Google Accused of Cooking Search Results and...

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.

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.


.

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.....

Well said. +1

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.

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.

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.