Even If Google Could Improve Its Recommendations, Is It The Government's Job To Tell It To Do So?
from the seems-troubling dept
There were reports a few weeks ago that the European Commission has reopened its antitrust investigation into Google. The main issue is how Google promotes certain (usually internal) results in so-called "answer boxes" in a way that may hurt other sites. We've been skeptical of the idea of European bureaucrats deciding what Google's search results should look like, but earlier this year, it appeared that a settlement had been reached in which Google would point to competitors' results in some cases.Against this backdrop, a few organizations, led by Yelp and TripAdvisor have created a somewhat fascinating site and tool called Focus On The User -- a play on Google's own core philosophy of "focus on the user and all else will follow." The site makes a very compelling argument that when Google is returning opinions (i.e., ratings) rather than factual answers, that it could do a much better job than just pointing to results from Google+. That is, if you do a search on "best restaurants in San Francisco" Google will show you results as rated by Google+ user reviews.
The Focus on the User site shows that rather than just relying on Google's own data, users would benefit greatly if Google used its own search algorithm to pull in results from reviews elsewhere. In short, where you might see a box up top with seven to ten reviews (all linking to Google pages), Yelp and TripAdvisor are arguing that if you just used Google's "organic" search algorithm to find the most relevant review pages, consumers get a much better experience. And they have a fair amount of data to back that up, showing a greater number of clicks in such a box (which you can test yourself via the site).
As noted above, the results are compelling. Using Google's own algorithm to rank all possible reviews seems like a pretty smart way of doing things, and likely to give better results than just using Google's (much more limited) database of reviews. But here's the thing: while I completely agree that this is how Google should offer up reviews in response to "opinion" type questions, I still am troubled by the idea that this should be dictated by government bureaucrats. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised this isn't the way Google operates, and it's a bit disappointing that the company doesn't just jump on this as a solution voluntarily, rather than dragging it out and having the bureaucrats force it upon them.
So while the site is fascinating, and the case is compelling, it still has this problem of getting into a very touchy territory where we're expecting government's to design the results of search engines. It seems like Yelp, TripAdvisor and others can make the case to Google and the public directly that this is a better way to do things, rather than having the government try to order Google to use it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, eu, government, recommendations, regulators, search
Companies: google, tripadvisor, yelp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As would be the companies pushing this, is they were forced to serve results from competitors.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heh. I'm glad I'm not the only one!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still, a lot of backlash can make them backdown. A Govt mandated implementation however...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonetheless, Google's efforts to push everyone into G+ was so nasty that I'll probably never forgive them for it (much like I'll never forgive Microsoft for forcing that Metro nonsense onto desktop users).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
... let me guess, like Yelp?
Hahahaha - If I wanted to see bought and paid for "reviews" from Yelp, I would go to their pathetic website.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s so quaint
Like their “Don’t be evil” slogan, that’s like so start up man.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That’s so quaint
Yeah, they gave up that idea a long time ago.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Every time a government meddles with it, whether for good or for bad, it puts limits on that potential.
Every time they stick their nose into the internet, they're saying "We want this to be a little less good."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And the NY Times site should serve up stories from the Post?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the NY Times site should serve up stories from the Post?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Half the companies don't want Google to steer traffic their way, and half of them do.
Step 1 - Government forces Google to send traffic to them.
Step 2 - Government forces Google to pay for the 'privilege' of sending the traffic.
Step 3 - Profit!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure the constituents object.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's always google's fault
On a google related note:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/celebrity/lawyer-to-the-stars-goes-after-google-in-holly wood-hacking-scandal/ar-BB6ZNio
So, google is the internet now? When will hollywood start to understand technology?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google is a full monopoly built with NSA technology and money and it will be broken up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'Other alternatives are crap' does not a monopoly make. 'No other alternatives exist' is what defines a monopoly, something which is clearly not true with regards to Google's 'search monopoly'.
Personally I don't even use Google anymore, because they've folded so many times and allowed outside sources to dictate what they may, and may not show in their results. Once they started taking orders from 'entertainment' industries, governments, and various other groups as to what they were allowed to return as search results, they became useless as a search engine, as they're returning results based not upon the best match-up, but upon what a third party wants you to see.
I won't even bother to humor the second half, other than a simple [CITATION NEEDED].
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being a little literal, aren't you? Microsoft had competitors but was still a monopoly: "Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others." Windows was not literally the only x86-based PC operating system but it was still a monopoly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly
There's also the minor difference that without an OS a computer doesn't work, but without a particular search engine(because again, there are many non-Google alternatives) you can still get by just fine.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: duckduckgo
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What "government-aided monopoly" are you talking about?
Citation please.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea what you're talking about. The competitors do actually compete with google, or they wouldn't exist. It doesn't matter how popular they are for the sake of this discussion. The only thing that counts is that they exist and function, and they do. People who have a problem with Google can easily stop using Google for searches. There are plenty of alternatives, which means that Google doesn't have a monopoly.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that Google does have an effective monopoly, I still say "so what". Google is not abusing any such monopoly position, and in the US, being a monopoly is just fine a long as you aren't abusing your monopoly status.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They're clearly using their search dominance to push their social network as revealed by this very article."
Simply using your platform to push your other products is not abusing a monopoly position. If they were to game the search engine so that competing products never appeared in results of searches for social networks, that would be abusing the monopoly position.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can type Bing** into Google and then type whatever you are searching for into bings** search box.
**substitute whichever search engine floats your boat
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I remember when people said that about AOL, Yahoo and MySpace too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Courtrooms have little to do with the real world, especially when the basis of the action is they are more successful business than us, so make them stop, or at least send customers our way.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawsuits?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply