The title doesn’t match the content of the email. The email isn’t “begging for worse search results” rather they’re begging for more searches in the context of recent (at the time) Google Chrome changes that had reduced search volume.
In context it's pretty obvious this is talking about omnibox suggestion rankings (which is also what changed and had the claimed "unwanted" impact), not search rankings.
Because I read more than random out of context tweets as my source of information.
> Is there another email that mentions Omnibox?
Yes. It's linked in multiple places in this very HN thread. Page 4 in the original justice.gov PDF specifically mentions the experiment that was done as a result of that originally quoted "complaint" email, and says "start experiments to improve search ranking in the omnibox".
Ok, and went and read some more and now I feel like the submission title was right all along. Jerry is asking for users to be given worse search results when they type into the omnibox - ie. give them a link to Google web search even if you found what they want locally. It’s only the assumption that “search results” means “web search results” that leads to any confusion. So the title could be improved by adding the word “omnibox” in there.
Is this unethical though? Maybe it’s just not clear to me. I feel like we collectively view it negatively, but that’s also built on the premise that we search users consume a free utility that Google provides to us and is now some ethical requirement for them to maintain. They have no ethical obligation to do that.
It’s also pretty common for public companies to try to shift volume to higher revenue or margin products when they’re pacing short of consensus.
That said, you can always override a bonus plan and pay even when they fall short of their sales plan. It seemed like that was the entire catalyst of this conversation, wanting the ads team to hit their bonus.
If y’all think this is unethical, you should hear the conversations I was privy to about how hospitals execs were considering halting patient admissions during the pandemic because nursing labor got expensive and breaking even was deemed unacceptable. The government upped reimbursements and same hospital execs made massive windfall bonuses
User value and company revenue, in general, form a [pareto frontier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_front). The company can pick an "angle" (trade off some user value for more profits and vice-versa) but both extremes are bad in the long term. They need to strike a balance.
A company that continuously invests their efforts on maximum revenue subtraction eventually pushes their users out. Similarly, a company that invests too much into research and present user satisfaction, particularly when users don't pay for the product, is set to have some financial and economical problems in the future.
I think this is borderline ethical. For sure it's over 9000 in the Maquiavellian scale (I mean the gymnastics behind "please don't say that this is us pushing for worse results, that's a very negative message" are genius and I can see that working really well under certain circumstances in a corporate setup), but that doesn't mean that it's unethical _necessarily_.
> So is it to have your strategy guided by general accepted ethics
This is the generally accepted interpretation of the words. In other words, if you are unsure if something you're doing is ethical or not consider how others would react if they heard about you doing it. It's basically saying to consider group ethics and not just your own.
When I worked at a large well-known internet company, one of the teams rolled back a feature because it made the site easier to use, which resulted in less accidental ad clicks. And it was common to stuff more ads on pages if revenue was looking short for the quarter. This is going back almost 20 years ago now.
Also, this sounds like an email from a sales person, although I don't know whether it is or not. Some of the sale people that I've known were more than willing to cross into the greyest of grey areas to make their quota, regardless of the legality. I'm curious what the response to this email was.
What is the rollback they are talking about? Is it in terms of something new in google chrome?
From what I can tell, they are looking for certain amount of ads 'injection' to come from chrome. What does that really mean? Does chrome really control the ads injected into the search results from google? I had assumed that was directly from google. Or maybe something happened in the recent chrome update that reduced the number of direct queries heading to google?
Also what's with the suggestion to increase the search box vertical space to increase in a search tab to make search prominent? That sounds pretty interesting to me.
The context is missing because the link is to somebody posting a screenshot of one page of a pdf of a scan of a printed email thread on Twitter. The full email thread was discussed extensively yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675467
Just to add another perspective, isn't sales like this at any large company? Sales is pushed hard on quotas/targets and so look for any way possible to hit those. In other words were these requests taken seriously by the product managers and leadership?
@pdrmnvd quote tweets his own 2023 tweet about Google "filtering b2b emails", saying he "nailed it", with a screenshot of an email about increasing search volume in 2019 ...
Can someone please show me where in the email "worse search results" are referenced? I read it 3 times and still unable to get where they were mentioned!
The email ends with "Just to be clear, the reason I haven't pushed back on a recall is that I don't want the message to be" and doesn't have the "Redacted" stamp. Bizarre.
The Chrome team does seem to be screwing with things to increase the number of searches needed by a user to find what they want though, thereby increasing the number of ads shown and potentially clicked upon.
If you are going to be that brazen about it, perhaps having a quick meeting instead of just laying everything out in an email like that is the better approach.
Best approach would be to not do it at all but I guess that's too much to ask.
Exactly. Google even coaches their employees against leaving a paper trail like this. That’s why the email is pretty remarkable: if this one leaked imagine how brazen the behind-closed-doors stuff is.
Sorry but there is something really appalling about what you are saying. You are basically saying "if you're going to do something you think is illegal, make sure not to leave a paper trail so it can be proved in court." You're basically advising people not to get caught rather than to not do the bad thing. What is wrong with your world view that leads you to jump to that sentiment?
Did you miss the "Best approach would be not to do it at all"?
The first sentence is basically only a variation of "don't write it in an email if you wouldn't want to read it in the news".
If the article was about a body being discovered in a murderers backyard and I had written "ideally don't bury bodies in your backyard" you would have questioned how sick and twisted I am that I didn't write "don't kill people"? The prior is inherent to the statement.
It's more like if you'd written "if you're going to be that brazen about killing someone, at least go to the effort of hiding the body, but ideally don't kill someone at all." It would be a bit questionable to have even said something like "at least try hiding the body "
"The truth is that Google and Facebook and the other large marketing data companies probably have some very sophisticated models of purchase intent. These companies likely know exactly when someone is making the choice, and could show people the relevant ad at the precise moment when they are most susceptible to it. But, the entire business model of these companies is to increase spend on their products. Why would they tell anyone something that would reduce ad spend?"
Edit: here it is – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37675467. Thanks to the user who emailed!