

Editorial: The Google Algorithm - jsm386
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15thu3.html

======
MichaelGG
> it was easy to appear agnostic about search results

As Techdirt often says, this is a stupid argument. Search results, by
definition are biased. You're asking Google's opinion on what is most relevant
and useful. The whole purpose of search is to get biased results, otherwise
you'd end up with "60 million pages containing your query 'liver'. Displaying
1 of 10, sorted number of times 'liver' is mentioned."

~~~
dieterrams
Nope. You're assuming that just because the search results are biased in one
(useful) way, that they cannot be biased in any other way.

There's a big difference between ranking all possible results with a PageRank-
style algorithm, and dedicating space at the top for results that come
exclusively from you.

------
aspiringsensei
> Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at
> those tweaks.

This is probably a good move. Why don't we give government regulators
oversight of google, because as we've seen with the SEC and the Minerals
Management Service, government regulation usually prevents fraudulent or
dangerous business action.

The government has done good things - i'm lookin' at you, seatbelts and civil
rights - but those were typically grass-roots movements and not blue-ribbon
commissions.

I would way rather have google blindly manipulate their own search data for
personal profit than have to deal with the likely outcome of governmental
meddling in said data.

------
dminor
The NY Times editorial section is getting fairly popular; the case is building
for some sort of oversight.

------
anamax
Remind me - does the NYT have the sort of oversight that it thinks that Google
should have?

------
credo
The NYT editorial doesn't reference this, but recently the French government
declared that Google was a monopoly and went on to prohibit Google from
banning a French company based on Google's sense of what was moral and what
was immoral.

See <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/02norris.html>

_Having determined Google has a monopoly, the agency ordered the company to
resume offering its services to a French company called Navx, which sells a
database to let drivers know where the French police are likely to have radar
traps in operation.

Google found Navx’s business distasteful - it is arguable that Navx’s
customers use the product to help them act illegally with impunity - so last
November, Google stopped doing business with Navx. As a result, those using
search terms like "radar trap" in French could no longer learn of the
company’s product and, a few clicks later, buy it.

Navx complained to the French government, saying its sales had plunged and
that as a result it was facing problems raising capital. On Wednesday, the
authority ordered Google to resume selling ads to Navx and to produce clear
policies on when advertisers would be turned down.

"Discriminatory practices may harm competition," the authority said, "when
customers of a company holding a dominant position find themselves
disadvantaged in the competition on their own market." _

~~~
orblivion
Wait, so the French government ruled against Google, in favor of a company
whose mission is to help evade the government. This is too rich.

~~~
wmf
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it." — attributed to Voltaire (a Frenchman, natch)

Or more prosaically, the French decided that advertising neutrality is more
important than cracking down on speeding.

~~~
Semiapies
Voltaire didn't say, "I will defend to the death your right to force other
people to say it for you."

------
Aaronontheweb
Yeah, let's let the Government decide what the number one result for
"unofficial lady gaga fan page" should be - that's got to be in the commerce
clause somewhere.

------
VengefulCynic
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there's not a much
more extraordinary claim than that of government oversight with minimal
impact.

The editorial proposes to involve some government oversight commission or
editorial board, even while acknowledging that government involvement could
very well be a noose around Google's neck as a company whose primary value is
derived from responsiveness.

------
tomjen3
Why shouldn't Google favor its own? I would certainly rather that my customers
used my other services, than they used my competitors.

~~~
barranger
Just like Microsoft preferred that it's customers used internet explorer over
Netscape's offering

~~~
Kadrith
Not even close to a valid comparison. When has Google gone to the lengths that
Microsoft did to tie services/applications together? What indication have they
shown that, even given the opportunity, they would sabotage another vendor for
market share?

------
zandorg
My only criticism of this article is the vagueness about Orbitz NOT being part
of ITA:

"purchase of the flight information software firm ITA, with which it plans to
enter the online travel search market occupied by Expedia, Orbitz, Bing and
others."

~~~
Psyonic
Orbitz isn't part of ITA. They use ITA, as does Bing and several others, but
they aren't part of them. They could potentially switch to SABRE or something
else, if Google actually went so far as to pull the rug out from under them.

~~~
alec
In fact, Google has stated they intend to maintain ITA's relationships with
companies such as Orbitz and Bing: "Google will honor all existing agreements,
and we're also enthusiastic about adding new partners."
(<http://www.google.com/press/ita/comp.html>)

~~~
Psyonic
Ya, I read that as well. But even if they changed their mind (which is
extremely unlikely. Google always seems willing to compete), it wouldn't be
the end of all those sites, though it would be a major setback.

------
jscore
Google's services are so popular, well made, and relevant anyway that I'd
actually prefer to see them in the top of search results.

------
terra_t
Nice to see the NYT catch up with what the rest of us were concerned about 5
years ago.

~~~
dasil003
By "the rest of us" are you referring to Macintosh users?

------
yanw
Not a particularity strong argument there, YouTube has loads upon loads of
videos so statistically you will encounter them in search results, as for maps
Google can't really guarantee the reliability or accuracy of mapping services
they don't operate.

