Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's response to the European Commission fine

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#201

Post by ksk »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #129
larma wrote: post #26

> our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top results at product sear…

> If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actuall…

>The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for.

The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages', but link to the actual product itself. You're already in agreement with them, so stop arguing :)

The only problem here is that Google seems to think that its mission is to setup a tollbooth on the internet rather than indexing information and just responding to search queries.

>According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users disagree with you on that. I'm one such user.

An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome" - You'll have to excuse the people who don't take that seriously.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#202

Post by saurik »

euyyn wrote: post #188
pweissbrod wrote: post #115

"Our data show that people usually prefer a built-in browser on their start menu by default, not browsers they need to download/install/configure manually" -Microsoft 20 years ago

Of course everybody prefers a browser to be pre-installed, but Microsoft did way more than that. They strictly harmed users to protect their Windows monopoly from the threat of Java apps. Java applets distributed via the web (executed by Netscape Navigator) had the potential to displace Win32 as a preferred API, thus making Linux and other OS's able to compete with Windows in terms of application offering. Some OEMs…

"That's the joke."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk

The comment you are replying to is showing by way of parallel to Microsoft that this polemic from Google is an absurd defense: your entire comment is something I would imagine the person you are replying to agrees with, which is precisely why they made the comment they did, as it demonstrates in a visceral way how absurd it is to be trying to give Google a free pass just because their product is useful.

You seem to be going around this thread making the same mistake in multiple contexts, such as when you replied to me in this other linked thread, which makes me wonder if you are paying much attention before commenting :/.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#203

Post by kenjackson »

gervase wrote: post #189
Ajedi32 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only been 5 hours since it was posted, and the story has ~450 upvotes. In contrast, I see another story on the front page right now that was posted 18 hours ago and only has ~250 upvotes.

A big factor of the ranking algorithm is related to the number of comments; as the number increases, the ranking of the article goes down. This is intended to penalize controversial articles that may result in flame wars. This article has 400; this is likely a significant factor in the falling ranking, in addition to the age. I also believe that upvote velocity is weighted more heavily than upvote quantity, but I cou…

The comment algorithm seems backwards. I hope HN at least does sentiment analysis to see if the flavor of the comments tends toward being negative before downgrading the post.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#204

Post by insertnickname »

dheera wrote: post #161

What if Google simply pulled out of those countries? I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a fin…

>Europe's countries do not block websites.

Sure they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Denmark

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#205

Post by Ajedi32 »

ksk wrote: post #201
Ajedi32 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actuall…

>The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for. The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages', but link to the actual product itself. You're already in agreement with them, so stop arguing :) The only problem here is that Google seems to think…

> The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages'

Really? It certainly sounds like that's what he was talking about:

> wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site

In any case, linking directly to the actual product is _already_ what Google does. So if that's the goal, then what's the issue?

> An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome"

That's another thing about this ruling that I don't get. Google's "Product Search" results are essentially paid ads, and they're explicitly marked as such. (Example: https://imgur.com/m5rGqLa)

With this ruling, isn't the EU pretty much saying that Google isn't allowed to display ads on their search results pages, because those ads are displayed at the top of the page, thus "giving prominent placement to Google's own service"? That's ridiculous, right?

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#206

Post by coldtea »

waqf wrote: post #193
coldtea wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?

Maybe because they are in a competitive industry and they like having market share?

Competitive?

In social media (e.g. against FB, maybe), but what competition does Google have for search?

Neither Bing nor anything like DDG matter.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#207

Post by coldtea »

jimmywanger wrote: post #146
coldtea wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google wants to give the best search results possible Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?

> Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.

>Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.

First, you've got it backwards: the burden on proof is to them for putting up such a claim (generally, to those putting up any claim), not to those who dispute it.

Besides, we have a long history of documented foul behavior by Google in search results. In fact this very story is based on a fine ordered because of this kind of behavior.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#208

Post by ksk »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #205
ksk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for. The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages', but link to the actual product itself. You're already in agreement with them, so stop arguing :) The only problem here is that Google seems to think…

> The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages' Really? It certainly sounds like that's what he was talking about: > wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site In any case, linking directly to the actual product is _already_ what Google does. So if that's the goal, then what's the issue? > An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome"…

Google was not fined for displaying ads, but for promoting its services, illegally, via product tying. Google search should be responding to a query with relevant web pages that their crawler indexed. Instead, they insert a popup that links to their shopping service and try to make a buck off of that. This is the first complaint, the second is that they demoted rival shopping services from their search results.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#209

Post by ErikHuisman »

mtrimpe wrote: post #200
ErikHuisman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to burst your bubble but all prices on pricewatch are paid for. "Tweakers.net brengt 24 uur per dag, 365 dagen per jaar informatie over technologie, consumentenelectronica en daaraan gerelateerde onderwerpen. De bezoekers van Tweakers.net hebben een bovengemiddeld groot budget voor de aankoop van hardware, software en consumentenelectronica. Om deze mensen te informeren over de laagste prijzen en beste aanbiedi…

That's just a sales pitch to have companies (proactively) push their current prices to Tweakers. Where do you see anything about paid listing there?

Any price not paid for is automatically removed after only 3! days. So effectively > 99.99% are being paid for but they still maintain the illusion that it is user generated content.

"Om de Pricewatch actueel te houden vervallen handmatig toegevoegde prijzen na automatisch na drie dagen. Bedrijven met een Pricewatch Manager abonnement kunnen een onbeperkt aantal prijzen toevoegen."

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#210

Post by dlwdlw »

As an aside, I think Google has huge potential to become the source of discovery for all things. Actions where it promotes its own stuff on Google play despite knowing and hiding the same thing on Hulu/Netflix/HBO is myopic. It should continue to do what it is good at instead of fighting for slices of other pie.
Post reply on HN