We Don't Want to Run This Ad but Forced To(seroundtable.com)
seroundtable.com
We Don't Want to Run This Ad but Forced To
https://www.seroundtable.com/basecamp-google-ad-28161.html
118 comments
Try searching for building materials, The entire first page is pretty much just ads. I did a local search for garden tiles, 9 actual search results, somewhere between 7 and 22 ads (depending on what you count as "one" ads).
In many cases Google is just an online ad catalog, not a search engine.
In many cases Google is just an online ad catalog, not a search engine.
It's been this way ever since they delisted product pages, at the same time they started charging for "shopping" tab listings.
Idk if it was a coincidence, but it seems like that exclusion filter was (and is) overly aggressive.
IMHO, this spawned the era of fake reviews and crappy commission websites. Google forced multiple layers of un-needed middle management, which of course spawned multiple layers of advertising. (Search ads to find reviews site. Banner ads on review site. Commission links to get to actual product page. Instead of just search and click product page.)
The same perverse "layering" system seems to have happened for recipe sites, although I'm not sure why. Search results list tons of home chefs, reviewers, and the crappy sites that think adding 3 paragraphs of shitty narrative improves the quality of their knock-off recipe.
Idk if it was a coincidence, but it seems like that exclusion filter was (and is) overly aggressive.
IMHO, this spawned the era of fake reviews and crappy commission websites. Google forced multiple layers of un-needed middle management, which of course spawned multiple layers of advertising. (Search ads to find reviews site. Banner ads on review site. Commission links to get to actual product page. Instead of just search and click product page.)
The same perverse "layering" system seems to have happened for recipe sites, although I'm not sure why. Search results list tons of home chefs, reviewers, and the crappy sites that think adding 3 paragraphs of shitty narrative improves the quality of their knock-off recipe.
I went to my default search (Google with uBlock origin) and same thing. That combo works pretty well for the moment.
May I ask what you use instead now? I've tried replacing Google search a few times but was never successful.
They mentioned DDG which is duckduckgo.com
Once nice thing about DDG is, if you really need to hit another search engine (I've noticed Google does a decent job when I'm searching for the resolution to a highly technical/specific issue), you just use the bangs, like !g for Google.
They have 13,099 bangs[0] at present.
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/bang
They have 13,099 bangs[0] at present.
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/bang
And there are a lot of other tricks[0] based on Instant Answers[1].
0: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-search-tricks-work-duckduckg...
1: https://duck.co/ia
0: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-search-tricks-work-duckduckg...
1: https://duck.co/ia
Solarized DuckDuckGo made me switch... here's a shareable link with the custom colors: https://start.duckduckgo.com/?kae=%23073642&kj=%23073642++&k...
Yeah, I had wondered why companies advertise on their own name. The other day I was looking up ad word ideas, and the cheapest option was to run it against a top player in the field. Search volume was as high as a generic search, but only cost 1c instead of $4 for the generic keyword.
Couple that with how most people click the first link on the page (no accident mind you), it’s just downright extortion by Google.
Couple that with how most people click the first link on the page (no accident mind you), it’s just downright extortion by Google.
Which brand did you check? If the disparity is really as high as 1¢ vs $4 then my guess is the brand is sending cease-and-desist letters to people who advertise on their trademark.
(Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search ads. This is coming from my experience buying search ads pre-Google)
(Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search ads. This is coming from my experience buying search ads pre-Google)
that is wrong. https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/GEICO_v._Google Google has been doing this since forever.
They are forced to due to this landmark supreme court decision which landed in Google's favor. https://itlaw.wikia.org/wiki/GEICO_v._Google
This is pretty normal, especially when their are lots of rival companies doing the same thing. I used to work for a food ordering company and they felt they had no choice but to advertise their own name as rivals were using their brand name as a keyword. It wasn't cheap either, some weeks it could be as much as a few hundred euro.
Personally, I feel it crosses am ethical line. As a customer if I search for foo.bar and the first couple of result are for rival companies then Google isn't providing me with the service it claims it would. And as a business I would be forced to effectively double spend. Firstly, I would be spending time and effort on SEO to get to the top of the rankings, and then spent again to get to the top of the adverts that are obfuscating the real search results.
I know Google is a for-profit company operating in a free economy, but they still have to be ethical in what they do.
Personally, I feel it crosses am ethical line. As a customer if I search for foo.bar and the first couple of result are for rival companies then Google isn't providing me with the service it claims it would. And as a business I would be forced to effectively double spend. Firstly, I would be spending time and effort on SEO to get to the top of the rankings, and then spent again to get to the top of the adverts that are obfuscating the real search results.
I know Google is a for-profit company operating in a free economy, but they still have to be ethical in what they do.
I'm not buying it. Why does Google "have to be" ethical?
If Google has to be ethical, doesn't Uber have to be ethical?
If Google and Uber have to be ethical, doesn't Blackwater/Xe/Academi have to be ethical?
If Google has to be ethical, doesn't Uber have to be ethical?
If Google and Uber have to be ethical, doesn't Blackwater/Xe/Academi have to be ethical?
Since we're in a free market economy, we really should be forcing companies to be ethical by voting with our dollars (or, in today's online work, site visits).
The problem is not enough people give it enough thought.
> If Google and Uber have to be ethical, doesn't Blackwater/Xe/Academi have to be ethical?
The problem with this argument is Blackwater/Xe/Academi serve a specific niche that inherently straddles the line of ethicality. They're not akin to Google or Uber; they don't have "general purpose" products that everyone needs/wants. Ergo it's not as black and white as Google and Uber (which in itself isn't as black and white as we'd like to think).
The problem is not enough people give it enough thought.
> If Google and Uber have to be ethical, doesn't Blackwater/Xe/Academi have to be ethical?
The problem with this argument is Blackwater/Xe/Academi serve a specific niche that inherently straddles the line of ethicality. They're not akin to Google or Uber; they don't have "general purpose" products that everyone needs/wants. Ergo it's not as black and white as Google and Uber (which in itself isn't as black and white as we'd like to think).
Wait, do I hear you correctly?
Google and Uber have to be ethical because we expect them to be, and Blackwater does not have to be ethical because we don't expect it of them?
Google and Uber have to be ethical because we expect them to be, and Blackwater does not have to be ethical because we don't expect it of them?
> Wait, do I hear you correctly?
Not precisely. Mainly I'm saying we can more easily affect Google and Uber's ethics than we can Blackwater, because we're generally not going after the services that Blackwater provides. Add to the fact that Blackwater doesn't always operate within societal norms, and the issue becomes complex.
Is it ethical to kill someone? What if that someone is killing other people? Google and Uber don't have to worry about that. Blackwater does.
Not precisely. Mainly I'm saying we can more easily affect Google and Uber's ethics than we can Blackwater, because we're generally not going after the services that Blackwater provides. Add to the fact that Blackwater doesn't always operate within societal norms, and the issue becomes complex.
Is it ethical to kill someone? What if that someone is killing other people? Google and Uber don't have to worry about that. Blackwater does.
Expectations do matter?
this site lets companies advertise
against us using our brand
Would it be better if some companies would be entitled to exlusively advertise for certain terms?
I don't think so.
Google knows what they're doing. Being a private enterprise, they can block you from "buying" the competence name (TM) to put your own product.
Just try to buy "Google" term to advertise your business (let's say you are Dropbox and want to buy "Google" and "Drive")... Yeah, they had it blocked. But you can buy "one drive", which is unfair albeit legal. It's not as the terms in dispute were "project", "management", "time", "team". It's the brand name, which incidentally in the case of Basecamp has zero relation with what they're selling.
If Google wanted a fair play they would come with something akin to the Trade Mark laws built in house.
Just try to buy "Google" term to advertise your business (let's say you are Dropbox and want to buy "Google" and "Drive")... Yeah, they had it blocked. But you can buy "one drive", which is unfair albeit legal. It's not as the terms in dispute were "project", "management", "time", "team". It's the brand name, which incidentally in the case of Basecamp has zero relation with what they're selling.
If Google wanted a fair play they would come with something akin to the Trade Mark laws built in house.
"If Google wanted a fair play they would come with something akin to the Trade Mark laws built in house."
Said by someone who has no idea about trademarks. Trademark. For what class? For what country?
Most trademarks have only a few classes. So you may be allowed to sell stuff because trademark XYZ only covers shoes. You can't sell computers with "Apple" brand but nobody can forbid you to sell apple (to eat). Who owns a brand? Budweiser beer is owned by Budweiser USA but they don't have the trademark in most European countries. This would get extraordinary complex very quickly.
Said by someone who has no idea about trademarks. Trademark. For what class? For what country?
Most trademarks have only a few classes. So you may be allowed to sell stuff because trademark XYZ only covers shoes. You can't sell computers with "Apple" brand but nobody can forbid you to sell apple (to eat). Who owns a brand? Budweiser beer is owned by Budweiser USA but they don't have the trademark in most European countries. This would get extraordinary complex very quickly.
nobody would have problems with this kind of ads if they ware not made to look like normal results.
People use adblockers with impunity with zero care how an ad looks, they just don't want to see ads.
I have zero problem seeing advertisements. I use an ad blocker because I have a problem with advertisements that follow my every move online.
"nobody" -> companies refusing to play into the big ads-roulette.
as for users, if ads never got so annoying adblockers would not be so common. (I literally started using one because some sites were impossible to use, as in every link redirect to a new ads page and nothing else)
as for users, if ads never got so annoying adblockers would not be so common. (I literally started using one because some sites were impossible to use, as in every link redirect to a new ads page and nothing else)
> if ads never got so annoying
but then if your ad is slightly more annoying, it grabs slightly more attention, and thus convert slightly better than your competitor's ad. Thus, leading to today's world - it's inevitable in advertising, due to game theory.
The only way to win is to not play. Change the game.
but then if your ad is slightly more annoying, it grabs slightly more attention, and thus convert slightly better than your competitor's ad. Thus, leading to today's world - it's inevitable in advertising, due to game theory.
The only way to win is to not play. Change the game.
I think the devils-advocate argument is that Google is essentially a de-facto DNS for much of the world, and is using (abusing?) this position to place ads, distractions, and/or misdirection in between searchers and their destinations.
Like registered trademarks?
Kind of. But the standard of trademark violation is not "did a competitor use it". The standard for violation is closer to: "was the trademark used in a way that might confuse customers over which products or services are authorized/provided by you".
I'm not a lawyer so obviously this is not legal advice.
I'm not a lawyer so obviously this is not legal advice.
In different jurisdictions the standard for a trademark violation is vastly different. In some European countries you can't name a competitor in an ad (so no Coke vs Pepsi ads). So this case seems to be well within the range of what trademark law could do. Simply make it illegal to run ads on keywords that are competitors trademarks. Totally not a lawyer though.
Do you remember this from about a decade ago?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v._Louis_Vuitton
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v._Louis_Vuitton
The thinking in the ECJ ruling seemed to completely exclude the burden on the consumer that comes from having to sift through patently unethical listings to get the one you want. (Some people call "patently unethical" dealings "sharp" dealings or whatever supposedly complementary term but let's admit that those practices take advantage of unschooled consumers, and are only good if you think that the only worthy consumer is one who is already schooled)
It may be "fun" to discover prices through haggling or learn through research that BogusHandbags.example.com[1] isn't a legitimate dealer in Louis Vuitton handbags but it is work and it doesn't scale to have every consumer have to do it for every decision.
[1] using example.com purely as an example. The operators of example.com are doing a good thing for the internet.
It may be "fun" to discover prices through haggling or learn through research that BogusHandbags.example.com[1] isn't a legitimate dealer in Louis Vuitton handbags but it is work and it doesn't scale to have every consumer have to do it for every decision.
[1] using example.com purely as an example. The operators of example.com are doing a good thing for the internet.
Another interesting one is trustpilot. According to web shop people I know, it's well known that people who complain require less motivation to write than satisfied customers. So the model is basically that you're forced to pay them to motivate positive reviews to compensate for the negatives.
Or it's just that most interactions with stores are really mediocre. If I buy something in a store, it was reasonably priced, it gets delivered within the promised time frame and is not damaged then that's very much par for the course in terms of what I expect from a webshop. It's not "5/5 AMAZING store, will always buy things from here!", it's just so much easier to slide downwards on that scale than move up.
Exactly. It's just that in the internet era you can have a restaurant with a queue of everyone who's ever gotten food poisoned, or served late, or served the wrong food, standing outside forever. The thousands of satisfied customers aren't visible.
And TP's business model is to build that queue of dissatisfied people so that you have to pay to compensate for it.
And TP's business model is to build that queue of dissatisfied people so that you have to pay to compensate for it.
That's a good point, perhaps ratings need a way to indicate the the number of satisfied customers instead of keeping them invisible.
We are already used to seeing the number of reviews next to a rating score, but maybe we can add an additional "total number of customers" or a percentage of reviews-to-customers.
We are already used to seeing the number of reviews next to a rating score, but maybe we can add an additional "total number of customers" or a percentage of reviews-to-customers.
[deleted]
This article motivated me to figure out why I see those ads in the first place. If you're on uBlock Origin, go to the dashboard and look for a filter list under "annoyances". Mine was switched off.
When I search in the Dutch App Store for 'Coolblue', a big online retailer here, the first thing I see is an ad for the 'Bol.com' app, the biggest online retailer here (our Amazon-like website, with the same shady partner practices).
Below that is the actual Coolblue app.
So this is what happens when the competitor pays more for ads on your own name than you do.
So this is what happens when the competitor pays more for ads on your own name than you do.
however in this came, basecamp, is close to generic and easily associated with products and activities.
From https://www.dictionary.com/browse/base-camp:
> base camp, noun, a main encampment providing supplies, shelter, and communications for persons engaged in wide-ranging activities, as exploring, reconnaissance, hunting, or mountain climbing.
Meanwhile from https://basecamp.com/features:
> Basecamp combines all the tools teams need to get work done in a single, streamlined package. With everything in one place, your team will know what to do, where things stand, and where to find things they need.
I'm not sure 'basecamp' as a generic word has anything to do with project management, or any of the other things that basecamp.com product offers.
> base camp, noun, a main encampment providing supplies, shelter, and communications for persons engaged in wide-ranging activities, as exploring, reconnaissance, hunting, or mountain climbing.
Meanwhile from https://basecamp.com/features:
> Basecamp combines all the tools teams need to get work done in a single, streamlined package. With everything in one place, your team will know what to do, where things stand, and where to find things they need.
I'm not sure 'basecamp' as a generic word has anything to do with project management, or any of the other things that basecamp.com product offers.
There was a time, before Google existed, when the "top result" was not assumed to be the "best" result. The researcher was expected to examine more than just the first entry in a list of citations. Google advertising targets users who place considerable confidence in the ordering of results, despite not knowing the details of the algorithm used.
Google was always extremely proud of the fact that, unlike Yahoo, Altavista, etc., you couldn't buy the top spots. The organic results looked very different from the couple one-line ads at the top or side.
Now, if I search without an ad block for something like "screws" I get
1. Two ads that look like search results (same 3-4 line excerpt, same links into internal results, same "more" dropdown), except for a little box that says "Ad". This takes up 1/2 of my screen.
2. A full-screen height worth of map and links to physical stores (have no idea if they're paid for or not)
3. My results
Now, if I search without an ad block for something like "screws" I get
1. Two ads that look like search results (same 3-4 line excerpt, same links into internal results, same "more" dropdown), except for a little box that says "Ad". This takes up 1/2 of my screen.
2. A full-screen height worth of map and links to physical stores (have no idea if they're paid for or not)
3. My results
previous posts:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20871677
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20874268
and direct link to twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/jasonfried/status/1168986962704982016
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20871677
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20874268
and direct link to twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/jasonfried/status/1168986962704982016
I think the only thing at fault here is Google's UI. I don't have a problem with companies having two tracks to the front page of Google (organic and paid placement), but the ads take up so much space at the top, and they are so poorly differentiated from organic results.
My analogy is the yellow pages, which is two things: A vehicle for ads, and a reference list of phone numbers. The sections are distinguished, by white/yellow pages for business/personal numbers, and with ads standing apart and looking different on the page. And YP never screwed with alpha order. They can make their money on ads and you can use the phone book for its raison d'être: a list of businesses/people.
My analogy is the yellow pages, which is two things: A vehicle for ads, and a reference list of phone numbers. The sections are distinguished, by white/yellow pages for business/personal numbers, and with ads standing apart and looking different on the page. And YP never screwed with alpha order. They can make their money on ads and you can use the phone book for its raison d'être: a list of businesses/people.
> this site lets companies advertise against us using our brand
As they should. If your product is an alternative to $bigbrand then this gives you the best visibility.
> When Google puts 4 paid ads ahead of the first organic result for your own brand name, you’re forced to pay up if you want to be found. It’s a shakedown. It’s ransom.
No. Your brand is the first actual result. You might argue that four is a bit much or that it should be clearer that these are adds (can you even see those when running an ad blocker?), but "our competitors are running advertisements" is definitely not a shakedown or ransom.
As they should. If your product is an alternative to $bigbrand then this gives you the best visibility.
> When Google puts 4 paid ads ahead of the first organic result for your own brand name, you’re forced to pay up if you want to be found. It’s a shakedown. It’s ransom.
No. Your brand is the first actual result. You might argue that four is a bit much or that it should be clearer that these are adds (can you even see those when running an ad blocker?), but "our competitors are running advertisements" is definitely not a shakedown or ransom.
Advertisements look like real search results, though, and being able to bury a company just because you're paying money to run ads using their name (not a generic search term) is just bad behavior.
Last paragraph.
If 4 ads is "burying", what about 3? 2? 1?
I wonder, some countries have laws that forbid you to use the brand of others to promote your own product. So why would it be legal to buy other companys brand as a keyword when buying ads?
I am not sure why it happens, but since about a year google became extremely aggressive with search ads. It was infuriating because they were reliably scammy ads for three-random-trending-words domains.
It was my main reason for switching to duckduckgo
It was my main reason for switching to duckduckgo
Why do people still use Google?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=basecamp
Probably because they prefer, or think they prefer, Google results to DDG results and don't realize that a decent company (ixquick developer) runs the domain StartPage.com https://www.startpage.com/ (which has a very AOLish, Web 1.0 sound to it). Startpage serves up Google results. DDG serves up everything but Google, I think.
Why should I use an inferior product (duck) on so many metrics?
If you really want to disable ads and tracking uBlock Origin fixe the issue.
80% of the time DDG results are "good enough" and I'm contributing zero data to the Alphabet Empire.
If the first page of DDG doesn't yield results it's about a second's work to do the same search, but with !g appended anywhere in the query.
If the first page of DDG doesn't yield results it's about a second's work to do the same search, but with !g appended anywhere in the query.
> 80% of the time DDG results are "good enough" and I'm contributing zero data to the Alphabet Empire.
You probably still are if you use chrome. By default DDG searches keep the query in the URL which means your chrome history contains history of all your searches.
You probably still are if you use chrome. By default DDG searches keep the query in the URL which means your chrome history contains history of all your searches.
A process which is unnecessarily cumbersome. If DDG wanted people to use it, they'd make the top five or so bang switches clickable. Click and it redoes the current search pretended by a bang.
Ooh, seeing "if they wanted people to use it" and "clickable" in the same sentence gave me feelings. To me, having to take my hands off the keyboard is the exact opposite of usable.
Okay...
If you scroll with your keyboard, how do you get back to the search field more quickly than with the mouse?
If you scroll with the mouse, how is a one-click solution with the device you already have in your hand not more efficient?
BL: DDG makes bang switches unwieldy. They should fix that.
EDIT: The / key is DDG's shortcut for going back to the search box. That helps a little. Doesn't mean that a clickable button wouldn't help usability a ton. Additionally, since editing a search is probably the most common use case (rather than replacing the search terms entirely), going to the search box should start with the cursor at the beginning or end of the box, rather than with the whole field highlighted.
If you scroll with your keyboard, how do you get back to the search field more quickly than with the mouse?
If you scroll with the mouse, how is a one-click solution with the device you already have in your hand not more efficient?
BL: DDG makes bang switches unwieldy. They should fix that.
EDIT: The / key is DDG's shortcut for going back to the search box. That helps a little. Doesn't mean that a clickable button wouldn't help usability a ton. Additionally, since editing a search is probably the most common use case (rather than replacing the search terms entirely), going to the search box should start with the cursor at the beginning or end of the box, rather than with the whole field highlighted.
I use Vimium, I don't scroll, I just press the letter of the field I want to get to. However, pressing the / key will take you back to the search box no matter where on the page you are.
So because you use Vim to navigate the web, you think DDG shouldn't add better mouse UX that will most likely increase their conversion rate and make the site better for everyone else?
No, because I use Vim to navigate the web I think the mouse is less usable. I think DDG shouldn't add clickable Google redirects because they aren't that necessary and are an antipattern.
If you have a list of search results, and not all of them are on screen, it is necessary to scroll. I don't see what Vimium has to do with it, other than using j and k instead of the arrow keys.
In any case, certainly you can recognize that a huge proportion of people scroll with a mouse, n'est-ce pas?
In any case, certainly you can recognize that a huge proportion of people scroll with a mouse, n'est-ce pas?
Sure, but on the other hand I recognize that DDG might not want to signal that its results are so useless that you need a prominent Google fallback right on the page. For me, it's not even the case, I rarely search with Google and I've been using DDG for years.
I suppose I get that. However, allowing the established player as an easy fallback when you're the underdog usually helps adoption rather than hurting it.
Look at Mac sales after Intel/BootCamp/Parallels. VirtualPC existed before but it wasn't easy or fast. When it became almost seamless to fall back to Windows when necessary, more people were willing to take the leap.
Look at Mac sales after Intel/BootCamp/Parallels. VirtualPC existed before but it wasn't easy or fast. When it became almost seamless to fall back to Windows when necessary, more people were willing to take the leap.
It's not an inferior product, it's just an effect of the "muscle memory" your brain applies when doing internet search. After a few weeks/months of usage, I found myself more comfortable with using DDG/ecosia for search results.
It takes some time(in my case about two weeks or so) until you "get" which search terms to use in a different search engine. And now after years of using DuckDuckGo I stopped using Google completely because I simply can't get find any usable results on the whole first one to two pages, sometimes there's even half of the first page filled with only Pinterest links.
In short, no, DDG is definitely not inferior in my experience, it's all just a matter of getting used to it.
In short, no, DDG is definitely not inferior in my experience, it's all just a matter of getting used to it.
I'm using it exclusively both at work and at home and doesn't feel any problems. It is all perception issues.
uBlock Origin can't prevent Google from tracking your search queries and linking them together.
And that's bad because...?
You can also turn it off to save this data on you.
You can also turn it off to save this data on you.
Well, often a reason for not wanting them to track it is because you don't want them (or the US government) to build a profile on you, which could be abused e.g. by hyper-targeting content to you and thereby influencing your world view. Using something like DDG is one of many measures you can take to step out of your filter bubble.
But yes, you can turn that off in your Google preferences as well.
But yes, you can turn that off in your Google preferences as well.
I personally dislike DDG's infinite scrolling. I much prefer good ol' pagination.
There's a setting to disable infinite scrolling.
A minor pet-peeve of mine is when searching for videos on DDG, right-click or Cmd-click on the thumbnail doesn't open the "link" in a new tab.
Yes, I could cmd-click on the title instead but people (me) are lazy. Bigger targets make for a better/quicker experience.
They have a few other javascript enhancements like this that seem to break simple HTML functionality. Enough of them that I go back to using Google any time I venture into the DDG world.
Yes, I could cmd-click on the title instead but people (me) are lazy. Bigger targets make for a better/quicker experience.
They have a few other javascript enhancements like this that seem to break simple HTML functionality. Enough of them that I go back to using Google any time I venture into the DDG world.
Could adblockers disable/filter these specific types of ads ("brand ransom"), including competitors?
Naive algorithm: if (search term exactly matches the domain of one of the ads) { disable_all_search_ads(); }
(Extend to handle partial matches, alternate spellings, etc)
Naive algorithm: if (search term exactly matches the domain of one of the ads) { disable_all_search_ads(); }
(Extend to handle partial matches, alternate spellings, etc)
[deleted]
The Google tax is real. Merchants see it as a cost of business, consumers are insulated from it to the point where all they see is a wonderful “free” product from Google.
The reality is if we didn’t have to do defensive ads on our organic results my company could probably offer 30% lower pricing. But because there’s no easy way to discriminate against google ad clickers we have to charge the Google tax to everyone, as most businesses do.
The end result is that nobody cries foul to the search monopoly and its cost to society. Google gets to charge monopolistic pricing without anyone noticing.
The reality is if we didn’t have to do defensive ads on our organic results my company could probably offer 30% lower pricing. But because there’s no easy way to discriminate against google ad clickers we have to charge the Google tax to everyone, as most businesses do.
The end result is that nobody cries foul to the search monopoly and its cost to society. Google gets to charge monopolistic pricing without anyone noticing.
And they wonder why we block ads.
If I search for medicine, maybe they'll show me an ad for homeopathy. Maybe I'm gullible.
If I search Reliable Product X and I get an ad for Garbage Product Y...
Eventually, doesn't this de-value Google's own brand as being the place where you go to find... what you typed into the search bar?
If I search for medicine, maybe they'll show me an ad for homeopathy. Maybe I'm gullible.
If I search Reliable Product X and I get an ad for Garbage Product Y...
Eventually, doesn't this de-value Google's own brand as being the place where you go to find... what you typed into the search bar?
It does! But adblockers work in google's favor here: they make it impossible for competing ad agencies to grow
Google doesn't have an awesome ads platform at this time. They just have no competition
Google doesn't have an awesome ads platform at this time. They just have no competition
Might trademark law have something to say about this practice?
In the US the only things that matter in trademark are Lanham Act matters, specifically whether there's a likelihood of confusion (ignoring for the moment active use in commerce and other infringement elements). Simply returning a competitor's ad when searching someone else's trade name isn't enough (citation needed).
You might ask whether state bar ethics rules have a different take? And the answer is yes, with results all over the place. This DDG search may be of interest: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22bar%22+buying+competitors+keywo...
You might ask whether state bar ethics rules have a different take? And the answer is yes, with results all over the place. This DDG search may be of interest: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22bar%22+buying+competitors+keywo...
If you have a registered trademark you can have Google block other advertisers from visually using your trademark in an ad. However, that doesn't prevent them from using the trademark as the keyword target (the non-visible part of the ad).
It’s true. When I searched for a Tier 1, popular university by their acronym (XYZ), 2-3 other unrelated Tier 2 results were in the top above it.
I tried to find garmin basecamp, but this IT company is squatting the results with an add. How could google let some no-name steal from garmin?
I was just looking for garmin's basecamp a couple of weeks ago and caught myself mid-type, realizing that simply searching for "basecamp" will find the IT company.
My brain did a pre-google.
My brain did a pre-google.
Garmin Basecamp is the 2nd results in DDG for "Basecamp".
I get https://www.garmin.com/en-US/software/basecamp/ as the first result when I search for 'Garmin Basecamp', so I'm not sure what your point is.
I'd also argue that Basecamp (the service) is more known than Garmin Basecamp, _especially_ in these circles, DHH is definitely not some 'no-name' :)
I'd also argue that Basecamp (the service) is more known than Garmin Basecamp, _especially_ in these circles, DHH is definitely not some 'no-name' :)
My point is that Basecamp does not have a just claim to be no. 1 when you search for the term basecamp.
Which isn't the point of the initial complaint from Basecamp, their point is that they _are_ the number 1 search, but even being the number 1 search places them below several spaces advertising for 'Basecamp'. If Garmin were the number 1 space, perhaps the argument would hold less weight, sure :)
They are not number one for me. Nor is Garmin. A nonprofit organisation working with student living spaces are no. 1 for me. No one is owed any position on google results, as they are not universal.
The point is, when they're the no. 1 result, they're kind not because there is two or three competitors that shows up as ads above the search results.
In my case a competitor used almost the same name us, ran ads against our brand, and google wouldn’t do anything about it.
What do you expect? Big companies like this don’t exactly have slogans proclaiming “don’t be evil”
[deleted]
I have seen worse, in the escape room industry, some even use the name of the competitor in the title. I'm pretty sure they were able to get them down the few times I saw it happens, but it was certainly not quick nor easy.
I can't find my tiny violin for Jason anywhere; too bad. :(
This is the most entitled blog post I have ever seen. As much as I personally dislike Google et al. I don't believe the ownership of a trademark or even just a brand entitles you to be the top of page for that word.
Also... if someone is searching for Basecamp specifically (i.e. using the search team "basecamp") they likely aren't going to click an ad for something they aren't looking for.
I have a very hard time feeling bad for Basecamp in this situation.
This is the most entitled blog post I have ever seen. As much as I personally dislike Google et al. I don't believe the ownership of a trademark or even just a brand entitles you to be the top of page for that word.
Also... if someone is searching for Basecamp specifically (i.e. using the search team "basecamp") they likely aren't going to click an ad for something they aren't looking for.
I have a very hard time feeling bad for Basecamp in this situation.
Can't Basecamp trademark their name and then pursue a trademark claim against Google, or is it too late for that?
FWIW Amazon does exactly the same thing. If we want the buy box for our own brand, we have to advertise.
There's no force involved here, this is just Basecamp being upset they now have to pay Google for what they do.
Basecamp made a value judgement that the value google provides through its search results is worth the price of paying for ads. This is revealed preference in action, Google has done nothing wrong here other than be the best at what they do.
Basecamp made a value judgement that the value google provides through its search results is worth the price of paying for ads. This is revealed preference in action, Google has done nothing wrong here other than be the best at what they do.
They were not forced.
Of course they were forced, if being forced means "having force applied to". Did they HAVE to do it? No. Were they forced to? Yes, of course.
Much in the same way that you don't have to work but are very much forced to.
Much in the same way that you don't have to work but are very much forced to.
Their choice is either do it, or lose a significant portion of their business. For some business, maybe not Basecamp, it would mean going out of business if you don't have enough visibility on Google.
Because Google has a quasi-monopoly on Internet search, something that ideally should be a neutral infrastructure service.
Because Google has a quasi-monopoly on Internet search, something that ideally should be a neutral infrastructure service.
Google also use their near-monopoly in web browsing, obtained by leveraging their search monopoly, to hide and downplay direct URLs to sites so that people don't know any other way to get there than via their search.
[deleted]
This is not ransom, it's protection money, or monopoly rent in economics jargon.
For an amusing experience, look up "programming questions answered" on Google and Bing and see where Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange show up. If they do. Google serves up a "hongkiat" site that mentions them, but you would need to step deeper that I did to actually find either.
Does this mean that SO and SE are refusing to be coerced?
For an amusing experience, look up "programming questions answered" on Google and Bing and see where Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange show up. If they do. Google serves up a "hongkiat" site that mentions them, but you would need to step deeper that I did to actually find either.
Does this mean that SO and SE are refusing to be coerced?
Opened Google without adblocker - now that's pathetic - two ads on top from Monday and Teamwork companies, then third result is Basecamp. Wikipedia result is below the fold, 8th result.
This is one of the reasons why I dropped Google as main search engine two years ago and opened it maybe five or ten times this year (for non-english highly sepicific queries). Google search is simply not the top one now and privacy concern too.