Google under fire for

[guru]

This isn't exactly a new allegation, but the idea's spreading fast: Google is tuning search results to favor itself, and perhaps that's not entirely fair. Though the European Union's already investigating Google for potential antitrust violations, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal cites several US businesses that aren't too happy themselves, claiming that Google Places, Product Search and the like took a big chomp out of their traffic. Google's defense, as usual, rests on its secret algorithms, which it claims aren't rigged in any way, adding that the prominent placement of location- and product-based search results are just a way to get users quicker answers to their queries. If you type in "day spa nyc," you're looking for some catered suggestions, right? And what of those who argue differently? Well, obviously they're in league with Microsoft.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/14/google-under-fire-for-promoting-own-content-ahead-of-competing-w/

[Frylock86]

If you ask me, Google becomes less trustworthy by the day.

[Matrix XII]

Money and power corrupts. It was a matter of time with Google..

[Ayepecks]

Don't be evil.

[farmeunit]

I always get better and more accurate search results through Google. I don't really care what they do if it works.

[Doli]

I always get better and more accurate search results through Google. I don't really care what they do if it works.

Even if they kill puppies to run their search?

[JoeyF]

I don't get it. Google Places and Google Shopping just list products and services from other vendors. For example, if I go to Google Places and look up "Pizza in Chicago", it will show me pizzerias in Chicago. If I go to Google Shopping and look up "2010 Hess Truck", it will show me websites that sell 2010 Hess Trucks. Google doesn't own the pizzeria, and Google's not selling Hess Trucks, so unless I click a sponsored search result (which are distinctly separated from the regular results), they're not making any money off those searches. In fact, they're giving away free advertising to the pizzerias and Hess truck vendors.

And that makes no sense to me - Google's not even remotely in those markets, they're not selling the products or services, and they're not making (or asking) money from either myself or the vendor. Exactly what part of that is anti-competitive?

[Wanderermy]

Running out of cash eh EU?

[(Spork)]

I don't get it. Google Places and Google Shopping just list products and services from other vendors. For example, if I go to Google Places and look up "Pizza in Chicago", it will show me pizzerias in Chicago. If I go to Google Shopping and look up "2010 Hess Truck", it will show me websites that sell 2010 Hess Trucks. Google doesn't own the pizzeria, and Google's not selling Hess Trucks, so unless I click a sponsored search result (which are distinctly separated from the regular results), they're not making any money off those searches. In fact, they're giving away free advertising to the pizzerias and Hess truck vendors.

And that makes no sense to me - Google's not even remotely in those markets, they're not selling the products or services, and they're not making (or asking) money from either myself or the vendor. Exactly what part of that is anti-competitive?

dead on !

imho the EU is fishing for more money

[HawkMan]

dead on !

imho the EU is fishing for more money

I believe the point, though the articlemakes it badly, is that the paid/sponsored advertisements aren't being shown as often as they should, in favor of ads for Googles own services.

[farmeunit]

Even if they kill puppies to run their search?

Maybe not puppies, but kittens are OK.

[JoeyF]

What's really funny is that I just went to google, typed in "search engine", and the first result? Bing. Followed by Dogpile, and then a Google-owned result was third.

That is definitely not bias.

[Growled Member]

Search isn't an exact science.

[Brian Veteran]

I personally don't see an issue with this, it's their service, they should be free to do what they will.

[HawkMan]

I personally don't see an issue with this, it's their service, they should be free to do what they will.

Not when they are selling a marketing service, the people who buy it should expect to get what they pay for fairly, not to have the ads they paid for prioritized below that of Google's self promotion links.

[Brian Veteran]

Not when they are selling a marketing service, the people who buy it should expect to get what they pay for fairly, not to have the ads they paid for prioritized below that of Google's self promotion links.

Google doesn't own day spas, so if they're promoting THEIR own services before people marketing, that's fair game. Self > paid > free.

[HawkMan]

So if I where to build a few automatic billboards and sell advertisements on it, it rotates through 3 different posters. I sell two of them and use one for my own thing, my own I show for 1 minute at a time, and the other two I show for some 5 seconds. fair ?

[Brian Veteran]

So if I where to build a few automatic billboards and sell advertisements on it, it rotates through 3 different posters. I sell two of them and use one for my own thing, my own I show for 1 minute at a time, and the other two I show for some 5 seconds. fair ?

1 minute to 5 seconds is a HUGE differential. One link space to one or two more lower isn't that big, it's still visible and STILL more prominent than the free results.