) results, top-listed. Or how Bing promotes Bing Videos|Images instead of Google's?
We're pretty much talking about Google top-listing ONE of their "own" results. That hardly affects any business, nor is it a credibility hit. Their own service/info is still relevant to the search at hand.
I think we'd all be happier if Google would just stop ignoring our search terms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Protip: If you ever end up in traffic court, "I wasn't the only one speeding" is not a recommended defense.
Re: (Score:3)
However, when you are pulled over saying to the officer, 'I was not watching my speed, but I was moving with traffic', may well prevent you from ever having to appear in traffic court in the first place
Re: (Score:2)
However, when you are pulled over saying to the officer, 'I was not watching my speed, but I was moving with traffic', may well prevent you from ever having to appear in traffic court in the first place
As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Re:Like Bing and Yahoo? (Score:5, Funny)
As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
To which the correct answer is "I would have liked to but it was impossible since I knew exactly where I was."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws that set the speed limit on a road. What laws would prevent Google from favoring its own services in search results? It's their services, it's their search engine, it's their search results.
A better question is, why wouldn't Google favor their own services?
Re: (Score:2)
Which law is in violation that google would be in court over?
Re: (Score:2)
If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit.
How did you not know??? Seriously? It's a given that their own sites take precedence in the results.
This is a far cry from what Yahoo was doing ten years ago when they were ranking search results that were only tangentially related to your search because 3rd parties paid them to.
Re: (Score:2)
If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit.
Why, didn't you assume that already? I know I did.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet /. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'
Re: (Score:2)
And yet /. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'
Google gives them "free" shiny. And wow, do they sound like whiny little bitches when someone says anything bad about them.
If Google gives us free shinies, that means it's good for us. As a consumer, I will support Google because I get free shinies. What's wrong with that? The customer is happy.
Re:I just don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't one of market share, although 75% is definitely at least dominant. We're talking about monopolies in the sense of Microsoft and Intel, neither of which is a government-granted monopoly. The key is whether Google has a coercive monopoly that is able to restrain competition and operate without fear of competition. Near 100% market share is not necessary. That Google is able to employ such tactics with the implicit understanding that its customers will not abandon it for a competitor argues that it has coercive monopoly power. Whether this situation arises due to Google's ability or its competitors' incompetency does not detract from the coercive nature of Google's market position.
Re: (Score:2)
Much too nuanced ....
TL;DR - bring lawyers, guns and money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google isn't a monopoly, and search functionality isn't a public utility. Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.
They have a monopoly over the search bar that's dead center at the top of phone that I'm not allowed to remove under penalty of law. So yes, they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame that on your phone maker. My Galaxy S4 running a Google Edition rom I can move the search bar where ever I want, or even remove it.
Re: (Score:2)
DUH! (Score:2)
Google is a business. those other guys are competitors. "mine is better and cheaper." Flo had to get the idea from someplace for that riffleboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Google never promised to have its page rankings work in a particular way.
This is the Federal Trade Commission. They issue fines for things like weight loss ads that present a highly one-sided narrative of the product, or to telcom companies that sell unlimited data services that have limits. They have the power to declare a practice deceptive and fine for it, even if the practice is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
A free market would care, because the players in the market need information to make efficient decisions between suppliers and their products.
Re: (Score:2)
"When a user enters a query, our machines search the index for matching pages and return the results we believe are the most relevant to the user. Relevancy is determined by over 200 factors, one of which is the PageRank for a given page. PageRank is the measure of the importance of a page based on the incoming links from other pages. In simple terms, each link
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
....Google's search mechanism doesn't violate any of those, unless you are *really* stretching....
Re:I just don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
At any point a small start-up like duckduckgo could potentially displace them as the preferred search.
Exactly. Any small startup with a several million servers, and datacenters on every continent, has the potential to disrupt the market.
I don't have any problem with Google promoting their own business, but that should be clearly marked as advertising, and not presented as unbiased search results.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...unbiased search results
That does not exist, and if it did, it would probably be declared illegal in most countries. We can't allow them to link to copyright infringers now, can we?
Re: (Score:2)
By nature of Google making the algorithm which ranks the results, it is inherently biased. The only way to prevent bias, would be to make the results pages completely randomized. Even then the randomization would hint at bias in the way it defined random. Google and their search results are and always have been a carefully manicured set of results, based off of choices of those behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I suppose that there is still a pretty big Google fan base on /.
There will probably be a point in the future when Google has become recognized as Big Brother and the Snowden crowd turns on them, but that will probably be some time off in the future, long after Google's competitors have taken that stance
It may be difficult for people who have had Google for most of their life to realize that it is not a public utility, that it has to meet the desires of stockholders, and that it no longer even claims t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I suppose that there is still a pretty big Google fan base on /.
There will probably be a point in the future when Google has become recognized as Big Brother and the Snowden crowd turns on them, but that will probably be some time off in the future, long after Google's competitors have taken that stance
*Shrug* I'll switch when something else is better for searching. I used Alta Vista, then Yahoo, then Dogpile, now Google. Show me something else that is better and easier to use and I'll be using it by tomorrow. So far there are some interesting contenders but no one ready to take on the job as a full replacement.
Well no shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we going to investigate Amazon for presenting a stupid assed Kindle Fire as the first result whenever I search for "Nexus 9" on their engine next?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recent change, I assure you. If you search for "Bluetooth Mouse" the third result is a non-Bluetooth Amazon basics mouse.
Bluetooth means not having to have a stupid dongle for everything you connect to your system! Not "Wireless with a USB port taken".
Re: (Score:2)
The amazon mouse is the #1 best seller, though, and it's wireless. Likewise, if you search for bluetooth keyboard, the 3rd result is a non-bluetooth logitech wireless keyboard, which is also the #1 best seller.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well no shit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Have we forgotten the whole MS Antitrust fiasco? You remember that Microsoft WAS FINED because they bundled a fucking WEB BROWSER with their OS and made it the default, right? MS didn't force anyone to use it.
And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.
LOL. And Microsoft is still evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft also not only had(has) the #1 best-selling operating system in the world, it also _sells_ it. For money, to customers who buy it (sometimes indirectly, to many of whom are people that don't realize they had another choice.) People come to Google for their search, just like people come to Google for their other services, but nobody pays for search. Just like every other company that provides a multitude of services, including some loss-leaders, tries to promote their other profit-making services
Re: (Score:2)
If you think "no one pays for google" I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Who pays for the Google search web service?
I'll admit, this page is amusing in the context of this discussion: honestresults.html [google.com]
I know plenty of people pay Google, some pay for hosting of their business services, some pay for advertising placement in search results, but does anyone pay Google for Web Search (as a consumer of web search results?)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a little less simple than that. On iOS you have to use Apple's browser engine. You are free[1] to wrap your own user interface around it, like for example Google's Chrome does. As a user I don't care much about the browser engine; it's like whining that mobile phones use USB to charge.
[1] free as in what Apple allows in its app store
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. You can use a deprecated engine which is limited slow and inferior. So all those who want to compete with iOS cannot have a level playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well no shit! (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.
I don't think anyone can accuse iOS's shrinking marketshare of being a monopoly. They're currently second and they will stay second for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft was only fined in Europe. In America nothing much happened. Also: the fines were iirc not for bundling of the web browser but rather, the things they did to stop PC makers also including Netscape. Like threatening to punish them financially if they supported a competitor. That's a lot more cut and dried. You're right that bundling web browsers with operating systems was clearly the right move in hindsight and in practice Netscape might have been toast anyway. But maybe not: alternative browsers ar
Re: (Score:2)
In the US they got away with murder, most likely because they gave the feds any piece of data and every back door they could dream of.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the lawsuits where no one else could have a browser installed in windows upon purchase? Or that you can't get a PC without paying for Windows whether you intended to use it with Windows or not?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, on iOS you can only use the bundled one and nothing else.
Opera Mini [apple.com], released 2010, and Opera Coast [apple.com], released 2014
Google Chrome [apple.com], released 2012
News regarding Firefox [mozilla.org], due for release at some point soon
iOS requires that if you use a browser engine in iOS, it must be their version of WebKit for iOS, which is how Chrome and Coast work, but there are ways around even that, and there's nothing stopping you from building a better browser than theirs on top of their engine, which is exactly what others have done. Additionally, Opera Mini gets around the engine issue by
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft was fined, they paid fines, and they had forced official remedies mandated, which they violated as well. The latter part being within the last two you years. You should be ashamed of yourself for coming here and deliberately lying so you don't have a way to get called out for being a shill/asshat...
People like you keep conversations from moving forward. Nice to be that guy asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
I just did the search again, you're right.
I did a search for another of my annoyances "Bluetooth Mouse", three of the first six were actually Bluetooth, quite an improvement, I must applaud them. I typed "HTC M8" and Firephone wasn't even on the first page. I assure you this change is within the past couple of months.
How to Deal with Bullies (Score:2)
People rallied agains
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is about profit, like any corporation
Like PETA, the Sierra Club, and the Corporation For Public Broadcasting?
it's pretty clear they did abuse their search power
No, it's pretty clear only that you're asserting that, and don't consider it appropriate for people to start a company, write their own software, offer it to you to use at no charge to you in the way they see fit. How awful! Let me guess, you just came from a post graduate seminar on "triggering," and having a company sort their search results as they please brought back a traumatic memory of not understanding the Dewey Decimal System
Marketing over primary function of searching (Score:4, Informative)
I've been complaining for a few years now - the last five or so, google search returns a much worse signal-to-noise ratio. And they keep taking away search tools, *and* theyve begun ignoring search criteria. Just last year, I was looking for high leather men's boots, with criteria of -"ladies" -"womens"... and among other things, saw a sponsored ad (a *complete* waste of the advertiser's money) that had "womens/bold" in the text.
So much technical computer info is buried in rubble....
mark
Re: (Score:2)
And their point is? (Score:2, Insightful)
The FTC is seeming to suggest that it would be more proper for the Apple store to introduce customers looking to buy an office PC to Microsoft offerings first because they have a larger market share. Or Verizon to show plans from TMobile ahead of their own because they're more economical.
Just because Google happens to offer services that incorporate non-Google offerings doesn't mean they don't have a right to serve their own interests. If I'm using Google I expect to be shown Google offerings. If I'm usi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FTC is seeming to suggest that it would be more proper for the Apple store to introduce customers looking to buy an office PC to Microsoft offerings first
The Apple store is not an internet search engine. Your analogy makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple stores are designed for selling Apple products. Anybody walking in such a store knows this. Apple doesn't even try to pretend to be selling a wide range of brands.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you don't see that indicates your knowledge of economics and business is severely lacking.
Nor is it 'nice' that Google shows non-competioros offerings, it is a REQUIREMENT to running a search service. A search service that only shows your own products is not a s
Re: (Score:2)
Nor is it 'nice' that Google shows non-competioros offerings, it is a REQUIREMENT to running a search service. A search service that only shows your own products is not a search service, it is a search function for your products.
Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?
No one is saying that Google can't serve their own interests. What they are saying is that Google must first serve their customers interests, than their own interests.
That is a nice idea--for the customer. However, this anti-capitalistic idea doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially in the US. Neither is it routinely and commonly practiced nor is it enforced. In practice a business first serves its shareholders, the scraps and trimmings go to the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?
That would be covered under the US antitrust laws. There are several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
However, this anti-capitalistic idea doesn't have a leg to stand on
It's not anti-capitalistic to enforce an equal playing field. And apparently, the experts of the FTC thought they had a leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me but what law or regulation defines that as a requirement?
That would be covered under the US antitrust laws. There are several: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
Google may be big, but it isn't that big. IMHO. Nor has it colluded with competitors to set prices.
As to the first concept (effective monopoly) I go to Bing all the time, for various reasons. Sometimes, I have searched Google first, and am looking for a different ranking algorithm, in order to see if I can find other high quality links which Google missed somehow. Sometimes, I just like Bing's presentation. Sometimes, I don't have any reason at all. Even though I tend to go to Google first, I know other p
Re: (Score:2)
Google's business is to search websites.
Sorry, that is incorrect. Google's business is selling context sensitive advertising space, providing free search to consumers merely gives them additional means to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Google: FTC Alters Nothing for Reality (Score:2)
Talk about a lesser of two evils....
But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't it be? It's their search engine. Who says search engines have to be unbiased?
Re: (Score:2)
Google presents itself as an unbiased search engine. This search engine has a huge market share. They also have other businesses that have nothing to do with searching. Using their search engine, the prevent fair competition on their other activities. That is not allowed according to the Sherman Antitrust Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Of course, that is the heart of the issue. Lawyers and judges will have to debate the finer details.
Re: (Score:2)
Google presents itself as an unbiased search engine.
Oh yea? Google presents their name, a text box, and a button. If you manage to find the "about" link at the bottom, all it basically says is "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Nothing about bias. If Google's services are better than the competitions, placing them first actually would make the results more useful and would make their services more accessible.
The concept of "fair competition" is truly lost in this day and ag
surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
ever notice how the products recommended for your car just happen to be made by the same company that made the car? Ever notice how the manual for your new hiking boots claims they will work best with the leather sealant made by the same company? Ever notice how the helpful recipes found on the packaging of food items happen to have ingredients that all come from the same food company? why would anybody expect anything different?
50 wrongs don't make a right. Consumers have always expected the manufacturers of their products to give them honest advice about how to care for their products and not to use their position as the manufacturer to force you into situations that actually harm your own interests. The fact that most businesses abuse that expectation does not make it any less egregious that Google has followed in their footsteps.
One of the best examples is Transmission oil... The differences between Manufacturer and After marke
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers have always expected the manufacturers of their products to give them honest advice about how to care for their products and not to use their position as the manufacturer to force you into situations that actually harm your own interests.
Lol, since when?
Of course they did - they're in business. (Score:3)
Of course they boost their own interests.
They're in business and they're only human.
Well, actually, just about any species would do it.
It's the natural order.
How are they allowed to do this?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't allowed, that's why there was an anti-trust probe.
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't allowed, that's why there was an anti-trust probe.
Please cite the court documents that found Google to be a monopoly, and which defines their obligations to write their search engine routines against their own interests as the owners and operators of that service. Be specific, so that we don't have to guess where you got the court order and related documents.
Wait, let me put on my "shocked" face . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise... FTC is just worthless bureaucracy (Score:3)
This just in: FTC discovers that Macy's employees really don't refer their shoppers to Gimbels.
Are we talking about the avertised links? (Score:2)
Or the ones below that?
Because if google is screwing with the links below the 'advertised" pit then that is a bit fucked up.
I wouldn't throw hand cuffs on them for that. Its totally legal. But it is misrepresentation because the implication is that they're not doing that.
I'm happy with them doing it so long as they're open about it.
only surprised that this comes as a surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would anyone assumed they weren't using their search engine to promote their services? Why shouldn't they, for that matter? It seems like common sense for Google to do this and for users to expect this.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is Google has over 75% of the search engine market and is pretty much the gateway to the Internet to many users. It should not be abusing that monopoly to unfairly promote their other non-monopoly services over that of their competitors' services.
Maybe that's wrong. But Google search is a monopoly and the impact of abuse is greater.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the browser they switch to is very likely inferior to google search, so they won't switch search engines. Meanwhile Google is promoting their inferior non-search services on their search service to the detriment of the customer. Do you see the problem now?
Re: (Score:2)
Prove to me that their non-search services are inferior. They might inferior to you, but they aren't inferior to me. Now do YOU see the problem? Oh, that is right, you view is obviously correct for ALL people.
Re: (Score:2)
the browser they switch to is likely inferior to Google search? WTF does this even mean?
A browser is not a search engine. People can change search engines and not need to change the software they are using to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is first and foremost a SEARCH engine, and as such they claim to show you other people's products, then yes, Google should not give special treatment to their own brands.
Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo similarly can not give special t