Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
The conflict of interest that is Google
JavaJones:
How exactly are they evil again? Isn't transparency *not* evil?
- Oshyan
mouser:
I think one can fairly argue about whether this behavior is evil, monopolistic, unfair, whatever, and about the relative good that google does,
but i'm not sure i "get" the explanation that "well google isn't actually manipulating the search results so they come out on top, they are just adding a special 'widget' display that lists them at the top before the first result.. and it might look just like it's the first search result and have the exact same impact on readers but it doesnt 'count' as malicious because it was just snuck in there at the top after the backend search engine computed the results." i just dont get that.
either they are specifically injecting themselves at the top of pages when people search for things to ensure they continue to have market dominance amongst and can send people where they profit, or they dont. now you might not see anything wrong with that, i won't try to convince you otherwise. personally i think that when you start doing this with a search engine it becomes harmful to the culture at large. but regardless it seems to me the point of the article was that google is doing this, not whether the top first result was delivered via the search engine algorithm or artificially inserted by google before displaying the page. or am i missing something?
JavaJones:
I guess we just disagree then. I see the widgets as really no different than the ads. They are, to me at least, clearly different than the normal search results, they are presented *in addition* to them rather than *instead* of them, and they don't seem to affect the actual ranking of normal results. You could argue that this is just Google's way of getting around the idea of nuetrality and fair ranking, by introducing "services" that they can rank however they want, vs. regular results which *are* still ranked "fairly". That would be a reasonable argument, but in reality I don't think it makes much difference; it's an academic argument, and the important point in the end is whether the user is greater served as a result. I believe they are, vs. not having widgets at all (they're not going to pay for someone else's widgets, would you?).
Google has become as successful as they are partly by diversifying. Search is still their core strength, but they now have maps, shopping, finance, health, and a myriad of other things. Yahoo and Bing are no different. And all of them use these additional services to enhance their presentation of information in search. Ultimately the goal is to present searchers with the information that best matches their search criteria. If this can be improved by introducing these "widget" systems, then so be it (and I happen to think they *are* an improvement). To expect Google to pay someone else to use their service when they have an in-house option is frankly ridiculous, even if the in-house option is arguably not as good or comprehensive as some 3rd party might be. It would be one thing if the 3rd party didn't show up in the *search results*, but they do, and generally right where they should.
I want to make it clear however that I don't just give Google (or any other company) a "free pass" on anything, particularly security, privacy, or fairness issues. I'm not a big fan of capitalism either and the direction it tends to lead all companies as they succeed. I have seen Google compromise (less so and slower than most other companies of its size and growth rate, I would argue), and I have see some missteps, but overall as a US-based corporation I still think they're doing very well and I'm still a fan of theirs. I *understand* the suspicion and discomfort with their size and reach, I just want to make sure my reactions are not knee-jerk; that they are based firmly in reality and reason. I continue to watch Google with a skeptical but interested eye. So far they're doing OK. Much better, for me, than Facebook or Microsoft.
- Oshyan
mouser:
i hear ya.
i suppose things like this wouldn't get my dander up so much if the public as a whole had a basic understanding that went something like this:
"Google is trying to be both a very good search provider, and takes steps to ensure they promote their own versions of a huge and increasingly growing and diversifying variety of services offered by competitors. If i use the google search engine i know that google is going to take aggressive steps to steer me towards it's products, and favor sending me to their own sites and sites that they make money from. I understand that this attempt to funnel people into sites and services they make money from will also be counterbalanced by the need to be judged as providing an objectively good search engine without which they would lose customers."
But i think the reality of the situation is that for the media and for the public, they view google incorrectly as:
"Google is a service designed to find and recommend sites to us that it *thinks* we will be best served by, that will help us find what we are looking for in the best way."
And i think that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what google is and what it is doing, and the direction it's going. Google has absolutely mastered the PR game. They are not out there to help the public. They are a giant corporation and their primary driving force is to figure out to make more money every day than they did the day before. They will adjust their search algorithms and website pages to ensure they keep on this trajectory, while working hard to preserve the good will and remarkable public relations that they get.
Like all corporations, when the company's path to increased profits also coincide with the benefit of the public (as it often does with medical devices, search engine improvements, new drug inventions, etc.), we all benefit. BUT when these paths and interest diverse, guess which path the company takes?
Bamse:
Of course, those with knowledge and power wins Mouser. Anything new in that? How business world is. Majority are sheeps, have no insight in Googles 200+ services, probably don't care at all since Facebook is more interesting - you are right. Google are free to do whatever they want. Which is why situation could be a lot worse than someone taking a screenshot as "proof" of anything. How would Google develop if Microsoft bought them?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version