×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Punishing Chrome Results For 60 Days

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the sounds-about-right dept.

Google 173

djl4570 writes "'Google is pushing its own Chrome browser down in search rankings for 60 days following reports that the company was involved in an ad campaign that paid for links to bolster search traffic. ... According to Sullivan, it appears that Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.' I see this as an astute move on Google's part. Rather than circle the wagons they say 'oops' and correct the problem. Google understands that such link pimping is a cancer that undermines the integrity of their search engine. That's why it isn't allowed and now Google is saying we don't support a double standard either."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

173 comments

First post! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585518)

Google has moral consistency.

Chrome sucks anyways... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585520)

with crappy XHR support, and no blob support I don't really want to develop for them anymore....

Re:Chrome sucks anyways... (2)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585650)

For me, it was the fact that the only Chrome plugin that enables Vim-like keybindings sucked, so I went back to Firefox with Pentadactyl.

Re:Chrome sucks anyways... (2)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586368)

Chrome intentionally doesn't allow the blocking of ad resources before they are downloaded, which cripples AdBlock Plus. This is likely so Google can still report "ad views" to its advertisers. Combined with the bundling of the closed Flash plugin after all the talk about openness when they removed H.264 support, I lost interest in Chrome.

Re:Chrome sucks anyways... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586450)

That's OK, Chrome now has a memory footprint just like Firefox's, and if you google around you can find lots of examples of people complaining that it is now just as [un?]responsive as Firefox. I haven't confirmed this personally but people I "talk" to most days on G+ and FB have done so. So there is really no reason to give a crap about Chrome any more...

Wha? (5, Funny)

pinkj (521155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585526)

Feeling...positive...feelings...towards...billion dollar...corporation...must search for...negative...feelings...for another...corporation...!

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585794)

Best. First. Post. Ever!

(for values of Ever! where Ever! is less than 21 minutes)

Re:Wha? (0, Troll)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585938)

Oh please, they were caught and had to have some PR route out of it. This has been going on for months. It only became news now that big sites picked it up.

Re:Wha? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586088)

Oh please, they were caught and had to have some PR route out of it. This has been going on for months. It only became news now that big sites picked it up.

So?

Re:Wha? (5, Insightful)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586148)

So evil is only evil when you're caught, I presume. On top of that they didn't even accept responsibility. They blamed someone else.

Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.

Just the same way like JC Penney and others did, but back then [slashdot.org] people were outraged by the seo spam. But now that it's Google it's somehow holier than thou and Google is supposedly acting unlike any other company... by acting the same way those other companies acted!

Re:Wha? (1)

Joikas (2545684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586488)

+1 this is so spot on. It amazes me that you guys let Google get away with this but when others do the same it's suddenly bad.

Re:Wha? (4, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586198)

Why would you have positive feelings over this? Google was caught doing the same SEO tactics they punished JC Penney for [cnn.com]. JC Penney even gave the exact same excuse, which was that they had no idea their external SEO company was doing such evil things. But this is worse, because Google is supposed to be the moral authority about this stuff since they are in a monopoly position when it comes to web search.

They had to do this after the huge amount of negative press yesterday, and they only did it after that press. But even worse, it doesn't even matter because the search term still returns Chrome as the top result via the sponsored links. How convenient for Google that it can pay itself and get the top result regardless of the neutral algorithmic results beneath, and therefore, regardless of whatever punishment it doles out to itself to make Google fans feel better about being Google fans.

No, this is nothing to feel positive about at all. If Google does the same things it punishes others for, it's no better.

Re:Wha? (1, Troll)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586370)

+1 Insightful comment and seems like Google fanboys are raging with modpoints again, down-modding anything critical of Google. Way to stay classy Slashdot.

Good for Google (4, Interesting)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585532)

The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.

I am happy to see the fair business practice here. I do not always like what you're up to Google, but sometimes, like with mostly pulling out of China, and now this, I like what I see.

Re:Good for Google (5, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585578)

The article that I had read yesterday suggested that they were going to wash their hands of it and blame the bloggers.

Sorry, but with a name like "Unruly Media," wasn't someone keeping an eye on them?

Re:Good for Google (2)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586126)

> Sorry, but with a name like "Unruly Media," wasn't someone keeping an eye on them?

Because they're an advertising company. You have to automatically assume they're lying about everything. If they'd been called "Proper Media" there'd be a Google spy-mobile permanently parked outside the office.

Re:Good for Google (1, Interesting)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585994)

Happy? I don't think we should be praising Google for doing what they should be doing.

Re:Good for Google (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586100)

Happy?

I don't think we should be praising Google for doing what they should be doing.

Given how many companies do it, I'd say they're out of the pack. Shouldn't we praise companies that are out of the pack, and on the positive side of it?

Re:Good for Google (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586140)

Of course we should, but some people are myopic morons that have an irrational hatred of organization.

Re:Good for Google (-1, Troll)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586264)

How is Google on the positive side of it just because so many companies do the wrong thing? They are the curators of the web, for god's sake. They dole out punishments to other companies over things like this. As a position of authority, they should be above it. There's really no excuse.

Re:Good for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586314)

Shut up, stupid^H^H^H^H Bonch.

Re:Good for Google (4, Interesting)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586472)

They did something wrong - intentionally or not. It leaked. They fixed it immediately and "punished" themselves to try to compensate. That's already more than what 90% of the megacorps out there are able to do.

So that's why I say they are on the positive side of the pack. The pack being where 80% of the companies are. The 10% best are on the positive side, the 10% worse are on the dark side.

Re:Good for Google (2)

Joikas (2545684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586568)

They didn't "punish" themselves in any way. Whole google.com should be removed from search results since they were gaming it. They didn't even punish it for search terms like browser. It's still on top thanks to ad spots!

Re:Good for Google (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586400)

We should thank companies for doing what they should be doing, but we should only praise companies when they go above and beyond what we should consider a minimum performance.

Re:Good for Google (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586218)

This is Slashdot. It will seek any reason to feel good about supporting Google. Outside of this place, people have been ripping the company to shreds over this.

Re:Good for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586352)

Hey Bonch, up to the same old Google hate again? Fucking loser.

Re:Good for Google (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586018)

Unfortunately, this punishment--which isn't a punishment at all since paid Chrome links still appear at the top of the page for the search term they're demoting it for--is not as severe as it was for other companies whose SEO tactics Google has taken issue with, including JC Penney, who gave the exact same excuse that Google is giving! JC Penney also claimed they had no idea what their outsourced SEO company was doing.

So while I expect a bunch of comments praising Google for being so awesome because it demoted a result for the term "browser", they only did it after a big round of negative news yesterday, from SearchEngineLand to the Washington Times, and Chrome still appears at the top of the results anyway (a sponsored result that Google pays itself for!).

Re:Good for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586406)

What's wrong Bonch? Your OverlyCriticalGuy pseudonym on a posting break? Just use an open proxy, jackass. But that would be giving you too much credit. Fucking boring fuck. Can't for fuck's sake somebody kick these trolls and astroturfers off of Slashdot permanently? IT IS AFFECTING YOUR REVENUE, GEEK.NET. SERIOUSLY.

Re:Good for Google (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586192)

And of course the article you read yesterday was 100% accurate and you fell for the deception that was supposed to make you think it wasn't.

Re:Good for Google (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586426)

"Fair business practice"?! They just got caught doing the same SEO tactics they've punished other companies for! They slapped themselves on the wrist only after a huge explosion of negative press across the web yesterday.

What Google did is the exact opposite of fairness. It would be like praising a cop for no longer beating his wife.

Marketing (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585536)

...and they're getting so much press in the news for doing so that the net result is much more promotion than Chrome would have seen otherwise. GENIUS!

Re:Marketing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585676)

Just hang on for a moment. What you're saying is that if Google does something bad they should take the blame but if they try to fix what they did wrong they don't get any credit?

Re:Marketing (3, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586032)

no, it's just funny that we are all so cynical and desensitized to large (or even medium) sized companies burying crap like this; then when called out, shifting the blame; that we praise the few companies that do the right thing because it is so rare.

Where I work, we had an incident. There was about a week of thrash internally about how to handle it. In the end we handled it the right way for the consumers (and by extension the right way for the shareholders in the long view, though certainly not in the short view). I am proud of my company, but can not post more of it here :(

Re:Marketing (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586128)

How about they shouldn't do it in the first place, since they've attacked other companies over the exact same SEO tactics? If a company acts like a moral authority, does the very thing it preaches against, and then slaps itself on the wrist only after being exposed, that's not something worth getting credit for. That's something that should remain a black mark, if only to keep them more honest. It's like the stereotypical religious believer who sins all weekend and then asks for forgiveness on Sunday, as if that suddenly negates everything prior.

It's not even a punishment, because Chrome still has a sponsored link at the top of the results for the term "browser," which Google pays itself to place there! Google deserves to be held to an even higher standard not only because of its moral position as web curator but also the inherent conflicts of interest that come with it. This is nothing to cheer Google over, and the consensus on the search engine blogs yesterday was that this is barely a punishment at all, all things considered. Contrast to the hugely negative publicity given to JC Penney in early 2011, who gave the exact same excuse Google is giving today--that they had no idea what their outsourced SEO company was doing.

Re:Marketing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586466)

You know, OverlyBonchCriticalBonchGuy, people are getting really sick of your astroturfing campaign. Really. At least try to mix in some facts with all the hate and lies.

How about they shouldn't do it in the first place

Shouldn't do what? Use sub-contracters? Are you really that stupid? Google did not do this. A company they contracted the work to contracted the work to yet another company that did. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF

Captcha: agitated. HAHAHA

Re:Marketing (5, Insightful)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585684)

Isn't it amazing that by actually doing THE RIGHT THING and accepting responsibility, they gain more press than if they had just said "The bloggers did it." and washed their hands of the situation.

Maybe they, and other companies, can actually learn from this? You know, a) try not to fuck up in the first place and b) when you do, take responsibility and FIX IT.

Uncommon outbreak of good sense, perhaps?

Re:Marketing (-1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585902)

Of course, the "RIGHT THING" costs them nothing, as the search term that Chrome is being punished for--"browser"--shows a paid-for Chrome link right at the top of the page, which cost them nothing since they pay themselves!

Re:Marketing (4, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585952)

Of course, the "RIGHT THING" costs them nothing, as the search term that Chrome is being punished for--"browser"--shows a paid-for Chrome link right at the top of the page, which cost them nothing since they pay themselves!

Really? It costs them nothing? Then they should buy out *all* the ad spaces! They'll make a fortune!

Re:Marketing (0)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586090)

But they *didn't accept responsibility*. They transferred the blame to elsewhere. It's even in the summary.

Google contracted its Web ads out to a firm called Essence Digital, which in turn asked a company called Unruly Media to implement the campaign.

Re:Marketing (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586220)

And? Unruly Media did this, not Google.
Google did not hire out to a company to have them pay bloggers for sponsorship. And the history of Google show they have always been against such a thing.

This is what happens when you contract out work that then gets contracted out. The original company has little or no control over the end results.

Even though This isn't what Google hire the company to do, and it is explicitly what they don't want anyone to do, they STILL take the hit and accept responsibility.

Did you read the article? What am I saying, of course you did. Only an Asshole would make a comment without reading the article.

Re:Marketing (1)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586306)

Google didn't do anything about this until it hit news yesterday. It has been going on for quite a while. Companies don't just give money to other companies. They expect reports of their services. Google has known this. They did nothing until it hit news yesterday and it made them look bad and hypocritical.

On top of that it's not like their Chrome marketing is so clean anyway. They still keep paying OEM's and shareware/freeware authors to bundle Chrome with their computers or software. Every time someone installs Chrome the authors or OEM's get paid per install. Just like with toolbars and other low adware shit.

Re:Marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586506)

Um, what is so bad about paying someone to get chrome bundled with the computers they sell? How does it differ from getting Internet explorer by default?

Re:Marketing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586000)

It deprives them of the bids other browser makers would pay for that spot. So it actually does penalize them.

Re:Marketing (1)

jduhls (1666325) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585754)

I always wondered if Verizon created/destroyed it's $2 "fee processing fee" for the same small reason: to create at least one positive feeling for a giant faceless person...oops...corporation.

Re:Marketing (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585786)

This is far from purely marketing. The quality of the search results is what make Google alive and a winner in the first place. Google has little other choice but doing so, even if it means a short-term dip for Chrome in their own search results.

And a little good PR after it doesn't hurt, anyway. I think Google deserves it.

Google still is different from other companies. (4, Interesting)

satuon (1822492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585576)

I wouldn't have expected this level of integrity from any other company. There's been a lot of opinions floating around that Google aren't 'good guys' any more than others, but cases like this show that they really are different.

Re:Google still is different from other companies. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585632)

Oh whatever. This isn't about integrity, this is about putting your hand in the cookie jar and getting caught... now, it's all about damage control, and they chose the smartest way of controlling said damage.

Yes, Google is different than most other companies out there. Not because they're good guys or have any sort of high moral compass ... but because they're *smart*.

Re:Google still is different from other companies. (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585776)

Weirdly, I think I'd take Smart Evil over the usual Dumb Evil we have to put up with, at least they probably won't cause as much collateral damage whilst blindly fumbling around trying to rule the world.

Re:Google still is different from other companies. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585810)

Did you even fucking read the story? Google hired a service to promote a video of theirs. That service went and had some bloggers promote the video. ONE of the bloggers didn't abide by the rules and therefore was violating a policy.

So not only was it just one accidental occurrence, but Google was two steps removed from it. Now they're manning up and accepting responsibility even though they by no means have to - they could very easily just say "oh, the marketing company fucked up".

Re:Google still is different from other companies. (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586142)

Integrity? They got caught and are trying to cover their asses. This is actually the opposite of integrity. Integrity would be not doing it in the first place.

Re:Google still is different from other companies. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586500)

Dude, Google didn't actually do anything. Read the article. Please.

Re:Google still is different from other companies. (0, Flamebait)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586310)

Level of integrity? Huh?! Google just got caught doing the exact same thing that JC Penney got totally reamed for [nytimes.com] early last year. JC Penney even gave the same excuse, that they didn't know what the SEO company they hired was doing. They're not different at all from the others.

The punishment isn't even a punishment, because Google pays itself to place a Chrome ad at the top of the search results regardless of what the search engine actually returns beneath it.

It almost sounds like you were already a supporter of Google, and you are using this as an excuse to shrug off negative criticism. Getting caught being hypocritical isn't something worth praise, nor is it proof that they're different--it's proof that they're the same!

in other news (-1, Troll)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585582)

another major multinational conglomerate finds its just easier to do it and say "oops, sorry" than to adhere to the standards they have no inherent business interest in adhering to in the first place.

Re:in other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585646)

How was this moderated up? It's incomprehensible. What is the antecedent of "it" in "just do it"? At first I thought it was "behave nicely" (i.e., "adhere to standards") but then the rest of the comment makes zero sense.

Re:in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585672)

What is the antecedent of "it" in "just do it"?

Cheat until caught.

Re:in other news (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585688)

another major multinational conglomerate

What's the name of this major multinational conglomerate?

Re:in other news (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585970)

Maybe.

But keep in mind that many corporations don't present a unified face to the public. Or maintain a consistent internal corporate culture. It may very well have been one rogue employee (or department) that got it in their head to bump up their own product's ranking. And someone else stepped in and corrected them. Stuff like this happens all the time. The speed with which they admit and correct their own errors is the sign of a healthy corporate culture (of course, the guilty party might have been transferred to their IE6 [slashdot.org] support group).

Try working for a company where the culture is broken, or co-opted by various internal factions. And management is powerless to fix the problems. That's when the cancer has set in. Pretty soon they aren't fighting for the company any more (ethically or not). Everybody is cutting side deals with vendors, taking their stock options, and otherwise trying to feather their own nest.

Bing demoting Firefox? (5, Interesting)

slthytove (771782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585592)

The article mentioned the results for Bing and Google, so I decided to do a little investigation. If you search for "browser" on Bing, the top 10 results are quite similar, with one notable absence - no Firefox or Mozilla pages appear. Does this seem fishy to anyone else?

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585674)

My #2 result on Google is Firefox, and the #1 is actually a news link so I'm not sure that even counts.

Bing gives me: 1. Wikipedia, 2. Opera, 3. Wikipedia again, 4. Safari, 5. CNet, 6. IE, 7. AOL, 8.Opera again, 9. Whatbrowser, 10. Online dictionary

So no Chrome, no Firefox, but also not a list I could really find a fault with (except for useless duplicates and general Bing uselessness). Firefox is mentioned in the #1 and #3 links.

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585706)

I gave this a try too, results as follows in order of first page

Bing: Generic, Opera, Generic, Safari, Generic, IE, Netscape, Opera, Generic, Generic
Google: Firefox, Generic, Opera, Safari, Generic, Generic, IE, Avant, Generic, Generic
Yahoo: Generic, Opera, Generic, Safari, Generic, IE, Netscape, Opera, Generic, Generic
Dogpile: Generic, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Generic, Generic, IE, Generic, MSN Explorer (IE?), Netscape

What surprised me:
1) Opera shows up so often, although this may be because of their huge mobile marketshare
2) IE doesn't show up more often. Maybe because it's on Windows PCs by default so less people search for it to download it?
3) Dogpile still exists. I don't think I've used it in the past decade until now.
4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
5) The only time Chrome showed up was on generic websites (IE: Wikipedia entries or CNet downloads) that included all of the major browsers

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585954)

4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.

Yeah, they have been the same search engine since something like mid-2010. Did you miss the news?

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585968)

3) Dogpile still exists. I don't think I've used it in the past decade until now.

And is the only one with Netscape in the top ten results ;-)

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586010)

oops strike that. My visual_grep function needs some bug-hunting again. XD

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586134)

No, it would still be correct, since Netscape is only on dogpile due to it being an aggregate search engine and including Bing results.

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586436)

1) Opera shows up so often, although this may be because of their huge mobile marketshare

The paranoid view would be that most users won't go for Opera, so if they should happen upon it they are more likely to reject alternative browsers and wind up an Aieee! user.

4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.

One would expect so [mashable.com].

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586554)

Think about why and how people link to browsers. The thing about MSIE is that everyone who is able to use it, already has it preloaded. You'd expect there to be few links to it. Opera is almost the opposite; almost nobody gets Opera without downloading it from a web page. Firefox is somewhere in between; some people get it by going to a page and downloading it, and some people have it preloaded with their distro or get it through a package manager.

Thus, Opera will have lots of links to it, because following a link is how you get Opera. Also, Opera users tend to be bubblingly happy with it, and advocate (and linking is a way to advocate). Firefox has some, and with MSIE you'd expect to have few.

If I were naively writing a search engine that associates URLs with linking or otherwise related keywords, I bet the first release of my search engine would rank Opera's page as highly relevant to that term, too, and MSIE's page less so.

Re:Bing demoting Firefox? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586362)

I see what you did there. Very clever, tricking me into visiting Bing.

Strange praise for Google (5, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585608)

Like cheering a guy on when he stops beating his wife.

Re:Strange praise for Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585782)

I think a better analogy would be cheering on a bank for publicly announcing and refunding all clients who were victims of fraud performed by an employee.

Re:Strange praise for Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585796)

Like cheering a guy on when he stops beating his wife.

Or praising /.ers for keeping their flawed analogies to themselves.

Re:Strange praise for Google (1)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585956)

Consciousness raising tends to become cheerleading behind a noble cause such as education in abolition of " double standards"

Re:Strange praise for Google (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586342)

Welp, this is Slashdot, which will seek any reason to 1.) absolve Google of guilt, and 2.) somehow differentiate Google from the "other companies." Here, Google can actually get caught doing what it punishes others for and get praised for it. Someone even used the phrase "level of integrity." That's the very last thing Google has earned from this!

It is still search result manipulation (1)

atchijov (527688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585634)

I am not sure if this is a good marketing/political move on Google part. They demonstrate to the whole world how easy it is for them to "alter" search results. So today they choose to alter it one way, but what prevents Google to do it other way tomorrow?

Re:It is still search result manipulation (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585716)

without doing rtfa, they probably hired some "SEO experts" for marketing.

think about how stupid that sounds? because the seo expoerts excell in manipulating search results. while g could have just manipulated them on their end to begin with and are now manipulating them down(doesn't matter, they'll still push it through their services as usual anyhow).

more than altering the results I despise altering what I typed to the search engine so i'll get shown double the ads. doesn't matter, can't link on the google ads anyways(haha, since apk advertised that 60k+lines host file solution to adverts, I've been using it. a quite nice internet accelerator). but I have noticed that often if you just copy paste to the links the adverts claim to take you.. you don't get to what the advert was claiming you'd end up at!

Re:It is still search result manipulation (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585946)

as a "SEO" expert (ie Matt Cuts knows my name) working for a big company no way would I our my colleagues ever suggest this - the risk is immense and if any one in our group of companies did this I would be lobbying the MD to have the marketing people involved fired.

Matt C should be at the next Google board meeting demanding someones head for this.

Re:It is still search result manipulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585748)

Competence and reliable does. If Google fixed results nobody would trust on them.

Re:It is still search result manipulation (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585878)

I believe this is a wise move for Google. The general user won't care this much anyway. Those who are likely to manipulate search results, esp. in the way not approved by Google, will look at this as a powerful warning and are discouraged.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38585666)

...... was convincing the world he didn't exist. ~ Charles Baudelaire, "The Generous Gambler" (Feb. 1864)

This is just good PR as this article is proof of concept!
People refuse to see the obvious and look from their boat over the water service, but they never look what is actually in the water! People often do not like the reality and truth cause it is too negative too live with! And that is ignoring the problem! Which again makes them part of it! ^^

When's it gonna happen? (1)

TheTrueScotsman (1191887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585708)

Sounds great. Looking at it raises a couple of questions though: 1) When are they going implement this? Googling 'Chrome' from machines in Switzerland, Miami and Chicago still gives the 'Download and install Google Chrome' link in the prime position. 2) Wouldn't any other company have been banned and have to resubmit?

Re:When's it gonna happen? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585756)

I don't think they planned on automatically shoving Chrome on page 3 of any search so much as lowering it's weight in their search method. If you Google "Chrome" you will still get the web browser because even with a lower weight, it still vastly outweighs most other results for "chrome". However, if you search for something like "web browser" then the effect is much more apparent.

Re:When's it gonna happen? (1)

TheTrueScotsman (1191887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586002)

Wow. So they went from top position to (er...) top position. They're really stamping their authority on this one.

My point is: shouldn't the whole site (google.com) be completely removed from the search indexes?

It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (4, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585760)

Google has 20,000 employees and their primary business is advertising -- 98% of their revenue, many billions of dollars every year, comes from advertising. So why would Google need to hire another company to advertise their Chrome browser? And why did *THAT* company need to hire *ANOTHER* company?

When you want to do something dodgy, while pretending to "do no evil", what better way than to hire someone else to do your dirty work for you. And when they get busted, you can just blame them and say "Hey, we didn't know anything about it".

Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585806)

Their revenue comes from displaying advertisements... I don't think that's the same as marketing or creating advertisements.

Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (2, Insightful)

daniel142005 (906427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586260)

Exactly. It's actually a well known fact that Google sucks at marketing their own stuff. A perfect example is their Nexus One phone.

The leader of marketing (and brainwashing) is (IMHO) Apple, because no matter what it is, they can spin it to get people to buy it. Apple could probably find a way to successfully market dog shit if they wanted to.

Re:It's Called 'Plausible Deniablitiy' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586578)

Nice one, trying to steer the discussion negatively toward Apple. If you think about it (or not), this is all probably Apple's fault anyway!

Brilliant.

Google Search results are seperate from the biz (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38585814)

Google has always maintained that their search results are totally unbiased and not influenced by ad sponsors, the companies other businesses, and anybody trying to spam the system. This seems like an internal dispute between the search team and the Chrome team...

Oh Crap (2)

Wovel (964431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38586076)

We got caught. Google assumed they were the only ones in a position to recognize their deception. They were wrong.

Re:Oh Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586570)

I know you didn't read the article. No, actually you probably did. But the knee-jerk *MUST HATE GOOGLE**RAGE***RAGE* just kicked in and you couldn't stop it. It is assholes like you that are hurting geek.net and slashdot.org. I might see what I can do about that:)

I seem to remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38586438)

"Do no evil is a load of crap."

-Steve Jobs

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...