Google Accused of Cooking Search Results and...

[cashtree]

Google Accused of "Cooking" Search Results and Charging MSFT Too Much - Slashdot

and here's the main link, I think based off the ceo's responses it's quite obvious

Google's Eric Schmidt denies 'cooking' search results - latimes.com

I like this quote too
"We run the company for the benefit of consumers and frankly not for the other websites," Schmidt said.

Here's the other allegation
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...d-by-u-s-.html

[Apollo-Articles]

I think it's clear to us all that they cook the results to favour their own sites such as Adwords, Adsense ect.

You'll find them ranking first for many of these terms in the paid search sections and I seriously doubt they pay for those clicks.

Sam

[cashtree]

Yeah, sigh, I wish bing was more popular, you need competition to keep an even playing field, not with 1 company dictating everything.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by Apollo-Articles

I think it's clear to us all that they cook the results to favour their own sites such as Adwords, Adsense ect.

You'll find them ranking first for many of these terms in the paid search sections and I seriously doubt they pay for those clicks.

Sam

I keep hearing people say that, and I have seen many places where you think that they would cook the results in their favor but don't seem to be doing so...

I suspect that people just want to believe that Google is tilting the playing field too much towards their own stuff, but a closer analysis shows that they aren't doing so at the level you would think that they could do so...

[RAMarketing]

Originally Posted by tpw

I keep hearing people say that, and I have seen many places where you think that they would cook the results in their favor but don't seem to be doing so...

I suspect that people just want to believe that Google is tilting the playing field too much towards their own stuff, but a closer analysis shows that they aren't doing so at the level you would think that they could do so...

It only takes one drop of poison to taint a water supply. If someone proved that they were favoring themselves for even one keyword it would destroy their credibility overnight; I doubt they 'cook the results'. Cooking Google+, Adwords, and Adsense accounts on the other hand, well... :-p

[ColinChia]

I mean it would hardly be surprising tho right?

Google this, Google that... even Microsoft won't live forever!

Test of Times.

[Fraggler]

Originally Posted by cashtree

"We run the company for the benefit of consumers and frankly not for the other websites," Schmidt said.

It's a funny world where one business's success can get it into trouble when other business' find the ride on it's coattail a little rough.

[cashtree]

funny how the fcc is investigating, investigating what exactly? probably takes google a single keystroke to turn on/off any modification, and considering how enormous and complicated google is its not like the fcc is gonna get access to their core stuff. I guess they'll be "investigating" by googling through their browsers at work...lol

[tpw]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

It's a funny world where one business's success can get it into trouble when other business' find the ride on it's coattail a little rough.

Beautifully said.

[cashtree]

Originally Posted by tpw

Beautifully said.

In theory, not in reality. Let me tell you a story, in a small town you probably never heard of, walmart setup shop and for months sold tires and such so low that they were literally losing money, and practically giving them away. Soon as the last of the mom and pop competitors went out of business they sky rocketed the prices. I bet you think that's fair, competitive, etc...eh?

I heard someone recently complain to a manager at another walmart and you know what he said? I don't care, we have no competition...and unfortunately that's true, who competes with walmart? No one, they're too big to compete with. They're so big they dictate prices, they're so big if they refuse to carry a product some companies will simply just stop making it.

The constitution talks about checks and balances, without businesses having no real competition they have no checks and balances.

[wtatlas]

There's some sense in what you say. A monopoly, no matter how clever or efficient the organisation that has it, is not a good thing for consumers. The following is a short extract from a UK public body that investigates potential monopoly situations.

"The Competition Commission (CC) is an independent public body which conducts in-depth inquiries into mergers, markets and the regulation of the major regulated industries, ensuring healthy competition between companies in the UK for the benefit of companies, customers and the economy."

Whether you like or dislike Google is immaterial - if they have a monopoly position which makes it difficult for other companies to compete with them then end-users of their services are in a disfavoured position.

[Vlad Romanov]

google is a business and they have all rights to make their search results whatever they want... Anyone can step away and use another search engine. If people weren't happy with Google, it wouldn't be the most used search engine out there; and just because they are they shouldn't be trying to please anyone.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

It's a funny world where one business's success can get it into trouble when other business' find the ride on it's coattail a little rough.

Originally Posted by tpw

Beautifully said.

Originally Posted by cashtree

In theory, not in reality. Let me tell you a story, in a small town you probably never heard of, walmart setup shop and for months sold tires and such so low that they were literally losing money, and practically giving them away. Soon as the last of the mom and pop competitors went out of business they sky rocketed the prices. I bet you think that's fair, competitive, etc...eh?

I heard someone recently complain to a manager at another walmart and you know what he said? I don't care, we have no competition...and unfortunately that's true, who competes with walmart? No one, they're too big to compete with. They're so big they dictate prices, they're so big if they refuse to carry a product some companies will simply just stop making it.

The constitution talks about checks and balances, without businesses having no real competition they have no checks and balances.

I'm sorry... Were you talking to me?

You have clearly missed the point of Fraggler's post.

The comparison of Wal-Mart to Google is apples and oranges.

As Fraggler eluded, online business owners want to rely upon Google to drive their own prosperity, and when Google doesn't cooperate the way the online business owners want them to do, they get mad and throw tantrums about how evil Google is.

You are suggesting that Wal-Mart and Google are the same, because they both seem to possess supernatural powers that small business owners do not have, and both use their powers to destroy the little guy.

Local small business owners are not hanging onto Wal-Mart's coat tails trying to ride the Wal-Mart power train to victory.

But online business owners are trying to latch onto Google, hanging on tight trying to leech on Google's success, in hopes that Google will propel them forward.

That is the difference between what Fraggler and I were talking about... And what you are talking about...

15 years ago, I was really concerned about Wal-Mart in my hometown, and for years, I did not patronage Wal-Mart for that reason.

Interestingly, Wal-Mart did not squash that many of the local business owners in my hometown.

There is a book that I read in the mid-1990's that I think may have contributed to many of the locals standing up to and surviving the Wal-Mart invasion. The book I refer is this one: Amazon.com: "Up Against the Wal-Marts: How Your Business Can Prosper in the Shadow of the Retail Giants" (not an affiliate link).

In the book, the authors suggest that "anyone who tries to compete with Wal-Mart on price alone will perish."

The authors talked about the importance of defining what distinguishes your product or service from Wal-Mart and then emphasizing that strength over low price.

Consumers always have a choice as to where they spend their money. And so long as consumers continue to focus only on price, Wal-Mart will win.

But a smart competitor will identify the weakness in Wal-Mart's model, the strength in their own model, and celebrate both in their advertising.

Those local small business owners who are successful at defining their strengths against the weaknesses of Wal-Mart will survive and prosper.

Too bad that the local tire stores in your community did not realize that lesson before their businesses went under. Too bad indeed...

Is it fair that we blame Wal-Mart for winning the marketplace by any means necessary?

Would it be equally as fair to blame the locals who went under for rolling over and not standing up to the retail giant that came to town?

As has been shown in small communities all over America, Wal-Mart only destroys the weak... They cannot do a thing to damage those businesses who focus on their strengths over Wal-Mart's shortcomings...

Should I really pity the weak and weak-willed, who refused to stand up and fight for the future of their own businesses?

I guess I am a heartless s.o.b., because I have no pity for those folks who could have grown a backbone, and instead chose to perish in the face of a challenge.


.

[cashtree]

Originally Posted by Vlad Romanov

google is a business and they have all rights to make their search results whatever they want... Anyone can step away and use another search engine. If people weren't happy with Google, it wouldn't be the most used search engine out there; and just because they are they shouldn't be trying to please anyone.

Sorry but this isn't bob's search engine that only a hand full of people use...when you're as big as google and have essentially the entire world from academic to government to everyone in between using your product for a very important purpose, no you shouldn't be able to "make the results whatever you want". I'm sorry you can't understand that, and what that means if they have the same mentality as you.

[tpw]

If Google doesn't make the search results look like they want, what should they make the results look like?

The did not get to be the biggest search engine on the planet by asking me how to sort the search results either.

[Mohammad Afaq]

Hate me for saying this but this is just another BS "allegation" and nothing's gonna come out of this.

I am always amazed at why do we (the webmasters) feel entitled to a high google ranking and also why do we always want to decide what the heck google is up to and how to stop them?

Google owns the site for god's sake, why can't they promote their products on their own site?

[Mohammad Afaq]

Originally Posted by cashtree

Sorry but this isn't bob's search engine that only a hand full of people use...when you're as big as google and have essentially the entire world from academic to government to everyone in between using your product for a very important purpose, no you shouldn't be able to "make the results whatever you want". I'm sorry you can't understand that, and what that means if they have the same mentality as you.

Okay so basically what you believe is that once a company grows and becomes wildly successful, they should be restricted to do certain things (like have control over their own site)?

Okay seems too much like "free market" to me

[Perumom]

Google survives and has become the #1 search engine because it gives people relevant results. When it finds that the search results aren't relevant, it changes its algorithms to make its search engine work better.

If they DON'T give the most relevant results possible, then people will stop using google search and switch to bing (or whatever else is available). It's a moot point as to whether google "cooks" the results - I assume they do, and it doesn't matter. As long as the results they show are relevant to what people are searching for, their users will be happy and continue using them.

[Martin Fronek]

Originally Posted by Apollo-Articles

You'll find them ranking first for many of these terms in the paid search sections and I seriously doubt they pay for those clicks.

Of course they are not paying for them... I mean even if they were, they would be paying to themselves, which equals to not paying

However, my point of view is, however big company Google is, it's still a private business and they have full right to favour their other businesses in the search results. I don't see anything wrong with that, really.

[royljestr]

This all just proves that Google will do whatever they want to do. It would be nice if there was a little more competition out there for them.

I remember back in the day when using Google was the geeky thing to do...now they can be such a beast.

[Martin Fronek]

Originally Posted by Mohammad Afaq

Okay so basically what you believe is that once a company grows and becomes wildly successful, they should be restricted to do certain things (like have control over their own site)?

Okay seems too much like "free market" to me

Well said. +1

[cashtree]

Originally Posted by Mohammad Afaq

Okay so basically what you believe is that once a company grows and becomes wildly successful, they should be restricted to do certain things (like have control over their own site)?

Okay seems too much like "free market" to me

I use to have the same outlook as you, honestly, exact same, however what I came to realize is if your company becomes as large and successful as google is, you inherit a much larger responsibility along side all those billions, and rightfully so. our forefather understood checks and balances, it keeps everyone in line, and without it...we go back to the days of dictatorship and communism, and you don't want that. If google or any other fortune 500 companies don't like it, they're free to move to another country, but see they will never do that, why? Because as much as people whine and cry about the US, the reality is there are a LOT more opportunities here than any other country in the world.

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by tpw

The authors talked about the importance of defining what distinguishes your product or service from Wal-Mart and then emphasizing that strength over low price.

U

S

P

FTW

[rts2271]

A monopoly can't exist in a free market. The answer is simple. Less regulation protecting government supported monopolies.

[jasonl70]

google could 'cook their results' all they want in my opinion.

Google is not a public service, and anyone who doesn't like them can easily use Bing, yahoo, etc.. contrary to popular myth, those other search engines are quite capable A lot people use them jus tout of habit I think..

[FredJones]

Surely, in my products and services, I get to say what I want to do as long as it is not ethical?

If Google wants to display search results as they want it, then let them do it. Who does not do that? Who in the world sets standards and says "hey Google this is what you should display as your search result" and "hey Bing that is what your search results should be"? Damm ...

Google has every single right to show whatever search results they want to. If people don't like it, Google loses their business. If people like it, Google gains. As simple as that.

In my house, I get to say where to place my bed and where to place my dining table, and I have every right to place my dining table in my so-called bedroom and place my bed in the so-called dining room. And then if I allow people to take phorographs of it and they take it, then they do it because they want to enjoy my style. If they don't like me, they are welcome to go away.

[Bruce NewMedia]

It just shows how pre-eminent Google has become, that many have started to view them as a kind of public utility. They're nothing more than a share-holder owned business. They can organize and display search results any way they want.

This same kind of attack happened to Microsoft in the 1990's. They got so good at what they did, that they were threatened with anti-trust actions. They were unstoppable, or so it seemed....but it only took one new upstart to change that - Google. And if Google doesn't provide what the user wants and needs, a replacement will spring up for them, as well.
_____
Bruce NewMedia

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by tpw

If Google doesn't make the search results look like they want, what should they make the results look like?

The did not get to be the biggest search engine on the planet by asking me how to sort the search results either.

Actually besides the point . Fact is when asked on The Hill they are basically saying they don't use a separate algo so your argument is a little flat. I'd agree with You and fraggler if they came out and said

"Mine!" I put there what I want"

But basicaly there they are on the hill saying thats not what they are doing. Look like it or not MS wasn't allowed to Say "mine" with Windows and lock IE into it. We have antitrust laws and as unsavory as it sounds to some the reality is that if you control enough of a given market you can't use it to leverage out your competition.

Now you can argue about the law itself but theres really no question about the law. Sorry. A company cannot make the argument you are making to side step anti trust issues. Not legally.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by brucerby

This same kind of attack happened to Microsoft in the 1990's. They got so good at what they did, that they were threatened with anti-trust actions. They were unstoppable, or so it seemed....but it only took one new upstart to change that - Google.

Thats kind of rewriting history a little bit though. It was the anti trust actions that led to a more open market in tech. MS had a lot of things they couldn't push as forcefully as they would have before the actions. IF not Bing could have very well been entirely integrated into Windows 7 (and certainly into Windows 8 which will have the very desktop based on HTMl and javascript.) which would have weakened Google. They even hesitated from pushing out Silverlight forceable onto windows boxes for fear of Adobe charging them with Antitrust violations.

[cashtree]

Funny how apple goes under the radar because techinically iphone isn't the top phone in terms of market share, but by far makes the most. They make so much money they aren't even allowed in the downy or something because it'd mess up the averages.

[cashtree]

Facebook having the top social site is absolutely a monopoly.

[Noirmaybe]

Originally Posted by cashtree

Yeah, sigh, I wish bing was more popular, you need competition to keep an even playing field, not with 1 company dictating everything.

I'm fine with Bing being not as popular. Cheaper cpc = higher ROI. I also noticed higher conversion rates as well

[Dumkist]

GOOGLE IS GREEDY... AND THEY HATE TO SEE ANYONE MAKE A DOLLAR..I HOPE THEY CRASH AND BURN ! .....Go Bing !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fraggler]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

"you can't use it to leverage out your competition."

Google's Shopping Results are programmatic AND they list third party stores. They are still sending people off to the competition. The shopping results are also beatable in the original query. They might be given a baseline ranking factor but a more relevant site can still outrank it.

A lot of those shopping comparison sites have ordinary backlink profiles because no one really cares about them. They are a means to an end. Beating those sites is a piece of cake, especially with the amount of products they'd have to cover.

You just have to read the posts over at Webmaster World to see all the ecommerce webmasters having a sook because they expect all of their products to rank well with little off-site effort. If anything they aren't educated enough in how Google actually ranks pages and it is why there are stacks of affiliate marketers (that they love to whinge about as well) who can beat their ecommerce stores AND Google Shopping Results with an ordinary MFA sniper site.

[MikeFriedman]

To be totally honest, I hope they do cook the results for some searches. If I am searching for AdSense, I want to find AdSense. I don't want to find somebody's horrible WSO about how I can make $8,331 a day in just a week using AdSense.

[Fernando Veloso]

Firstly, Mr Schmidt ADMITTED Google cooks search results.

Read Carefully a quote from the article:

Schmidt said Google tries to help consumers get information more quickly and sometimes produces "the answer" to their search result so that they don't have to click on any other sites, such as with a stock quote or map.

It's pretty obvious he says Google "produces "the answer" to their search result so that they (the people) don't have to click on any other sites"

So he admits Google brings THEIR results to the top (where people sees them more quickly) so people don't have to click on any other site.

Pretty self explanatory stuff.

....

Google is evil. Run for your life.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Google's Shopping Results are programmatic AND they list third party stores. They are still sending people off to the competition.

I get where you are coming from troy but the question being raised is regard to other price comparison services not product sellers. Sellers are not Google's competitors because they don't sell products. I think its pretty obvious given the research that coming up three all the time gives them leverage in the product comparison niche and that it IS something they have tinkered with to be there. So at the very least they are mostly likely lying to the senate. Statistically it would be very odd for that placement to happen by chance.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

. I don't want to find somebody's horrible WSO about how I can make $8,331 a day in just a week using AdSense.

Hater....you ought to know by now WSOs are all that matter. You just don't have enough testimonials...............

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by cashtree

In theory, not in reality. Let me tell you a story, in a small town you probably never heard of, walmart setup shop and for months sold tires and such so low that they were literally losing money, and practically giving them away. Soon as the last of the mom and pop competitors went out of business they sky rocketed the prices. I bet you think that's fair, competitive, etc...eh?

I heard someone recently complain to a manager at another walmart and you know what he said? I don't care, we have no competition...and unfortunately that's true, who competes with walmart? No one, they're too big to compete with. They're so big they dictate prices, they're so big if they refuse to carry a product some companies will simply just stop making it.

The constitution talks about checks and balances, without businesses having no real competition they have no checks and balances.

This one time at band camp, I saw a dog playing the drums while singing "In the Air Tonight". When I asked him if he paid any royalties for singing that song, he said he didn't care about paying royalties, because what are they gonna do, take a dog to court?

Then he started telling me a story about some girl and her flute.....

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Hater....you ought to know by now WSOs are all that matter. You just don't have enough testimonials...............

LOL. That was funny!

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by cashtree

I use to have the same outlook as you, honestly, exact same, however what I came to realize is if your company becomes as large and successful as google is, you inherit a much larger responsibility along side all those billions, and rightfully so. our forefather understood checks and balances, it keeps everyone in line, and without it...we go back to the days of dictatorship and communism, and you don't want that. If google or any other fortune 500 companies don't like it, they're free to move to another country, but see they will never do that, why? Because as much as people whine and cry about the US, the reality is there are a LOT more opportunities here than any other country in the world.

You should probably stop throwing around the checks and balances argument. It's pretty clear you don't know what that means in a Constitutional sense.

As for going back to the days of communism and dictatorship, that's pretty much what you're advocating for.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

This one time at band camp, I saw a dog playing the drums while singing "In the Air Tonight". When I asked him if he paid any royalties for singing that song, he said he didn't care about paying royalties, because what are they gonna do, take a dog to court?

Then he started telling me a story about some girl and her flute.....

And even more funny!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

This one time at band camp, I saw a dog playing the drums while singing "In the Air Tonight". When I asked him if he paid any royalties for singing that song, he said he didn't care about paying royalties, because what are they gonna do, take a dog to court?

Then he started telling me a story about some girl and her flute.....

Dog's name is Oliver. He shows up at band camps all the time and it has nothing to do with the unusually wrapped cigarettes passed around. Sometimes his parrot friend sings the high part dressed like Tubbs.