On the other hand, questioning Google's ranking algorithm for its own services, whether they receive a boost or not, that's entirely legitimate.
And considering that Google is a nearly a monopoly in search, they should be more transparent in regards to the ranking they are doing: it's not like the index isn't overblown with crap already, making concerns over spammers pretty moot.
This confused me too. If I ran a website "ZoFreX's top 10 websites", and (for some reason) 80% of the internet populace used it, would I no longer be able to decide the order of the sites (or which sites appeared) myself? I don't understand why so many companies think Google is obligated to not manipulate the search results.
If ZoFreX's top 10 website list became a monopoly, you would have to abide by the rules for the monopolies. One of which is that you can't abuse your position to increase your market share in other industries.
For example, it would be against the rules to utilise ZoFreX's top 10 website list to display ZoFreX's skin cream website at the top of the list.
The key in this case is whether your other site that you are promoting is considered a different industry or market, and whether your monopoly in the top 10 lists market has unfairly influenced your position in another market.
There is probably a grey area if the list rankings were generated automatically in some way, but it could still be argued that knowledge of unpublished details of the list algorithms have given you a advantage, and unless you published full algorithm details you would probably be subject to accusations of fixing the list anyway. The rules are there to ensure that the markets remain competitive for others to do business in.
This is a very good explanation of what a monopoly is and why they need to abide to different rules. I think Google, like Microsoft before it, is getting pretty close to this situation, and we as a society need to look at them in this new light. In particular, we need to impose restrictions on what Google can legitimately do with all its power.
Google claim that their algorithms provide a 'fair' ranking system.
People use Google with an assumption that it's providing a realistic and balanced picture of the web. There's a degree of trust involved.
If Google chooses to manipulate results to provide commercial advantage to itself, then it's not meeting the assumptions of its users and can be accused of acting dishonestly.
ZoFreX's top 10 websites is at most going to affect the prosperity of 10 companies; Google is able to influence the success or failure of millions. When an organisation holds that much power, it has to act responsibly for the good of society. Government should help create conditions to ensure that companies have to act responsibly (so society can function well).
Comments
I do think that Google search by definition "manipulates search results". A tautology? If it didn't, then there wouldn't be results.
Curious that legal threats and regulatory challenges came up in an interview discussion...
Well, if you take it out of context, sure.
On the other hand, questioning Google's ranking algorithm for its own services, whether they receive a boost or not, that's entirely legitimate.
And considering that Google is a nearly a monopoly in search, they should be more transparent in regards to the ranking they are doing: it's not like the index isn't overblown with crap already, making concerns over spammers pretty moot.
This confused me too. If I ran a website "ZoFreX's top 10 websites", and (for some reason) 80% of the internet populace used it, would I no longer be able to decide the order of the sites (or which sites appeared) myself? I don't understand why so many companies think Google is obligated to not manipulate the search results.
If ZoFreX's top 10 website list became a monopoly, you would have to abide by the rules for the monopolies. One of which is that you can't abuse your position to increase your market share in other industries.
For example, it would be against the rules to utilise ZoFreX's top 10 website list to display ZoFreX's skin cream website at the top of the list.
The key in this case is whether your other site that you are promoting is considered a different industry or market, and whether your monopoly in the top 10 lists market has unfairly influenced your position in another market.
There is probably a grey area if the list rankings were generated automatically in some way, but it could still be argued that knowledge of unpublished details of the list algorithms have given you a advantage, and unless you published full algorithm details you would probably be subject to accusations of fixing the list anyway. The rules are there to ensure that the markets remain competitive for others to do business in.
This is a very good explanation of what a monopoly is and why they need to abide to different rules. I think Google, like Microsoft before it, is getting pretty close to this situation, and we as a society need to look at them in this new light. In particular, we need to impose restrictions on what Google can legitimately do with all its power.
Thank you for this, very helpful explanation.
Google claim that their algorithms provide a 'fair' ranking system.
People use Google with an assumption that it's providing a realistic and balanced picture of the web. There's a degree of trust involved.
If Google chooses to manipulate results to provide commercial advantage to itself, then it's not meeting the assumptions of its users and can be accused of acting dishonestly.
ZoFreX's top 10 websites is at most going to affect the prosperity of 10 companies; Google is able to influence the success or failure of millions. When an organisation holds that much power, it has to act responsibly for the good of society. Government should help create conditions to ensure that companies have to act responsibly (so society can function well).