Google critiqued the practice of displaying ads above search results(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Google critiqued the practice of displaying ads above search results
https://twitter.com/krebs_adrian/status/1488173888068542466
165 comments
Another interesting paragraph talks about search engine bias:
"Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors.
--------
This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results."
"Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors.
--------
This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results."
Bait and switch. "Look at our more transparent search engine in the academic realm." Gotcha. Look again. Google is not an unbiased search engine. Its ~100% funded by advertising.
Google collects more data about users than it does about the topics that users want to search, all for the ultimate purpose of selling advertising services, and often under the guise of a parallel construction with respect to the purpose of such collection, e.g., "to improve user experience".
Google collects more data about users than it does about the topics that users want to search, all for the ultimate purpose of selling advertising services, and often under the guise of a parallel construction with respect to the purpose of such collection, e.g., "to improve user experience".
Not in 1998
It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of their add revenue and what portion come from these top level ad results.
My guess is it's a majority of their revenue.
It's such a slimy practice.
My guess is it's a majority of their revenue.
It's such a slimy practice.
So much of it's making companies pay to be at the actual-top, when they're already result 1 or 2 in the natural results and are obviously what the searcher wanted. I go out of my way not to click these but most people I observe do click them, even when the non-ad link is also above the fold. That's a "success" for Google, maybe a "success" for the company's marketing department, a loss for the company in fact, and at best neutral for the searcher.
Then there's tricking (largely) old people into clicking pages they didn't want, thinking it was a search result. Sometimes even scams.
IMO Google's core business model has become scamming advertisers, helping scammers to fool unsophisticated users, and extorting companies, all heavily driven by their inline ads move. I consider them contemptible for continuing it for years when they have to know that's the case, and likely have all along.
I hate seeing the same on DDG—and they seem to be getting worse. It must be super effective, but of course tricking people is effective. It's also very, very wrong.
Then there's tricking (largely) old people into clicking pages they didn't want, thinking it was a search result. Sometimes even scams.
IMO Google's core business model has become scamming advertisers, helping scammers to fool unsophisticated users, and extorting companies, all heavily driven by their inline ads move. I consider them contemptible for continuing it for years when they have to know that's the case, and likely have all along.
I hate seeing the same on DDG—and they seem to be getting worse. It must be super effective, but of course tricking people is effective. It's also very, very wrong.
Well, and they've gone way beyond 3 or 4 ads on top of the search results if the query terms are particularly valuable.
Try "vegas hotels" or "mortgage rates" as queries on google and see how far you have to scroll down to find something that isn't an ad, ad widget, etc.
Try "vegas hotels" or "mortgage rates" as queries on google and see how far you have to scroll down to find something that isn't an ad, ad widget, etc.
I remember reading the first paper and my impression is that a lot of the engineering limitations back then no longer apply in 2020+.
The screenshot text does not say at all what the author of the tweet claims it does (and what's in the HN title). Nowhere in the text does it actually talk about "above" and "sidebar", that is just an interpretation that the author made up about what "buying a better position in the search results" would mean. Given the context of the times, it was clearly not a statement about layout but about actually reordering the "organic" search results based on payments and without marking those boosted results as ads.
What an apologia!
I just typed "new car" in Google. Literally the only results I can see are ads. Ads where the presentation and content is identical to the organic search results, save for the tiny word "Ad" in the title. Ads where the link reliably navigates to the page that has the content summarized by Google in their search result ad. Moreover, the UI for me clicking a foo.com link from a Google ad is identical to me clicking an organic foo.com link. Finally, the UX is improved if I click an ad because I don't have to scroll.
So it's not even a "above" vs. "sidebar" situation. The ads are the only results that show up without scrolling. Arguing that this isn't "buying a better position in the search results" is the extreme-skiing of pedantry.
I just typed "new car" in Google. Literally the only results I can see are ads. Ads where the presentation and content is identical to the organic search results, save for the tiny word "Ad" in the title. Ads where the link reliably navigates to the page that has the content summarized by Google in their search result ad. Moreover, the UI for me clicking a foo.com link from a Google ad is identical to me clicking an organic foo.com link. Finally, the UX is improved if I click an ad because I don't have to scroll.
So it's not even a "above" vs. "sidebar" situation. The ads are the only results that show up without scrolling. Arguing that this isn't "buying a better position in the search results" is the extreme-skiing of pedantry.
Like many other comments here, I think this is continuing to miss the point.
Google certainly does sell ads above search today. And it certainly is irritating and it definitely is reflective of Google's following their financial interests at the cost of user experience. Google's expressed ethos in the statement certainly does seem at variance with their design choices and ad placement in the present day.
We can talk all day about their pivot away from don't be evil.
But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said.
Google is in many important respects a bad actor that needs to be criticized, but that truth shouldn't be a blank check to misinterpret them and dismiss corrections as pedantry.
Google certainly does sell ads above search today. And it certainly is irritating and it definitely is reflective of Google's following their financial interests at the cost of user experience. Google's expressed ethos in the statement certainly does seem at variance with their design choices and ad placement in the present day.
We can talk all day about their pivot away from don't be evil.
But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said.
Google is in many important respects a bad actor that needs to be criticized, but that truth shouldn't be a blank check to misinterpret them and dismiss corrections as pedantry.
> But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said.
I'm just not grokking what you mean.
Let's construct an example of an evil Google who decided to start "selling better positions in search results." Let's say they decided to do it using the following method:
1. Sell the first three positions in the organic search results in an automated auction
2. So as to avoid accusations of trickery, they put a little "Ad" indicator by the top three positions in the three top search results.
3. They put a little "news" display below the first three results to separate them from the rest of the search results. This means the user typically has to scroll to see the rest of the results, adding value to those first three positions.
Would what I just described count as a relevant example of hypocritical behavior for the company quoted in that Tweet? If so, then the search results I got were the same as what I just described-- only the history of how Google got there is different.
If it's not a relevant example, then I still don't understand the point of OP or your comment.
Edit: clarification. Also, could you perhaps give me an example of how you think a company could hypothetically act in a way that contradicts the quote from the tweet? If it's not what I laid out here, what would it be?
I'm just not grokking what you mean.
Let's construct an example of an evil Google who decided to start "selling better positions in search results." Let's say they decided to do it using the following method:
1. Sell the first three positions in the organic search results in an automated auction
2. So as to avoid accusations of trickery, they put a little "Ad" indicator by the top three positions in the three top search results.
3. They put a little "news" display below the first three results to separate them from the rest of the search results. This means the user typically has to scroll to see the rest of the results, adding value to those first three positions.
Would what I just described count as a relevant example of hypocritical behavior for the company quoted in that Tweet? If so, then the search results I got were the same as what I just described-- only the history of how Google got there is different.
If it's not a relevant example, then I still don't understand the point of OP or your comment.
Edit: clarification. Also, could you perhaps give me an example of how you think a company could hypothetically act in a way that contradicts the quote from the tweet? If it's not what I laid out here, what would it be?
This is basically an extended exercise in equivocation. It's pretty cut and dry that the statement does say one thing (keep ads out of search), and doesn't say another thing (don't place ads above search).
And as I've said in numerous comments, there's a thematic level at which the statement is clearly at odds with Google's ethos in 2022, but that point can be made without equivocating between unlike things for the purpose of misrepresenting the statement.
Edit: in response to your question: Google's statement critiques the placement of ads into search results. So one example of them acting in a hypocritical manner would be to place ads directly into search results.
And as I've said in numerous comments, there's a thematic level at which the statement is clearly at odds with Google's ethos in 2022, but that point can be made without equivocating between unlike things for the purpose of misrepresenting the statement.
Edit: in response to your question: Google's statement critiques the placement of ads into search results. So one example of them acting in a hypocritical manner would be to place ads directly into search results.
They did just that (at the top) and then changed the layout over time to what it is today. Of course the top spots are far more valuable than spots further down, in fact if your search result is not on page one it might as well not exist.
[deleted]
From the expecation of the user, the page that you see after punching the 'google search' box, _is_ the google search results page. Ads in the top position of this page are clearly in a better position than organic search results. So advertisers have bought a better position in search results, against the claim of this google doc.
If you equivocate on the meaning of "search results", then sure.
Looking at the definition of equivocate, I see "use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself". I don't see that I have done that.
Perhaps "broadened" would be better. I have in fact broadened the definition of "search results" to capture the common usage and expectation of a user that punches a query string into google, taps "search", and is brought to a page of results.
Perhaps "broadened" would be better. I have in fact broadened the definition of "search results" to capture the common usage and expectation of a user that punches a query string into google, taps "search", and is brought to a page of results.
I would say equivocate.
Calling google's inline ads "not part of the search results" is the equivocation that's going on here. They absolutely sell top positions in results.
Not even the person who posted the original tweet believes that.
Did the link change? Half the posts in this thread seem like they're about a whole different thing.
[EDIT] All I have to go on is the current link with a tweet with an image with highlighted text about how Google doesn't sell result positioning (they 100% do) and a small bit of text from the person who posted it. That person does not appear to post any more in the ensuing thread. Others do, one pathetically defending Google as not selling result placement (they obviously do) and others pointing out how that's BS, and some people posting screenshots of current and old Google results demonstrating this. What am I supposed to take away from that?
[EDIT] All I have to go on is the current link with a tweet with an image with highlighted text about how Google doesn't sell result positioning (they 100% do) and a small bit of text from the person who posted it. That person does not appear to post any more in the ensuing thread. Others do, one pathetically defending Google as not selling result placement (they obviously do) and others pointing out how that's BS, and some people posting screenshots of current and old Google results demonstrating this. What am I supposed to take away from that?
I'm very sorry that you think intellectual honesty is "pathetic."
Adrian Krebs, who wrote the tweet, is not claiming ads and search results are the same thing, contrary to the insistence of many here who think they are speaking for him. Instead, he is treating ads and search as truly distinguishable things but makes a point about the placement of ads relative to search. But he misattributes a claim to Google, claiming their statement is, amont other things a critique ads placed above search results.
Some people just don't want to hear this criticism, they just want to hear "Google bad." So they want to argue the point, misinterpreting the nuance as apologetics on behalf of Google.
This is creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, so there's a lot of effort to equivocate, insisting that the wrong thing (ads above search) is the same as the right thing (ads are separate from search).
So every next comment attempting to square this circle by introducing a new term of art to put the two different things under a common umbrella, totally inconsistent with the original statements, in an attempt to achieve the desired equivocation. For you the new term of art is "result positioning", a term which shows up nowhere in either Krebs or Google, and which helpfully throws away the nuance.
At this point this has transformed from a convo about google into a study of the predictable steps of congitive dissonance that people go through. Personal attacks have come in right on schedule.
Edit: since I can't reply anymore (and probably should just move on with my day): I'm just going to note I'm failing to detect anything in the reply below that substantively engages with anything I've said, although I am seeing a lot of performative incredulity.
Adrian Krebs, who wrote the tweet, is not claiming ads and search results are the same thing, contrary to the insistence of many here who think they are speaking for him. Instead, he is treating ads and search as truly distinguishable things but makes a point about the placement of ads relative to search. But he misattributes a claim to Google, claiming their statement is, amont other things a critique ads placed above search results.
Some people just don't want to hear this criticism, they just want to hear "Google bad." So they want to argue the point, misinterpreting the nuance as apologetics on behalf of Google.
This is creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, so there's a lot of effort to equivocate, insisting that the wrong thing (ads above search) is the same as the right thing (ads are separate from search).
So every next comment attempting to square this circle by introducing a new term of art to put the two different things under a common umbrella, totally inconsistent with the original statements, in an attempt to achieve the desired equivocation. For you the new term of art is "result positioning", a term which shows up nowhere in either Krebs or Google, and which helpfully throws away the nuance.
At this point this has transformed from a convo about google into a study of the predictable steps of congitive dissonance that people go through. Personal attacks have come in right on schedule.
Edit: since I can't reply anymore (and probably should just move on with my day): I'm just going to note I'm failing to detect anything in the reply below that substantively engages with anything I've said, although I am seeing a lot of performative incredulity.
"Pathetic" is saying that my handing one guy money then some other guy down the block handing me crack was two totally unrelated events.
I'm quite frankly astonished that you're being serious. Google sells top result placement. Calling it another thing is just lying. Taking their lies seriously is... incredible. I literally can't believe anyone would do that. [EDIT] Without a financial stake in it, anyway. Obviously people peddle blatant lies in exchange for money all the time. (I am not accusing you of that, that's just the one circumstance in which I find that entirely unsurprising, and I assume it's what's going on with the guy in the Twitter thread).
[EDIT EDIT] Actually, looking back over this... your posts read more bizarre to me with each re-read. WTF is happening in this thread.
[EDIT ONE MORE TIME, I JUST REALLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON]
To reiterate my understanding here:
1) The post is pointing out that Google says allowing people to pay to go to the top of search results is bad, so they don't do it. That's... just what it says, straight up. I have to assume (from the rest of the context of the post and following thread) this is being pointed out because it's funny and/or hypocritical, since (see below).
2) Google in fact places ads that are very obviously designed to trick people into thinking they're search results, above "natural" search results. To rephrase: you can buy ads that put your hard-to-distinguish-from-a-search-result link at the top of search results. The evidence that this is on purpose include that Google used to make it far more obvious explicitly because they didn't want to trick people, and stopped doing that, and just watching any non-geek use Google then asking them what they think just happened.
3) Some company saying something does not affect reality, whatsoever.
4) "I'm not touching you" (while waving hands as close as possible without touching) isn't even valid or convincing when kids use it as a defense, let alone adults. Everyone involved knows exactly what's going on, and that it's wrong.
5) Any equivocation happening here is in trying to draw a fine line between selling ads designed to trick people into thinking they're the top search results, and simply selling top search result placement. Same damn thing, to the point that I find it hard to take anyone serious who's trying to treat the distinction as in any way important.
Where are we diverging, here?
I'm quite frankly astonished that you're being serious. Google sells top result placement. Calling it another thing is just lying. Taking their lies seriously is... incredible. I literally can't believe anyone would do that. [EDIT] Without a financial stake in it, anyway. Obviously people peddle blatant lies in exchange for money all the time. (I am not accusing you of that, that's just the one circumstance in which I find that entirely unsurprising, and I assume it's what's going on with the guy in the Twitter thread).
[EDIT EDIT] Actually, looking back over this... your posts read more bizarre to me with each re-read. WTF is happening in this thread.
[EDIT ONE MORE TIME, I JUST REALLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON]
To reiterate my understanding here:
1) The post is pointing out that Google says allowing people to pay to go to the top of search results is bad, so they don't do it. That's... just what it says, straight up. I have to assume (from the rest of the context of the post and following thread) this is being pointed out because it's funny and/or hypocritical, since (see below).
2) Google in fact places ads that are very obviously designed to trick people into thinking they're search results, above "natural" search results. To rephrase: you can buy ads that put your hard-to-distinguish-from-a-search-result link at the top of search results. The evidence that this is on purpose include that Google used to make it far more obvious explicitly because they didn't want to trick people, and stopped doing that, and just watching any non-geek use Google then asking them what they think just happened.
3) Some company saying something does not affect reality, whatsoever.
4) "I'm not touching you" (while waving hands as close as possible without touching) isn't even valid or convincing when kids use it as a defense, let alone adults. Everyone involved knows exactly what's going on, and that it's wrong.
5) Any equivocation happening here is in trying to draw a fine line between selling ads designed to trick people into thinking they're the top search results, and simply selling top search result placement. Same damn thing, to the point that I find it hard to take anyone serious who's trying to treat the distinction as in any way important.
Where are we diverging, here?
Well, you are wrong. I am in no way "conceal[ing] the truth or avoid committing oneself". I am fully committed to the position that you are incorrect, and I've used clear language to show you why.
Yes, you have it right:
>>>
Adrian Krebs @krebs_adrian Replying to @dannysullivan Thanks for clarifying this. I think the post leaves some room for interpretation. The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results, which is not the case today.
>>>
To repeat: "The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results"
The concern of the entire thing aligns with the reading that most people (apparently?) took away to begin with, which is that their above-the-results ads are so similar to organic results that all of the same things are wrong with it as with directly selling placement within results.
The confusion appears to stem entirely from Krebs having in his head that a top-of-organic-results-placement of a link is still, also, an ad, when he wrote the original post. Which is not unreasonable, but could, lacking other context (but there's a ton...) be read a different way. He corrects that in the above follow-up and confirms your interpretation.
The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be.
>>>
Adrian Krebs @krebs_adrian Replying to @dannysullivan Thanks for clarifying this. I think the post leaves some room for interpretation. The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results, which is not the case today.
>>>
To repeat: "The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results"
The concern of the entire thing aligns with the reading that most people (apparently?) took away to begin with, which is that their above-the-results ads are so similar to organic results that all of the same things are wrong with it as with directly selling placement within results.
The confusion appears to stem entirely from Krebs having in his head that a top-of-organic-results-placement of a link is still, also, an ad, when he wrote the original post. Which is not unreasonable, but could, lacking other context (but there's a ton...) be read a different way. He corrects that in the above follow-up and confirms your interpretation.
The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be.
>The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be.
You were so close to being right, only to completely lose it at the end.
Krebs is making a broader point about ads not being distinguishable from search. Good! Fair, appropriate criticism.
Krebs however, falsely claimed that Google's statement included declaration that they were opposed to placing ads above search results.
Numerous HN commenters confused the two things.
Faced with the correction, people on HN equivocated between the indisputably false characterization of Google's statement and a broader criticism of making ads similar to search results, as if a statement about the former amounts to a latter.
It doesn't, it was this lack of interest in truthful characterization, rather than the innocence of Google that was at issue.
Now, Krebs acknowledged the correction of his incorrect characterization, and restated his concern as a broader point that was no longer false. Hilariously, it is this abandonment and reformation of his point is now being treated as vindication by HN commenters who were defending the false version.
You were so close to being right, only to completely lose it at the end.
Krebs is making a broader point about ads not being distinguishable from search. Good! Fair, appropriate criticism.
Krebs however, falsely claimed that Google's statement included declaration that they were opposed to placing ads above search results.
Numerous HN commenters confused the two things.
Faced with the correction, people on HN equivocated between the indisputably false characterization of Google's statement and a broader criticism of making ads similar to search results, as if a statement about the former amounts to a latter.
It doesn't, it was this lack of interest in truthful characterization, rather than the innocence of Google that was at issue.
Now, Krebs acknowledged the correction of his incorrect characterization, and restated his concern as a broader point that was no longer false. Hilariously, it is this abandonment and reformation of his point is now being treated as vindication by HN commenters who were defending the false version.
Krebs wrote (the single piece of support you have for your reading, right?):
>>>
Wow, this is gold. The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then. At the time Google published this, it only put ads in the sidebar to the right of search results:
>>>
(emphasis mine)
The thing is, the only allowance we have to make for everything to be entirely consistent with both Krebs' other statements and the other interpretations which he has not challenged (unlike yours, which he directly did contradict in the quoted post [in the prior comment, that is], that was why he posted that, responding to that [I guess?] googler who took the same reading as you) is the following:
Simply that he wrote "displaying ads" here to mean "paid top results". All that needs to be true, and not even strictly a mistake, is that it's reasonable to call a paid top result an ad. That seems reasonable. Everything else here immediately falls into place.
Your reading requires a lot more stretching to reach, including assuming some uncharitable things about Krebs, as far as I can tell.
The only other thing in support of your position is the statement near the end of the above about where Google used to place ads, but that's easily read as emphasizing how far they have come, compared with where they started, and providing context of the state of their search page when they released this statement.
Krebs made two other posts highlighting that his concern is about how hard they make it to tell their ads from search results. The charitable and most straightforward reading, also consistent with the document he posted, is that he either intended the above, or made a tiny slip in one place. It also seems to be the way most people read it. Unless you think he's bullshitting in his clarification, you did not read it the way it was intended.
[EDIT] Meaning-preserving brain-fart fixes, sorry, tired as hell.
>>>
Wow, this is gold. The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then. At the time Google published this, it only put ads in the sidebar to the right of search results:
>>>
(emphasis mine)
The thing is, the only allowance we have to make for everything to be entirely consistent with both Krebs' other statements and the other interpretations which he has not challenged (unlike yours, which he directly did contradict in the quoted post [in the prior comment, that is], that was why he posted that, responding to that [I guess?] googler who took the same reading as you) is the following:
Simply that he wrote "displaying ads" here to mean "paid top results". All that needs to be true, and not even strictly a mistake, is that it's reasonable to call a paid top result an ad. That seems reasonable. Everything else here immediately falls into place.
Your reading requires a lot more stretching to reach, including assuming some uncharitable things about Krebs, as far as I can tell.
The only other thing in support of your position is the statement near the end of the above about where Google used to place ads, but that's easily read as emphasizing how far they have come, compared with where they started, and providing context of the state of their search page when they released this statement.
Krebs made two other posts highlighting that his concern is about how hard they make it to tell their ads from search results. The charitable and most straightforward reading, also consistent with the document he posted, is that he either intended the above, or made a tiny slip in one place. It also seems to be the way most people read it. Unless you think he's bullshitting in his clarification, you did not read it the way it was intended.
[EDIT] Meaning-preserving brain-fart fixes, sorry, tired as hell.
It refers to deliberate ambiguity. The Google statement is clearly different from the statement falsely attributed to them. And its by the addition of ambiguity (equivocating) that this false attribution is being defended.
Others disagree that an ad presented among the search listings, with visual presentation only distinguisable from a search result if you know the very small indicator to look for, as the first few entries is a meaningful distinction from just selling search listing results directly, rather than euphemistically.
I agree, I think the line between ads and searches are blurred, but I think that point can be made without misrepresenting the statement from Google as an explicit critique of ads placed above search results.
You think the line has been blurred, but not removed, so a statement that Google won't sell search results because Google draws a distinction at sale time between ad slots and search results is not evidence of a change in position to the reality now where you can buy "things that look 99% identical and sit in the same location as search results" because those things are called ads in the purchase interface.
Others view these things as sponsored search listings because.... they have 99% in common with search listings and only 50% in common with ads as presented at the time that Google made this statement.
What they are selling, despite being called ads, are for all intents and purposes search results. So I don't think it's unfair to call them out for how it conflicts with earlier positions against the selling of search results.
Others view these things as sponsored search listings because.... they have 99% in common with search listings and only 50% in common with ads as presented at the time that Google made this statement.
What they are selling, despite being called ads, are for all intents and purposes search results. So I don't think it's unfair to call them out for how it conflicts with earlier positions against the selling of search results.
Google's statement was that they will make it clear that ads were not the same as search results.
Krebs paraphrased that statement as Google "critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results" and noted that they were instead placed on a sidebar.
He's not flagging the statement out of a belief that ads and search basically amount to the same thing.
Krebs paraphrased that statement as Google "critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results" and noted that they were instead placed on a sidebar.
He's not flagging the statement out of a belief that ads and search basically amount to the same thing.
Since they sell ads that look like search results (which you agree on), they arrived at the same point of selling the top search result positions. Keeping that in mind I don't feel like the tweet is a misrepresentation. Do you, really?
The tweet is attributing to Google a statement explicitly decrying placement of ads at the top of search results. This is not anywhere in the statement.
To make an untruth into a truth, it's necessary to zoom out and get fuzzy in words so the one thing kinda-sorta means the other.
So you can make things fuzzy by saying "ads on top" kinda sorta means "making ads look like search results" which kinda means it's okay to attribute a thing to Google that wasn't said.
I think the breakdown is this: people feel like this clarification is a challenge. When I say "google didn't say that about ad placement" people hear "Google has never done anything wrong with their search ads." And so it's a proxy for that argument.
To make an untruth into a truth, it's necessary to zoom out and get fuzzy in words so the one thing kinda-sorta means the other.
So you can make things fuzzy by saying "ads on top" kinda sorta means "making ads look like search results" which kinda means it's okay to attribute a thing to Google that wasn't said.
I think the breakdown is this: people feel like this clarification is a challenge. When I say "google didn't say that about ad placement" people hear "Google has never done anything wrong with their search ads." And so it's a proxy for that argument.
Maybe. I think it's less fuzzy - the ads back then were clearly ads and harder to mix up with search results. So even if Google had ads on top of search results then, it wasn't as misleading. Or rather: The statement looked valid then, but doesn't anymore. That's what people pick up on.
Those are all great points that you made. However, is it more important to be fair to them or to criticize them for their bad practices? Can you win a fight by being principled, when the other side is fighting dirty? Maybe. Personally, I'd let small errors slide, and look at the larger picture - How the tech world is slowly shifting towards a pay-to-play, rent-seeking, monopolist model. I'm optimistic about the future, and we can still save it. I'm no organizer, but I would focus our efforts on taking down these mega corps that have abused our trust and good-will - to make room for smaller companies to flourish that do believe in doing the right thing.
Might me a locale thing? For me (southwestern Ontario), a "new car" SERP shows a Google Maps block at the top with non-ad links to dealerships, but after that are some pretty reasonable organic results for pages like Edmunds, caranddriver.com, etc.
The organic results even include an optional transparency pop up (click the ...) that explains in more detail the factors that went into showing the result.
EDIT: Oh wait, never mind. On desktop, the ads are loaded in from a separate domain that my router blocks. On mobile, I see several at the top of the page. Fail.
The organic results even include an optional transparency pop up (click the ...) that explains in more detail the factors that went into showing the result.
EDIT: Oh wait, never mind. On desktop, the ads are loaded in from a separate domain that my router blocks. On mobile, I see several at the top of the page. Fail.
"Not scrolling" isn't a useful metric, you can make it say whatever you want it to say. On my small screen phone I see 1 result entry without scrolling, on my large screen desktop I see all 10 result entries. If I feel one way about the issue I can grab my phone and claim "I see nothing but ads without scrolling!" even if it's a single ad while if I feel another way I can go to my desktop and claim "the vast majority of results shown on screen after searching aren't ads" even if there are 3.
The former is a firey way to say "an ad is shown at the top" and the latter a dismissive way to distract from how many ads there are, neither actually talks to the state of the number of ads despite what their wording implies.
The former is a firey way to say "an ad is shown at the top" and the latter a dismissive way to distract from how many ads there are, neither actually talks to the state of the number of ads despite what their wording implies.
This isn't nitpicking about a minor detail, the fabricated claim is the entire core of the submission and the only reason it is getting this HN engagement. Imagine that they'd written a tweet saying "I think Google should not show ads above the search results" or "there should be fewer ads", and not added the screenshot. Do you think that would be near the top of the frontpage? I don't.
If the author's point is that the "Ad" text is not distinct enough and conflicts with the doc's view that ads need to be clearly marked, why not actually say that? Because what is distinct enough is just a matter of opinion. So instead the author has taken something that's not a matter of opinion but a clear fact ("there are ads above the search results") and just made up the part about the doc critiquing this. It's genius, because everyone loves a good story of corporate hypocrisy. But it's also not true. Why exactly are we looking to reward dishonest clickbait?
If the author's point is that the "Ad" text is not distinct enough and conflicts with the doc's view that ads need to be clearly marked, why not actually say that? Because what is distinct enough is just a matter of opinion. So instead the author has taken something that's not a matter of opinion but a clear fact ("there are ads above the search results") and just made up the part about the doc critiquing this. It's genius, because everyone loves a good story of corporate hypocrisy. But it's also not true. Why exactly are we looking to reward dishonest clickbait?
Exactly what information were you hoping to glean from a search like "new car"? There are searches that are too insipid to be considered as part of search quality signals.
There is a corresponding meme where people complain about the quality of the results for "best pants" where they have to amend it to "best pants reddit". Well, I have news for you: "best pants" is not a search that can be usefully answered. There is no such thing as "best pants".
There is a corresponding meme where people complain about the quality of the results for "best pants" where they have to amend it to "best pants reddit". Well, I have news for you: "best pants" is not a search that can be usefully answered. There is no such thing as "best pants".
Not sure I agree. I worked in AdWords support when the decision was made to move the top 1-3 ads above the search results.
There was a lot of internal chatter about whether this was compromising the integrity of the results. The decision was made to make the ad unit super obviously distinct from organic content, and to make a high quality threshold for getting promoted to that position - many pages would still be served with ads on the right of results but not above.
Even still we were very worried about the perception that the organic results were for sale. I would definitely believe that at one point in time the company was prepared to draw a line in the sand around “no ads above organic results.”
Edit: at launch the top ads looked like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3892/2343/1600/google_adw...
There was a lot of internal chatter about whether this was compromising the integrity of the results. The decision was made to make the ad unit super obviously distinct from organic content, and to make a high quality threshold for getting promoted to that position - many pages would still be served with ads on the right of results but not above.
Even still we were very worried about the perception that the organic results were for sale. I would definitely believe that at one point in time the company was prepared to draw a line in the sand around “no ads above organic results.”
Edit: at launch the top ads looked like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3892/2343/1600/google_adw...
I don't find it super obvious at all. I have to actively spend brain energy scrolling to find the first real result
Yep. The original top ad unit had a dark blue background, plus I think some sort of “sponsored” text that clearly delineated the ads. It has since become almost indistinguishable from organic results.
Edit: Used to look like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3892/2343/1600/google_adw...
Edit: Used to look like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3892/2343/1600/google_adw...
The appearance of the ads has gotten closer and closer to search results. The first time the ads moved above the results they did look different.
I don't use google, so I had a look for "new car" and didn't see any adverts.
Then realised I had to turn off my blocker.
Looks like
$('#tads').remove()
will remove the adverts?
Then realised I had to turn off my blocker.
Looks like
$('#tads').remove()
will remove the adverts?
No amount of adblocking will help with the fact that I got a top-hit to a car selling website when I searched for "new car".
What should be the top hit to the query "new car"? What was the desired goal?
It's a good chance someone wanting to find a "car selling" website might use that phrase, no?
It's a good chance someone wanting to find a "car selling" website might use that phrase, no?
Could be a lot of things, including wanting to buy a new car, yeah. But maybe I want to search for "new car smell", which is a thing. Maybe I want to read blogs or experiences people have buying new cars vs used.
Search as it is now is fundamentally at odds with us as our own agents. We're 30 years into the internet. I shouldn't just be presented with a magical search box that tries to figure out what I want and intermingles it with trash that makes them money and fosters a broken internet. Instead, I should get knobs, settings, configuration galore, include/exclude operators, filter lists, curated lists, sub-lists of internet sites, dynamic lists determined automatically by the search engine (only blogs, only forums, only search sites), etc. Who knows where search might be if we didn't have "magic" results from Google.
A good "taste" of what search might have been is if you look at Google's product or shopping search tab.
Search as it is now is fundamentally at odds with us as our own agents. We're 30 years into the internet. I shouldn't just be presented with a magical search box that tries to figure out what I want and intermingles it with trash that makes them money and fosters a broken internet. Instead, I should get knobs, settings, configuration galore, include/exclude operators, filter lists, curated lists, sub-lists of internet sites, dynamic lists determined automatically by the search engine (only blogs, only forums, only search sites), etc. Who knows where search might be if we didn't have "magic" results from Google.
A good "taste" of what search might have been is if you look at Google's product or shopping search tab.
"new car smell"
- How to Make a Car Smell New Again - Auto Adviser
- How to Get That 'New Car Smell' in an Old Car - Car Cologne
- The Science of the New-Car Smell - caranddriver.com
- How to Make a Car Smell New Again - Auto Adviser
- How to Get That 'New Car Smell' in an Old Car - Car Cologne
- The Science of the New-Car Smell - caranddriver.com
[deleted]
These days I assume that Google does two things at once: place clearly identifiable and directly billable ads, and include "is a known business" in the relevance algorithm blackbox as one of the inputs. One of the many factors and criteria would just happen to be ad spend. There wouldn't be an item "make us more relevant" on the bill, but relevance for a company stopping spending would drop unless some other organic factor happened to compensate.
And I'd take it as a given that if that assumption was true, a large majority of Googlers would not have the faintest idea that this is happening and refute any speculations that it might exist without even a trace of insincerity.
I'm not even saying this intending a "look how evil Google has become!" implication, I actually think that it would likely be a quality decrease, from the users perspective, if they deliberately left that out. From the user's perspective, "Is a business known to us" is likely a valuable relevance improvement, not a quality decrease. But it shows how scarily dominant Google's position can be.
And I'd take it as a given that if that assumption was true, a large majority of Googlers would not have the faintest idea that this is happening and refute any speculations that it might exist without even a trace of insincerity.
I'm not even saying this intending a "look how evil Google has become!" implication, I actually think that it would likely be a quality decrease, from the users perspective, if they deliberately left that out. From the user's perspective, "Is a business known to us" is likely a valuable relevance improvement, not a quality decrease. But it shows how scarily dominant Google's position can be.
> Given the context of the times, it was clearly not a statement about layout but about actually reordering the "organic" search results based on payments and without marking those boosted results as ads.
It's actually worse. Google didn't just say "our competitors put ads on top of results". They're suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening, their competitors like Bing (MSN then) were doing what Google is doing now - merely placing ads above the results, not selling placement.
The end result is that they're all now selling placement. The visual difference between ads and organic results is almost non-existent.
It's actually worse. Google didn't just say "our competitors put ads on top of results". They're suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening, their competitors like Bing (MSN then) were doing what Google is doing now - merely placing ads above the results, not selling placement.
The end result is that they're all now selling placement. The visual difference between ads and organic results is almost non-existent.
>It's actually worse.
Well hold on. We can go ahead and talk about how different this Google statement is from their ethos in the present day. But the framing of this being about ad placement was incorrect, and that has nothing to do with anything.
>They're suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening
It wasn't? This strikes me as yet another completely out of left field reaction. I mean, is there a consensus that that's obviously false? A source? Where is this "in fact that wasn't happening" coming from? Was there a big media cycle where there was a deep dive investigation into this that settled the question, that everyone remembers except me? There's a whole field of actors who at one time were relevant: Jeeves, Lycos, Altavista, Infoseek, Dogpile, Hotbot, Webcrawler, etc. And they went through any number of permutations of design, ownership, were sold and reacquired and it stands to reason that at some point some versions of these did things that Google is suggesting.
At a minimum it seems prima facie plausible that competitors entertained this.
Well hold on. We can go ahead and talk about how different this Google statement is from their ethos in the present day. But the framing of this being about ad placement was incorrect, and that has nothing to do with anything.
>They're suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening
It wasn't? This strikes me as yet another completely out of left field reaction. I mean, is there a consensus that that's obviously false? A source? Where is this "in fact that wasn't happening" coming from? Was there a big media cycle where there was a deep dive investigation into this that settled the question, that everyone remembers except me? There's a whole field of actors who at one time were relevant: Jeeves, Lycos, Altavista, Infoseek, Dogpile, Hotbot, Webcrawler, etc. And they went through any number of permutations of design, ownership, were sold and reacquired and it stands to reason that at some point some versions of these did things that Google is suggesting.
At a minimum it seems prima facie plausible that competitors entertained this.
> suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/yahoo-adopting-paid-incl...
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/yahoo-adopting-paid-incl...
It was a fee to be included in the directly, not placement. I bought that "directory listing" aka hire PR paid link for many clients.
Glad to see this up in the comments. This is why I hate so many internet discussions, in that they are deliberately made in bad faith, even when the general topic under discussion is valid.
It's quite clear to anyone who has used Google over the past decade that:
1. When you search for anything remotely commercial, your first page is essentially all ads, especially on mobile. It used to be possible that, if you were a site but had the top spot in Google for a commercial term, you had a great opportunity. That is no longer the case now, in that you are forced to pay "the Google tax", because there will be 4-5 ads above your primary search position if you don't pay for an ad.
2. Over time Google has made the distinction between organic results and ads much less clear. All you get now is teeny bolded "Ad" text in the upper left corner, everything else looks the same.
These are valid criticisms. Saying "Google critiqued the practice of displaying ads above search results" is simply not true based on the poster's own linked screenshot.
It's quite clear to anyone who has used Google over the past decade that:
1. When you search for anything remotely commercial, your first page is essentially all ads, especially on mobile. It used to be possible that, if you were a site but had the top spot in Google for a commercial term, you had a great opportunity. That is no longer the case now, in that you are forced to pay "the Google tax", because there will be 4-5 ads above your primary search position if you don't pay for an ad.
2. Over time Google has made the distinction between organic results and ads much less clear. All you get now is teeny bolded "Ad" text in the upper left corner, everything else looks the same.
These are valid criticisms. Saying "Google critiqued the practice of displaying ads above search results" is simply not true based on the poster's own linked screenshot.
Google Serps definitely tested not having inline ads at different stages, I don't remember if is was ever solely sidebar ads, I think it was keyword dependent going back pretty far.
I've got three wayback machine links below and the nostradomous one eschewed inline ads in 2002 so I think the experience was somewhat dependent on what keywords you were searching.
But going back to 2000 (when scraping DMOZ was still how everyone seeded quality), you can see that "inline ads" above organic results were a relatively early thing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20021002224152/http://www.google...
https://web.archive.org/web/20001205201000/http://www.google...
https://web.archive.org/web/20021105030346/http://www.google...
Looked through old posts from the google dance days on webmasterworld, I couldn't see any discussion of ads repositioned from the sidebar to inline, so yeah, I think inline placement was around a long time, certainly by the time this google blog post was first published.
I've got three wayback machine links below and the nostradomous one eschewed inline ads in 2002 so I think the experience was somewhat dependent on what keywords you were searching.
But going back to 2000 (when scraping DMOZ was still how everyone seeded quality), you can see that "inline ads" above organic results were a relatively early thing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20021002224152/http://www.google...
https://web.archive.org/web/20001205201000/http://www.google...
https://web.archive.org/web/20021105030346/http://www.google...
Looked through old posts from the google dance days on webmasterworld, I couldn't see any discussion of ads repositioned from the sidebar to inline, so yeah, I think inline placement was around a long time, certainly by the time this google blog post was first published.
Exactly. This was called “paid inclusion“ and was offered by Yahoo, for example.
Yeah, if memory serves the overture ad network (which powered yahoo ad results before yahoo bought them) had better roi for a short time period for that very reason.
I just looked at it and your post doesn't seem related at all. The post is pointing out that Google says they don't sell search result positioning, which is equivocation because if you watch any normal person use Google or just look at their search results page they absofuckinglutely do. "Oh but it's not 'in the search area'" yeah OK, so they're both tricking people and are disingenuous about it, like that apparently-Google-employee (Danny Sullivan) who shames themselves by pathetically defending it in the Twitter thread. That's not better.
[deleted]
You may be correct, but I don't think the "letter of the law" is a particularly useful standard to judge Google by. So you can't pay to have your site ranked higher? Who even cares now? At this point you can pay Google to deploy dark patterns that trick people into clicking on ads thinking that they're actually organic results. In a sense that is even better than a higher page rating...
Exactly. And, remarkably, so far this is not registering for anybody else in this thread. It is about not placing ads within search results, and making clear that ads, wherever they are, are different from search.
On a very vague, thematic level, this kind of grandstanding in Google's statement does seem to be in some sort of conflict with Google's approach to ad placement in 2022, because ads do very much seem similar to search results, but it has nothing to do with "ads above search results" or ads in the sidebar.
On a very vague, thematic level, this kind of grandstanding in Google's statement does seem to be in some sort of conflict with Google's approach to ad placement in 2022, because ads do very much seem similar to search results, but it has nothing to do with "ads above search results" or ads in the sidebar.
This practice has enabled scams. Many crypto sites now have a fraudulent version showing as a top result in ads which will allow the user to enter their seed phrase and empty their accounts.
at this point an adblocker is more useful than an antivirus software
at this point an adblocker is more useful than an antivirus software
Here in Mexico we had a similar scam that ran for months, if not years. There was this site (or sites) pretending to be an official government’s passports website. It was the first link in the search result for “pasaporte mexicano”. I personally know people who fell for it, the page would ask for bank deposits to get your Mexican passport.
The page looked legit, it even had https and the url name looked fine, the only thing giving it away was that it missed the official .gob.mx domain at the end, but regular people don’t Pay attention to that. It was the first result link! And they didn’t remove it for months, amazing.
Edit: I thought that scam was removed already, but no! It’s still there, the first three links (the only visible ones on mobile) are scam websites.
https://ibb.co/PMHCQ31
The page looked legit, it even had https and the url name looked fine, the only thing giving it away was that it missed the official .gob.mx domain at the end, but regular people don’t Pay attention to that. It was the first result link! And they didn’t remove it for months, amazing.
Edit: I thought that scam was removed already, but no! It’s still there, the first three links (the only visible ones on mobile) are scam websites.
https://ibb.co/PMHCQ31
Every time I get a new iPhone and forget to install an ad blocker, Safari crashes due to an ad problem and then I remember to install the ad blocker.
Which ad-blocker(s) would you recommend for iOS?
I use Firefox Focus, which includes an ad blocker that can be enabled for Safari integration.
It works pretty well for me, but then, I don't generally surf on my phone and only use Safari when I have clicked a link from messages or something.
I'm interested in other possible options on iOS as well, though. Hoping to see more replies.
It works pretty well for me, but then, I don't generally surf on my phone and only use Safari when I have clicked a link from messages or something.
I'm interested in other possible options on iOS as well, though. Hoping to see more replies.
AdGuard provides DNS servers that allow you to filter for the whole device, regardless of device type or which app you use.
Configure your home router to use it to filter for every device on your home WiFi network.
They have one set of DNS servers that just blocks ads and another set that additionally attempts to filter out adult content.
https://adguard-dns.com/en/welcome.html
Configure your home router to use it to filter for every device on your home WiFi network.
They have one set of DNS servers that just blocks ads and another set that additionally attempts to filter out adult content.
https://adguard-dns.com/en/welcome.html
AdGuard is pretty nice, you can also use other browsers like Firefox focus’ add blocker by installing them then turning it on in the extensions section of the safari settings.
I use AdGuard. There free version is more than enough to block ads including YouTube ads.
For Safari on my Mac I use the Ka-boom extension
For Safari on my Mac I use the Ka-boom extension
Hyperweb is very nice. They even redirect Reddit links to Teddit so you can avoid their dark patterns.
Firefox Focus is free, but I use Wipr on both iOS and macOS.
[deleted]
It is not just crypto, it has been happening in gaming communities for a long time. Sometimes it's just fishing for more of their own page views, other times it it more malicious such as offering a trojaned game client that will steal your login details [0]. It is very cheap and easy to do because the communities are relatively small.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/95zk30/psa_first...
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/95zk30/psa_first...
My favorite search engine ad scam test query is "mapquest". It almost always returns sites that force you to install a malicious browser extension via the Chrome Web Store.
Reason why: Senior citizens go to MapQuest for directions because it's the term they associate with getting directions on the Internet.
Reason why: Senior citizens go to MapQuest for directions because it's the term they associate with getting directions on the Internet.
[deleted]
There's some interesting images of the evolution of what ads looked like in Google's search results over time. Starting with distinct background colours and slowly fading to looking more and more identical to organic results with just a little icon.
It's always felt like something that should be regulated away. Ads should be very distinct not a single tiny text label saying "sponsored" but 100% distinct from any non-ad content.
When sundar took over he changed some policies within google to reduce previous commitments to a high quality internet, with the goal of increased growth. This includes a mixing of ads and search results in a way that maximizes revenue as well as many other dark patterns. I believe that Google concluded that it was going to lose relevance and market share if they didn't do this. Note also that the vast majority of google revenue in ads comes from mobile video ads, not search results these days.
The bit about mobile video revenue is not true.
"Today, Google parent Alphabet Inc. reported a record $65.1 billion in revenue during the third quarter of 2021, with the company’s advertising business increasing 43.2% to $53.1 billion. Quarterly search advertising made up the bulk of revenue with $37.9 billion in the third quarter, rising from $26.3 billion during the same period in 2020. YouTube ads accounted for another $7.2 billion—up from $5 billion in Q3 2020—and Google’s ad network revenue brought in $7.9 billion."
"Today, Google parent Alphabet Inc. reported a record $65.1 billion in revenue during the third quarter of 2021, with the company’s advertising business increasing 43.2% to $53.1 billion. Quarterly search advertising made up the bulk of revenue with $37.9 billion in the third quarter, rising from $26.3 billion during the same period in 2020. YouTube ads accounted for another $7.2 billion—up from $5 billion in Q3 2020—and Google’s ad network revenue brought in $7.9 billion."
I used to work there and I think my statement is technically correct, regardless of what the breakdown in the earnings say.
Oh, sorry- I should have said "profit", not "revenue".
Oh, sorry- I should have said "profit", not "revenue".
They will lose relevance and eventually market share for doing these things. It almost seems inevitable that companies eventually degrade in quality and die or become shadows of their former selves due to compromises brought about by the endless growth expected by investors.
Sundar never "took over" in anything but a job title sense. Larry and Sergey continue to hold supermajority voting power over the company's board. The business operates the way Larry and Sergey want it to.
I think people want an excuse to justify their previous positive outlooks on Larry and Sergey by claiming something has changed. But Larry and Sergey still sit in charge of an extremely harmful company under investigation for numerous types of illegal and inappropriate conduct. Both had inappropriate relationships with subordinates that should've gotten them both fired, and both of them have yachts and/or islands that are worth more than some small countries.
I think people want an excuse to justify their previous positive outlooks on Larry and Sergey by claiming something has changed. But Larry and Sergey still sit in charge of an extremely harmful company under investigation for numerous types of illegal and inappropriate conduct. Both had inappropriate relationships with subordinates that should've gotten them both fired, and both of them have yachts and/or islands that are worth more than some small countries.
Larry and Sergey have absolutely zero involvement in Google's daily activities (I don't think Sergey even comes around X any more, but might still hang around research once in a while).
Larry handed sundar effective control over Google when he promoted himself to Alphabet. Even 10 years ago, Larry lost interest in search (it was really sad for the search folks when they realized that). Larry picked sundar because sundar is a robot that makes money, and larry needs that money for his longterm mission.
Larry handed sundar effective control over Google when he promoted himself to Alphabet. Even 10 years ago, Larry lost interest in search (it was really sad for the search folks when they realized that). Larry picked sundar because sundar is a robot that makes money, and larry needs that money for his longterm mission.
I'm not sure what you think the long term mission is, but I suspect taking private yachts to and from his private island is most of it.
They may not be day to day involved, but they vote down any shareholder proposals to fix what Google is doing, they're aware of what's going on. And the sleezy practices started long before Alphabet did, ads and search results have been becoming less distinguishable for a decade.
And Sundar's claim to fame, lest we forget, is hijacking everyone's browser settings by injecting the Google Toolbar into every Adobe Flash Player installer.
They may not be day to day involved, but they vote down any shareholder proposals to fix what Google is doing, they're aware of what's going on. And the sleezy practices started long before Alphabet did, ads and search results have been becoming less distinguishable for a decade.
And Sundar's claim to fame, lest we forget, is hijacking everyone's browser settings by injecting the Google Toolbar into every Adobe Flash Player installer.
>Larry and Sergey have absolutely zero involvement in Google's daily activities
Unless you work directly with one of these three people I don't know how you could make such a claim. Press releases don't count as reliable sources
Unless you work directly with one of these three people I don't know how you could make such a claim. Press releases don't count as reliable sources
> Note also that the vast majority of google revenue in ads comes from mobile video ads, not search results these days.
So theoretically in a few years Google might decide to kill their search product and nobody will really come in and make another one because after all the years of bad search results from Google everyone will naturally conclude that search on the internet just doesn't work.
That's right, I'm so paranoid I think that song is about me.
So theoretically in a few years Google might decide to kill their search product and nobody will really come in and make another one because after all the years of bad search results from Google everyone will naturally conclude that search on the internet just doesn't work.
That's right, I'm so paranoid I think that song is about me.
> When sundar took over he changed some policies within google to reduce previous commitments to a high quality internet, with the goal of increased growth.
Do you have more details for this?
Do you have more details for this?
This enables rent-seeking from Google. If you sell a product and don’t buy an ad for it, your competitor can pay Google to put their product on top of the results for anyone searching for your product.
The cost of ad placement depends on the SEO match of the website. It will cost competitor more for the same ad. It's not as blatant.
The ethics of ad is murky. How do you think a search company should make money? Subscription?
The ethics of ad is murky. How do you think a search company should make money? Subscription?
I wonder if there is something like “The Peter Principle” for businesses.
> everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence
Where the business sees some success and grows until they lose the thing that everyone liked about them to begin with
Business outgrows their market or something.
Blizzard stops producing highly polished experiences for money.
Googles search results are degraded and littered with ads for money.
Microsoft shifts from software to consumer data collection and now my servers all have Xbox services and a touch UI for some stupid reason (sorry, for money).
> everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence
Where the business sees some success and grows until they lose the thing that everyone liked about them to begin with
Business outgrows their market or something.
Blizzard stops producing highly polished experiences for money.
Googles search results are degraded and littered with ads for money.
Microsoft shifts from software to consumer data collection and now my servers all have Xbox services and a touch UI for some stupid reason (sorry, for money).
"Either you die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
It applies to politicians and businesses alike.
It applies to politicians and businesses alike.
I may the only greybeard arund here who remembers (and has the screenshots to prove it), used to be from 2005--2008 when you would open a message in Gmail, all of the sponsored ads would show up over on the right-hand-side of your email message, and would all be related to keywords from the inside of the email.
Making it grotesquely blatant, how very much the Google computers were reading all your email.
At least now they conceal it a little better, by storing your keyword/interests in a giant permanent database, then bringing the advertisements up on other, non-Google pages!
Making it grotesquely blatant, how very much the Google computers were reading all your email.
At least now they conceal it a little better, by storing your keyword/interests in a giant permanent database, then bringing the advertisements up on other, non-Google pages!
Yeah, I quite liked the contextual ads and did go to Google many times just to look at the ads, ignoring the rest of the contents (not only for gmail, for search too).
When they started with the permanent database, the ads immediately got useless.
When they started with the permanent database, the ads immediately got useless.
Didn’t they announce that they stopped scanning email for ad purposes? (Presumably because it wasn’t actually very lucrative.)
Eh, sort of. They released a statement to give that impression but the wording was fairly weasely. They likely stopped using email content for directly targeting ads in Gmail, but there's almost no chance email content isn't being used to target people in other contexts.
Why is there “almost no chance”? They said they won’t email for advertising purposes. There wasn’t much wiggle room with the way they phrased it. It’s possible that they outright lied, I guess.
“Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization after this change”
https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...
“Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization after this change”
https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...
"content" perhaps doesn't include metadata
Is there any user data that passes through Google owned servers that DOESN'T get data mined?
That’s literally not possible for me to answer.
They did say they aren’t scanning email for advertising purposes anymore though.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/26/534451513...
They did say they aren’t scanning email for advertising purposes anymore though.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/26/534451513...
In the same vein: https://i.imgur.com/y0xl11R.jpg
I can't quite make out the text there. Does the first one say "don't put your name on the internet" and then the second one demands your name?
Yes, that's the essence of it. A high-resolution version appears upon clicking the image.
Transcript for accessibility (2011):
First red box: Safety Center, Protecting Your Privacy
Second red box: Never post things like your name
Third red box: Prevent privacy trouble before it starts. Once your privacy has been compromised, you might not be able to undo the damage.
Fourth red box: Protecting your privacy means that you are taking care not to post personal information that could result in you being harmed over the [internet].
2013 (no red boxes, but relevant elements are):
Start using your full name on YouTube.
How you appear now: 1337_megahacker [no profile picture]
How you'll appear after: Lewis C. Skolnick From your Google+ profile [profile picture of person].
Two buttons appear at the bottom-right. "I don't want to use my full name" [colored similarly to background, de-emphasized] and "Next [blue background, emphasized].
Transcript for accessibility (2011):
First red box: Safety Center, Protecting Your Privacy
Second red box: Never post things like your name
Third red box: Prevent privacy trouble before it starts. Once your privacy has been compromised, you might not be able to undo the damage.
Fourth red box: Protecting your privacy means that you are taking care not to post personal information that could result in you being harmed over the [internet].
2013 (no red boxes, but relevant elements are):
Start using your full name on YouTube.
How you appear now: 1337_megahacker [no profile picture]
How you'll appear after: Lewis C. Skolnick From your Google+ profile [profile picture of person].
Two buttons appear at the bottom-right. "I don't want to use my full name" [colored similarly to background, de-emphasized] and "Next [blue background, emphasized].
> A high-resolution version appears upon clicking the image.
Not for me. Maybe imgur does something different in mobile than desktop.
Thanks for the transcription.
Not for me. Maybe imgur does something different in mobile than desktop.
Thanks for the transcription.
The first one is the YouTube help saying "Never post things like your name" and the second one is the YouTube website saying "Start using your full name on YouTube", prefilled with your Google+ info.
And thankfully after much community and employee noise, they reversed that: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/16/youtube-t...
I do believe their motivation for people using their real name / identity came from a push to prevent abuse - theory being that you'd be more careful of what you post online if it's under your own name.
But in practice, it made people indifferent about what they say online.
But in practice, it made people indifferent about what they say online.
I think it was actually tied to the integration of YouTube with Google Plus, which was intended to be a “real name” social network like Facebook.
I disagree, its way more complex matter.
Internet evolved from "that computer thing where you should avoid stranger and putting your real info"
to something that's as important as infrastructure,
we spend so much time in it that it is basically part of the world
Facebook and similar pushed it
Internet evolved from "that computer thing where you should avoid stranger and putting your real info"
to something that's as important as infrastructure,
we spend so much time in it that it is basically part of the world
Facebook and similar pushed it
I do believe their motivation for people using their real name / identity came from a push to prevent abuse - theory being that you'd be more careful of what you post online if it's under your own name.
But in practice, it made people indifferent about what they say online. And of course, bots and malicious users will just use a fake name. The backlash that Facebook got when trying to force people to use their real identity, and to have their friends tell on them, must have been enormous - and likely lead to lawsuits, not to mention things like violence and death (think people trying to evade stalkers, trans people, etc.)
(And before replying to that last statement, think about whether you're about to commit victim blaming)
But in practice, it made people indifferent about what they say online. And of course, bots and malicious users will just use a fake name. The backlash that Facebook got when trying to force people to use their real identity, and to have their friends tell on them, must have been enormous - and likely lead to lawsuits, not to mention things like violence and death (think people trying to evade stalkers, trans people, etc.)
(And before replying to that last statement, think about whether you're about to commit victim blaming)
Many companies have to spend big dollars on their trademarked terms or company name to get it listed as the top result only via a paid ad.
Google artificially pushes down those company results to keep forcing them to pay big bucks for the top result only via advertising. Pretty slimy business Google is in these days. Like paying the local thugs to protect your grocery store.
Google artificially pushes down those company results to keep forcing them to pay big bucks for the top result only via advertising. Pretty slimy business Google is in these days. Like paying the local thugs to protect your grocery store.
This is standard practice though in pretty much everything.
A new upstart criticises the way it is being done, comes in and changes things, then takes over and then slowly becomes the big guy they were fighting against in the first place.
There is are reason to criticise what is being done because it's not the best for the consumer, but there is a reason it's done that way because it's good for business. So the upstart takes over by building a better product but soon corporate needs become a bigger priority once the company reaches scale, so it's prioties change.
A new upstart criticises the way it is being done, comes in and changes things, then takes over and then slowly becomes the big guy they were fighting against in the first place.
There is are reason to criticise what is being done because it's not the best for the consumer, but there is a reason it's done that way because it's good for business. So the upstart takes over by building a better product but soon corporate needs become a bigger priority once the company reaches scale, so it's prioties change.
What was tweeted isn't what the page says. I work for Google Search. That's about our Honest Results policy, which means we don't allow people to buy better rankings in non-paid Search results: https://www.google.com/about/honestresults/
Like many newspapers separate ads and editorial, Google has a strict separation between our Ads departments and our Search departments -- and our results. Buying ads will not gain you any better ability to rank in the non-paid Search results. Nor will it get you any special support.
That's what the page explains. It never says we don't have ads that show at the top of the page and, in fact, acknowledges that we do: "While advertisers can pay more to be displayed higher in the advertising area." Nor is it true that at the time, we only had ads that appeared on the right-side of the page. Google's first ads appeared at the top of the page way back in 1999.
In addition, we continue to keep ads separated from Search and labeled so they can be identified.
I totally get that some people would like to see fewer ads. I don't work on the Ad side of Google, but I know that feedback has been heard.
Like many newspapers separate ads and editorial, Google has a strict separation between our Ads departments and our Search departments -- and our results. Buying ads will not gain you any better ability to rank in the non-paid Search results. Nor will it get you any special support.
That's what the page explains. It never says we don't have ads that show at the top of the page and, in fact, acknowledges that we do: "While advertisers can pay more to be displayed higher in the advertising area." Nor is it true that at the time, we only had ads that appeared on the right-side of the page. Google's first ads appeared at the top of the page way back in 1999.
In addition, we continue to keep ads separated from Search and labeled so they can be identified.
I totally get that some people would like to see fewer ads. I don't work on the Ad side of Google, but I know that feedback has been heard.
> I totally get that some people would like to see fewer ads.
I'd like to be very clear: On the google Search property, it's less about the number of ads, and more about "ads look very, very, very similar to the actual search results". Therefore, selling ads above the results is becoming very, very close to "selling search results". In fact for many of your customers, that is already a distinction without a difference. If you want to be taken seriously on this it's best to respond to a steel-man of the public's argument, even if the actual line of argument from the public is somewhat weakly presented. After all, you are the professional in public communication, we are the amateurs.
Most readers on HN are already well aware of the narrow distinction between "selling search results" and "selling ads above search results that (to many users) look exactly like search results". Some people are here trying to bring this issue to the forefront of discourse in order to help Google take action to strengthen their Search property.
It's hard to take your word as an official "PR Liaison for Search" word at face value on this when it lacks sufficiently rigorous introspection. The primary revenue-generating division for a $2 trillion company should be able to afford real introspection!
I'd like to be very clear: On the google Search property, it's less about the number of ads, and more about "ads look very, very, very similar to the actual search results". Therefore, selling ads above the results is becoming very, very close to "selling search results". In fact for many of your customers, that is already a distinction without a difference. If you want to be taken seriously on this it's best to respond to a steel-man of the public's argument, even if the actual line of argument from the public is somewhat weakly presented. After all, you are the professional in public communication, we are the amateurs.
Most readers on HN are already well aware of the narrow distinction between "selling search results" and "selling ads above search results that (to many users) look exactly like search results". Some people are here trying to bring this issue to the forefront of discourse in order to help Google take action to strengthen their Search property.
It's hard to take your word as an official "PR Liaison for Search" word at face value on this when it lacks sufficiently rigorous introspection. The primary revenue-generating division for a $2 trillion company should be able to afford real introspection!
Google has a long history of making their ad placements look more like their search placements.
The ads used to be a clearly yellow block. Then it became more and more faded yellow-to-white. Today, the ads have literally the exact same CSS, except that they do say "Ad" at the start, the legally mandated minimum disclosure.
How do you reconcile this?
To me, "honest" is already dishonest, in that Google deliberately tries to make ads vs search results visually ambiguous and thus the ads at the top are barely different from paid search placement.
The ads used to be a clearly yellow block. Then it became more and more faded yellow-to-white. Today, the ads have literally the exact same CSS, except that they do say "Ad" at the start, the legally mandated minimum disclosure.
How do you reconcile this?
To me, "honest" is already dishonest, in that Google deliberately tries to make ads vs search results visually ambiguous and thus the ads at the top are barely different from paid search placement.
The Honest Results policy is that we're not going to allow advertisers or partners or any one with a relationship to Google to have an advantage in our unpaid search results.
As for ad labeling, I don't work on the ad side. I work on the Search side. My understanding from those on the ad side is that the labels are visible and do work. And ads are always labeled.
As for ad labeling, I don't work on the ad side. I work on the Search side. My understanding from those on the ad side is that the labels are visible and do work. And ads are always labeled.
I'm going to be blunt here, because this is your job. You've agreed to take on a particular level of responsibility and competency and I believe it's fair to hold you up to that.
> And ads are always labeled.
Poorly these days, and you know it. Many, many people here are making the point that if you eventually shrink the word "Ad" down to a 2-point font we would still have a PR person here arguing "but we Label it as an ad." You have a lot of users now telling you that you're already reaching the point where ads are not considered distinguishable from results.
> As for ad labeling, I don't work on the ad side. I work on the Search side.
For customers, Ads are part of the Search product. On mobile, ads and ad-driven widgets often take up the first 1-3 screen scrolls before I scroll down to a "not-ad". For me, if this isn't part of your work, you're not working "my" Google Search. Your work may be to represent some subset of what Google Search is, but it's NOT the part of the "Google Search" product that is being discussed here.
We are not discussing DWIM search or paywalled results or even stack-overflow scrape spam that infests my actual Search results. We are discussing how ads that look a hell of a lot like search results infest the top 1-3 mobile screen-scrolls before I get to the results that are comprised of the same Stack Overflow page copied by 4 different scraper engines and reposted on multiple domains.
If the ads, which is the topic here, isn't part of the product you work on, then your professional experience carries no weight in this discussion -- though your personal experience is as welcome as anyone else's. 'jsnell pointed out what you did, but 5 hours earlier; his clarification was well received and there was already a discussion about the clarification.
I do understand the point you're making. Many here had harsh words for the linked twitter post. My favorite was [0], also several hours before your response. In fact in this discussion on HN there's actually so little confusion over the point you clarified that it almost seems that responding to the linked twitter post on HN, without responding to any of the HN discussion ... is very much a case of responding to a straw man.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30151320
> And ads are always labeled.
Poorly these days, and you know it. Many, many people here are making the point that if you eventually shrink the word "Ad" down to a 2-point font we would still have a PR person here arguing "but we Label it as an ad." You have a lot of users now telling you that you're already reaching the point where ads are not considered distinguishable from results.
> As for ad labeling, I don't work on the ad side. I work on the Search side.
For customers, Ads are part of the Search product. On mobile, ads and ad-driven widgets often take up the first 1-3 screen scrolls before I scroll down to a "not-ad". For me, if this isn't part of your work, you're not working "my" Google Search. Your work may be to represent some subset of what Google Search is, but it's NOT the part of the "Google Search" product that is being discussed here.
We are not discussing DWIM search or paywalled results or even stack-overflow scrape spam that infests my actual Search results. We are discussing how ads that look a hell of a lot like search results infest the top 1-3 mobile screen-scrolls before I get to the results that are comprised of the same Stack Overflow page copied by 4 different scraper engines and reposted on multiple domains.
If the ads, which is the topic here, isn't part of the product you work on, then your professional experience carries no weight in this discussion -- though your personal experience is as welcome as anyone else's. 'jsnell pointed out what you did, but 5 hours earlier; his clarification was well received and there was already a discussion about the clarification.
I do understand the point you're making. Many here had harsh words for the linked twitter post. My favorite was [0], also several hours before your response. In fact in this discussion on HN there's actually so little confusion over the point you clarified that it almost seems that responding to the linked twitter post on HN, without responding to any of the HN discussion ... is very much a case of responding to a straw man.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30151320
Thank you for correcting this Danny.
The earliest version [1] of this page is from Dec, 2015, which is (relatively) recent. Not sure if the Archive missed it but I imagined it'd be much older page.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20151213182805/https://www.googl...
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20151213182805/https://www.googl...
And they had been showing ads above search results on Mobile for a while:
https://searchengineland.com/google-confirms-three-mobile-te...
And enabled this on desktop in 2016: https://searchengineland.com/google-no-ads-right-side-of-des...
And enabled this on desktop in 2016: https://searchengineland.com/google-no-ads-right-side-of-des...
It's from March 2002: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22109078
Just like I've been actively moving away from Amazon, I've been actively moving away from Google. These companies are leeches on society.
You can certainly hate Google and not support them. I don’t know how you can classify them as “leeches on society”, though. I remember the days before Google, when web search was utter garbage, free email providers gave you 10mb of storage and stuck ads on the bottom of every email you sent, map apps were limited to about 400x300 for some inexplicable reason, and Android didn’t even exist. Google very much seems like a net positive historically.
I am dpark from 2032. I have absolutely no human rights, and I never need to think about what to buy/watch/read, because Google consolidated all markets. I don't vote anymore because every aspect of life is controlled by G anyway. I have access to a shiny new tech that you don't yet have a name for! Google is still a net positive "historically".
everything you think you know about "history" is misinformation. In 2032 Google AI-generates colorful VR videos of the Real Past and boy, I am telling you, we are much better off now!
Keep Googling, dpark, 2032
everything you think you know about "history" is misinformation. In 2032 Google AI-generates colorful VR videos of the Real Past and boy, I am telling you, we are much better off now!
Keep Googling, dpark, 2032
They were useful once upon a time I think, but those days are long and gone in my opinion. And they are leeches. They are the prime example of making money off of people's data (which is at least one instance of their being parasitic). Maybe back in the day this was acceptable because their search and Gmail benefitted users, but I don't see that anymore. For Gmail, I currently use Gmail because it just happened to be the best e-mail 18 years ago, and it's hard to switch. There's very little about it today that makes it the best.
Over the past six years, they've made $755 billion and not a cent paid to people for the use and sell of their data. And all because they provide services like ads above searches and link to shopping websites and Wikipedia, meanwhile selling people's data to whoever? Honestly, it's so hard to use Google as an actual search engine it feels like Google is more like a directory these days. Like, when I have to input a search as:
Over the past six years, they've made $755 billion and not a cent paid to people for the use and sell of their data. And all because they provide services like ads above searches and link to shopping websites and Wikipedia, meanwhile selling people's data to whoever? Honestly, it's so hard to use Google as an actual search engine it feels like Google is more like a directory these days. Like, when I have to input a search as:
"yes" "i" "really" "want" "to" "search" "these" "terms"
> For Gmail, I currently use Gmail because it just happened to be the best e-mail 18 years ago, and it's hard to switch. There's very little about it today that makes it the best.
This really undercuts your message. Google is a leech on society and their products aren’t even good, but you keep using Gmail because it’s kind of a hassle to switch.
You could switch to a different email provider and use DuckDuckGo for search. But you don’t. So your principled stance against Google doesn’t even extend to them most obvious examples of not giving them your business.
But sure, it’s very believable that the days of their products being good are “long and gone”.
This really undercuts your message. Google is a leech on society and their products aren’t even good, but you keep using Gmail because it’s kind of a hassle to switch.
You could switch to a different email provider and use DuckDuckGo for search. But you don’t. So your principled stance against Google doesn’t even extend to them most obvious examples of not giving them your business.
But sure, it’s very believable that the days of their products being good are “long and gone”.
Google has turned just 24 years old and is allready a monster since more than a decade. Historical Google was just us being blazed by the promises of the future.
They single handedly lead the assault on our online privacy. Not that no others were trying, but they succeeded.
They single handedly lead the assault on our online privacy. Not that no others were trying, but they succeeded.
> I remember the days before Google, when web search was utter garbage
I remember altavista giving me interesting results from actual personal websites and I could tweak it by being more precise. On google today the top results are pretty much always garbage SEO optimized aggregate nonsense.
I remember altavista giving me interesting results from actual personal websites and I could tweak it by being more precise. On google today the top results are pretty much always garbage SEO optimized aggregate nonsense.
I remember looking for stuff on page 20 of Altavista results.
Although lately Google does seem to be losing the battle with the scammers/spammers, at least for certain classes of queries. The number of garbage results I have to wade through if the answer isn’t in Wikipedia seems to be growing.
Although lately Google does seem to be losing the battle with the scammers/spammers, at least for certain classes of queries. The number of garbage results I have to wade through if the answer isn’t in Wikipedia seems to be growing.
I mean that was back when 'don't be evil' was credibly the company philosophy. Going public didn't help.
I'm beginning to use "going public" as my indicator to stop using a product. My decade-old reddit account was recently deleted for this reason, as they were showing all the signs before they announced their intention to go public.
I'm really hoping DigitalOcean and Gitlab prove my theory wrong. You would think that private companies would be more prone to unethical practices.
I'm really hoping DigitalOcean and Gitlab prove my theory wrong. You would think that private companies would be more prone to unethical practices.
You might be able to use it as an indicator when to stop working there too. Which sucks because public companies tend to pay nearly twice as much.
I've had a mixed bag of results on this one, but as someone who works in data, the sudden crunch to bring a company's architecture into SOX compliance can certainly be stressful enough to warrant leaving.
Right. They need to show growth every year in search advertising. One way to grow is to put more ads in more places. Of course, even before going public, they still had to grow (so that they could go public), but they had natural growth then.
Does anyone else fondly remember the early 2010s. When companies at least pretended to "Make the world a better place". Now it seems they're just racing to see who can be worth the next N trillion dollar company.
The Silicon Valley TV show quite vividly portrayed that era of tech, especially in the earlier seasons.
While I'm glad to see the comments pointing out that, no, the tweet's linked screenshot did NOT say anything about displaying ads "above search results", I do think this highlights the need for better regulation around having more visual distinction between ads and organic results. And this doesn't just go for Google, should also go for things like Amazon and Instagram influencer paid posts.
From a response tweet:
> To be fair, the approach taken by Google (and most search engines) abides by the rules as set down by folks like the Advertising Standards Authority which let "Ad" work as a get out of jail free card regardless of context or visuals.
At the very least I think there should be a requirement of a different color background, along what Google used to have in their "Sponsored Links" section at the top of results.
From a response tweet:
> To be fair, the approach taken by Google (and most search engines) abides by the rules as set down by folks like the Advertising Standards Authority which let "Ad" work as a get out of jail free card regardless of context or visuals.
At the very least I think there should be a requirement of a different color background, along what Google used to have in their "Sponsored Links" section at the top of results.
Am I the only person who remembers Google criticizing their competitors for mixing search results and ads in the same list at all?
This was back when Google still placed text only ads off to the side of the results page in a blue box to make them even more distinctly separated from the search results.
This was back when Google still placed text only ads off to the side of the results page in a blue box to make them even more distinctly separated from the search results.
At the time, Google's competitor Yahoo!/Overture were 100% pay-for-placement. There was no such thing as organic results.
The company I remember them criticizing was Alta Vista, which did include organic search results intermixed with ads at the time.
>Google may be big with the cyber-cognescenti, but AltaVista is still reaching a lot more users. While AltaVista reaches 17.7% of Web users, Google gets just 7%, according to the latest Media Metrix numbers.
https://www.forbes.com/2000/10/20/1020alta.html?sh=68521b3e7...
They weren't bought by Overture until 2003.
>Google may be big with the cyber-cognescenti, but AltaVista is still reaching a lot more users. While AltaVista reaches 17.7% of Web users, Google gets just 7%, according to the latest Media Metrix numbers.
https://www.forbes.com/2000/10/20/1020alta.html?sh=68521b3e7...
They weren't bought by Overture until 2003.
I would say, this is misleading, as often do Google Ads campaigns, and I follow Google, well, from first day of Google Ads advertising, the position of Google was always the sam regarding ads - there is no way you can buy a position in the search results.
Yeah, there are SEO tactics, but they don't grant you fixed position. And Google Ad, well Search Ad is always different (from day one) than the organic search result.
And even so, Google Ad can't be misleading, because it directly affects the search result for the user, so you have some parameters like Quality score of the ad and the keyword, and yeah, if you try to mislead, they will disapprove your ad.
Yeah, there are SEO tactics, but they don't grant you fixed position. And Google Ad, well Search Ad is always different (from day one) than the organic search result.
And even so, Google Ad can't be misleading, because it directly affects the search result for the user, so you have some parameters like Quality score of the ad and the keyword, and yeah, if you try to mislead, they will disapprove your ad.
Now I am seeing some Google search results that are nothing but ads on the first page. I recently switched to DuckDuckGo and so far I have been entirely happy with it. I recommend everyone give it a try.
"What are you looking at? Never seen a hypocrite before?"
I can't imagine navigating the web without an ad-blocker.
This is fake, or the person is very not aware of how Google search was intended to work in the first place. The whole USP of Google search was to index ads in the same way as other content and display it in the search results. It has always been more about target practice where the “ads” are placed.
A few weeks ago I was looking for Free Software (as in freedom) so I searched for GPL <category> and the top 4 results were ads for commercial software in the category. I was going to provide a link here to such result with a hahahaha but Google isn't behaving that way now...
It's frustrating that there's no date associated with this, at least without digging. Time is very important in evaluating something like this and the tweet doesn't bother to state it.
Actual ordering by Google:
- Ads results
- Sites that display Google Ads
- Google's original algorithmic results
- Ads results
- Sites that display Google Ads
- Google's original algorithmic results
It was a different time. Google's motto was also, "don't be evil" which they retracted years later. It's a different era now.
This headline is misleading, the image in this tweet says you can't buy better search placement. Ads shown at Google are labelled as ads, the person is not buying a better search result placement. I do say this ignoring the fact that Google's labelling of ads has been getting more and more subtle over time but that is a separate unrelated issue.
This seems to be another attempt of generating hype around "google bad"
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
-Sinclair
title (and Twitter post) highly editorialized. Google said nothing about layout of ads on page, but about being "clearly marked" and "set apart" from search results. It's subjective what is "clear" but I don't see why the only way for something to be clear is delta X.
to be fair nothing in this post is really weird except
"Every ad on Google is clearly marked and set apart"
I opened Chromium based browser without AdBlock and they actually put "Ad" next to those first result(s).
It is marked as an Ad, but the thing is whether it is "clearly". I'd say not really.
"Every ad on Google is clearly marked and set apart"
I opened Chromium based browser without AdBlock and they actually put "Ad" next to those first result(s).
It is marked as an Ad, but the thing is whether it is "clearly". I'd say not really.
DuckDuckGo has a nice browser fir android that uses their search engine as default one.
Yes, and EA was once ideologically opposed to copy protection; today they are the DRM kings.
Welcome to capitalism. The pursuit of profit ruins everything.
Welcome to capitalism. The pursuit of profit ruins everything.
-"We believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm. "
- "We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers."
- "A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine. In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines."
To be clear: the "we" in these quotes are the founders of Google.
[1] https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...
As an aside, I've been reading a bunch of academic papers about early web crawlers and search engines. It's a fun and interesting subject. Mercator [2] (which became Alta Vista) is another early search engine and one of the few that discusses its architecture in detail.
[2] https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/SRC-RR-173.pdf