- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Google Antitrust Investigation accidentally leaked (link)...
Posted on 3/20/15 at 6:39 am
Posted on 3/20/15 at 6:39 am
Looks like they forgot all about that "Do No Evil" mantra. The report revealed that FTC investigators found instances where Google used Amazon's rankings of products, bolted it onto their own results and then adjusted it to show Google Shopping results above them.
They also went so far as to scrape info from both Amzon and Yelp to use in their own results. When caught red handed, Google threatened both to simply delist them in their results instead of removing the lifted content.
Hard to argue with all their innovations and great work. But this report looks pretty bad for their PR if nothing else.
LINK
They also went so far as to scrape info from both Amzon and Yelp to use in their own results. When caught red handed, Google threatened both to simply delist them in their results instead of removing the lifted content.
Hard to argue with all their innovations and great work. But this report looks pretty bad for their PR if nothing else.
LINK
5
Posted on 3/20/15 at 7:03 am to GFunk
What does this--
have to do with this?
quote:
FTC staff concluded in 2012 that Google's business tactics had caused "real harm to consumers and to innovation," and the staff recommended a lawsuit against the company.
have to do with this?
quote:
The FTC staff conceded there would be "many risks" in bringing a lawsuit against Google, the Journal reported, including the "substantial innovation" that Google would be able to demonstrate had taken place..., .
Posted on 3/20/15 at 7:27 am to GFunk
Man that's messed up stuff.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 8:24 am to GFunk
So is there anything actionable in all of this? In the long run screwing business competitors is small time, my fear of the Google Filter people view the world through has always been more along the lines of controlling political information, like suppressing stories/pages unfavorable to politicians that are in Google's pockets and highlighting negative stories/pages to politicians that aren't. Google needs to be taken out behind the woodshed before screwing Amazon leads to screwing We The People.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 8:33 am to TigerinATL
I don't understand.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 8:41 am to TigerinATL
quote:
TigerinATL
quote:
So is there anything actionable in all of this? In the long run screwing business competitors is small time, my fear of the Google Filter people view the world through has always been more along the lines of controlling political information, like suppressing stories/pages unfavorable to politicians that are in Google's pockets and highlighting negative stories/pages to politicians that aren't. Google needs to be taken out behind the woodshed before screwing Amazon leads to screwing We The People.
In the longterm I think that'll happen because like it or not China is the next USA, and they have such a strong control over their media and their internet/social media/technology that they will suppress at all costs, and have proven extremely effective at it as well.
But that's a bit conspiracy theorist and off-topic. In the short-term though, I actually found that link using Google News, and it wasn't buried. Along the same lines, they do not seem to filter positive Apple/iPhone/iOS stories in any way in their Tech News section.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 10:54 am to GFunk
Accuse me of being a fanboy, but I don't really see what the big deal is (and apparently the FTC felt the same).
Google essentially gives these sites free advertising. What more do they want? Do they want to write Google's algorithms for them? Do they want to tell Google exactly when and how they can provide information to Google's own goddamned users? Do they want Google to be nothing more than a glorified phone book, and Google should forget about what its users want (which is information, right now)?
quote:"At times"? Google constantly modifies their algorithms to gauge how users interact with the service, in order to provide the most relevant information in as little time as possible. That's why they are the best at what they do.
Google typically ranks sites based on metrics like the number of links that point to a site and how often users click on those links. But at times the company boosted links to its own properties even when rival services might have better served its users, according to the report.
quote:Again, "sometimes". And, to me, these examples are a result of Google's attempts at getting information to users ASAP to better serve them. Because Google can extract as much information from their own services to be displayed in the results as they want, but doing the same for a competitor's site would rob those sites of actual visits and would cause a much larger problem.
If a comparison shopping site from a competitor should have ranked highest, for instance, Google Shopping was sometimes placed above it. And when Yelp was deemed a more relevant result, Google Local would appear on top, the FTC staff wrote.
quote:Yeah, Google has a copy of the entire internet, basically.
Google also copied, or "scraped," content from rivals such as TripAdvisor and Amazon.com
quote:They threatened to remove such well-known sites from their listings? Sounds pretty hard to believe.
and threatened to remove those sites from its search listing if they objected, the Journal reported.
quote:Wait, you mean they used available information about the popularity of products in order to determine how they should list products by order of popularity?
In one instance, Google used Amazon's sales rankings to determine how it ranked products for its own listings, it said.
quote:Let me guess, there were no takers?
According to the staff report, Google responded to the FTC's concerns by giving rivals the choice to opt out of having their content used in its listings, but to remain in its core search engine.
Google essentially gives these sites free advertising. What more do they want? Do they want to write Google's algorithms for them? Do they want to tell Google exactly when and how they can provide information to Google's own goddamned users? Do they want Google to be nothing more than a glorified phone book, and Google should forget about what its users want (which is information, right now)?
Posted on 3/20/15 at 11:23 am to Korkstand
quote:
They threatened to remove such well-known sites from their listings? Sounds pretty hard to believe.
The article said Google was a top contributor to the president's campaign, we know they are big into lobbying. Do you really think a company as big as they are that has entered the world of dealing with politicians is above a shakedown? While we don't know what the supporting evidence to the claim was, it sounds very easy to believe.
quote:
Yeah, Google has a copy of the entire internet, basically.
That doesn't give them the legal right to reproduce the content for their own benefit. Content gets reproduced by other websites all the time on the Internet, and that works because you very transparently cite your sources make it easy for users to go to the original.
quote:
Google essentially gives these sites free advertising.
They used to. I don't know if what they do for the Hotels is also called the Knowledge Graph, but a few years ago Google started adding scraped content to it's results, the part where you type in something well documented like Taj Mahal and it gives you basic info on it often answering your question without having to leave the search page. They've even started adding step by step instructions for certain "how do I" questons.
This is a great feature for users of google, but it completely shits upon the sites that google is compiling this often copyrighted information from. Even if you think there's nothing wrong with this practice, you have to wonder if it will work out in the long run. If creating content no longer is economically viable because Google steals it all, who is going to create future content for Google to steal?
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 11:29 am
Posted on 3/20/15 at 12:02 pm to GFunk
quote:
"Do No Evil"
I always laughed at that.
Might be the most evil company on the planet. Literally.
I still use their stuff though, so can't complain too much.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 12:48 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Might be the most evil company on the planet. Literally.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 1:02 pm to TigerinATL
quote:What article? I didn't see that in OP's link.
The article said Google was a top contributor to the president's campaign
quote:I think the amount of lobbying they do is proportional to the size of the company, don't you?
we know they are big into lobbying
quote:Nearly every single company of any decent size has entered the world of dealing with politicians. Are we to assume they are all attempting shakedowns?
Do you really think a company as big as they are that has entered the world of dealing with politicians is above a shakedown?
quote:How can something be easy to believe if you don't have a clue what the supporting evidence is?
While we don't know what the supporting evidence to the claim was, it sounds very easy to believe.
quote:Google's "knowledge graph" cards always link to the source (typically wikipedia), or for general facts there may not be a source, such as for contact info, etc for places of business. What reproduced content are you (or the accusers) referring to? Star ratings? They are shown right below the link to the site that generates them. Are they accusing Google of using ratings from other sites in their own products? I don't get it.
That doesn't give them the legal right to reproduce the content for their own benefit. Content gets reproduced by other websites all the time on the Internet, and that works because you very transparently cite your sources make it easy for users to go to the original.
quote:Should a company be sued for providing quick answers to "well-documented" questions? Should dictionary.com sue Google because they define words right on the search page?
I don't know if what they do for the Hotels is also called the Knowledge Graph, but a few years ago Google started adding scraped content to it's results, the part where you type in something well documented like Taj Mahal and it gives you basic info on it often answering your question without having to leave the search page. They've even started adding step by step instructions for certain "how do I" questons.
quote:You keep saying Google presents copyrighted information to users, but I didn't read where any of these sites accused Google of that. I understood the accusation to be that Google used information to influence how they rank things.
This is a great feature for users of google, but it completely shits upon the sites that google is compiling this often copyrighted information from.
quote:Again, I haven't seen any accusations (much less evidence) of Google "stealing" actual content in order to prevent users from visiting other sites. In fact, Google makes it easier to find actual good content and to visit those sites. Google encourages the creation of content.
Even if you think there's nothing wrong with this practice, you have to wonder if it will work out in the long run. If creating content no longer is economically viable because Google steals it all, who is going to create future content for Google to steal?
Posted on 3/20/15 at 1:57 pm to Korkstand
quote:
What article? I didn't see that in OP's link.
Was in the WSJ source OP link was based on.
quote:
Google was the second-largest corporate source of campaign donations to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort. Google executives have visited the White House scores of times since Mr. Obama has been in office, according to visitor logs.
LINK
quote:
How can something be easy to believe if you don't have a clue what the supporting evidence is?
The claim was made in a report from an FTC probe. The most likely source of such a claim would be an internal document from Google, or an internal document or accusation from Amazon/Trip Advisor. Multibillion dollar businesses are typically cut-throat by nature, I really don't see why you'd assume Google isn't. I also wouldn't find it hard to believe that the accusation (if that's the source) is baseless. Not because I think Google is so altruistic, but because like I said, businesses that size are typically cut throat by nature. I'm not saying you should believe the accusation, you just shouldn't find it hard to believe.
quote:
You keep saying Google presents copyrighted information to users, but I didn't read where any of these sites accused Google of that. I understood the accusation to be that Google used information to influence how they rank things.
Sorry, I've been managing web sites since before Google was born and have been frequenting webmaster forums just as long. It's an accusation I've seen many times, but only in passing since it fortunately never affected me. However, after further reflection the common complaint is Knowlege Graph takes traffic away from other websites by giving away someone else's content that Google used without paying for, which as similar as it may sound is not the same as stealing content. I'm sure they have all the "Fair Use" covered from every angle by their legal team. Incorrect accusation withdrawn.
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 3/20/15 at 4:20 pm to TigerinATL
quote:Ah, behind a paywall, presumably so Google can't steal their content.
Was in the WSJ source OP link was based on.
quote:And the point of your bringing this up was to insinuate that their political track record makes it easier to believe that they would threaten to intentionally harm other companies' business? Google also ranks very highly in charitable giving. What can we glean from that?
Google was the second-largest corporate source of campaign donations to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort. Google executives have visited the White House scores of times since Mr. Obama has been in office, according to visitor logs.
quote:Google is cutthroat, I believe that easily. What I find hard to believe is that they would cut their own throats by threatening to remove Amazon from their listings, because nearly everything Google does is to improve the experience for the user and to help them reach the information they want faster. As an example of their commitment to this, Google's own web browser Chrome remembers which sites you have visited and used the search function on. Later, if you begin to type the site's address (and chrome auto-completes it), Chrome offers to search using that site's search engine directly, completely bypassing Google's own search engine and ads. Chrome has automatically added search engines that you use since at least as far back as 2009. And it's not limited to general purpose search engines, it applies to all sites that Chrome can figure out the search URL pattern to, including Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. It just doesn't make any sense to even think about excluding a site like Amazon from anything, as it would negatively impact the user immensely, and Google isn't in the business of pissing off users (at least when it comes to their core product of search).
The claim was made in a report from an FTC probe. The most likely source of such a claim would be an internal document from Google, or an internal document or accusation from Amazon/Trip Advisor. Multibillion dollar businesses are typically cut-throat by nature, I really don't see why you'd assume Google isn't. I also wouldn't find it hard to believe that the accusation (if that's the source) is baseless. Not because I think Google is so altruistic, but because like I said, businesses that size are typically cut throat by nature. I'm not saying you should believe the accusation, you just shouldn't find it hard to believe.
quote:Did they use someone else's content, or did they use content from the public domain and webmasters who also host that public domain content got pissed because Google was "stealing" their traffic? You know, as opposed to all the rest of the traffic that Google effectively donates to these sites.
after further reflection the common complaint is Knowlege Graph takes traffic away from other websites by giving away someone else's content that Google used without paying for
quote:I suspect you are correct.
I'm sure they have all the "Fair Use" covered from every angle by their legal team
Posted on 3/20/15 at 5:02 pm to Korkstand
quote:
And the point of your bringing this up was to insinuate that their political track record makes it easier to believe that they would threaten to intentionally harm other companies' business?
The point is that they're rolling with the big boys and that's how the game is played.
quote:
Google also ranks very highly in charitable giving. What can we glean from that?
That they have a PR department.
quote:
What I find hard to believe is that they would cut their own throats by threatening to remove Amazon from their listings
Just because you make a threat doesn't mean you're actually going to follow through, the party you're threatening just needs to believe that you might, or be reminded that you can. The traffic Google sends to other sites has enough value that they can bluster their way to unconditional surrender on many issues.
quote:
Did they use someone else's content
Knowledge Graph is pulled from a variety of sources. Those that aren't public domain I'm sure are legal under fair use. Like I said content stealing accusation was a mischaracterization of anecdotal evidence I've read about.
quote:
Google was "stealing" their traffic? You know, as opposed to all the rest of the traffic that Google effectively donates to these sites.
It's not a donation, it's more of a trade. Web sites for over a decade have been building pages in very specific ways to reach and appeal to Google's users. Content makers create content Google users want to find, Google helps them find it and shows ads during the exchange and everyone was happy. Now Google is changing the terms of the unwritten, unspoken agreement that previously had benefited both parties, and some people are understandably upset and consider Google to be stealing their traffic even though they are also the source of said traffic.
Posted on 3/21/15 at 8:20 am to TigerinATL
So we shouldn't believe evidence from an antitrust investigation that shows Google artificially inserted their products over other competitors to gain an advantage because you point out that, "they're always adjusting their algorithm."
You also think that evidence uncovered by an FTC investigation that shows Google manipulating their search data isn't believable because Chrome let's you use other search engines.
Wow. Case closed! How could anyone believe differently now?
You also think that evidence uncovered by an FTC investigation that shows Google manipulating their search data isn't believable because Chrome let's you use other search engines.
Wow. Case closed! How could anyone believe differently now?
This post was edited on 3/21/15 at 10:11 am
Posted on 3/21/15 at 11:48 pm to GFunk
quote:I assume you meant to reply to me
GFunk
quote:As far as I know, Google is not required by any law to rank sites in any particular order. It boils down to basically a judgment call as to whether their rankings violate antitrust regs, right?
So we shouldn't believe evidence from an antitrust investigation that shows Google artificially inserted their products over other competitors to gain an advantage because you point out that, "they're always adjusting their algorithm."
quote:I said that a threat to remove Amazon from the listings isn't believable.
You also think that evidence uncovered by an FTC investigation that shows Google manipulating their search data isn't believable because Chrome let's you use other search engines.
quote:Yeah, it is, according to your link.
Wow. Case closed!
quote:There is always going to be someone to complain about their site's rank on Google. There will always be someone who feels slighted. But without access to Google's algorithms, there is just no way to know whether it's intentional or not.
How could anyone believe differently now?
Hard to argue against a decision that took 19 months to reach.
Posted on 3/22/15 at 1:21 pm to Korkstand
LOL..Dude you're almost as bad as Gman re: anything iOS.
CONGRATS!
CONGRATS!
Posted on 3/22/15 at 4:18 pm to GFunk
Ouch! I can handle a few insults, but that's a step too far.
Anyway, I guess we're done here since you'd rather compare me to Gman than discuss the topic.
Anyway, I guess we're done here since you'd rather compare me to Gman than discuss the topic.
Posted on 3/23/15 at 9:18 am to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
quote:
Ouch! I can handle a few insults, but that's a step too far. Anyway, I guess we're done here since you'd rather compare me to Gman than discuss the topic.
I was sort've through when you just took anecdotal evidence based on your own opinions and tried to indicate that they were somehow more relevant than an FTC investigation with interviews, documentation and evidence that Google was in fact guilty of unfair business practices. That this information was sat on, or kept quiet, or ultimately not moved on is more of a result of the antitrust investigation than it was a judgment of right or wrong from the FTC towards Google's biz practices. The information from Amazon and Yelp! weren't the sole facet of the investigation (obviously it was a 160 page report; while lengthy that was a tiny part of the overall antitrust investigation).
I know you're also fairly bright enough to realize that reports, investigations and things of this nature get sat on, closed, shelved or tabled for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the validity of the information released or uncovered.
But the G-Man deal kinda comes off as accurate, though you're a little more articulate about it
This post was edited on 3/23/15 at 9:19 am
Posted on 3/23/15 at 9:57 am to GFunk
quote:I was only trying to bring up points that may have factored into the FTC's decision not to prosecute. I don't believe my "anecdotes" to be more relevant, just also relevant.
I was sort've through when you just took anecdotal evidence based on your own opinions and tried to indicate that they were somehow more relevant than an FTC investigation with interviews, documentation and evidence
quote:My contribution to this thread was intended to point out that it's really, really, really hard to make an antitrust case against a company whose many competitors are one click away. If Google actually stole information they weren't supposed to have, or used content without permission, then sure, make them pay. But antitrust? I think forcing them to make their product work a certain way would be a bad precedent to set, and that it would hamper innovation and competition from the whole industry. I think this is one of the "many risks" the FTC claimed as reasons not to bring a lawsuit.
Google was in fact guilty of unfair business practices. That this information was sat on, or kept quiet, or ultimately not moved on is more of a result of the antitrust investigation than it was a judgment of right or wrong from the FTC towards Google's biz practices. The information from Amazon and Yelp! weren't the sole facet of the investigation (obviously it was a 160 page report; while lengthy that was a tiny part of the overall antitrust investigation).
I know you're also fairly bright enough to realize that reports, investigations and things of this nature get sat on, closed, shelved or tabled for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the validity of the information released or uncovered.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News