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

Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 211 posts

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#161

Post by chc »

drhayes9 wrote: post #88
fooqux wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I search for MLK, I see his picture on the side. I don't see how getting a picture of Southwest Airlines when I search for "Southwest Airlines" is that big of a deal. Now, if I were to search for "airlines" and saw that huge banner up there, I'd call that an ad and I'd be right there, handing out pitchforks. This? This is just returning searching results in a (arguably) prettier way.

It's a big deal because this is a false equivalence. A corporation with a marketing budget and a brand is not the same as an historical figure. I think that explains a lot of the leeriness around this move. That said, I'm leaning towards your interpretation ("search results in a prettier way"). But the money involved makes me nervous.

Lots of people have an irrational fear of money. But in reality, money itself is rarely a problem.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#162

Post by wnevets »

pmelendez wrote: post #24
wnevets wrote: post #15

If I search for southwest airlines, is that image truly a banner ad?

In the moment when Southwest airlines paid for it is an advertising piece indeed. And to remove any shadow of doubt if you can't see a similar image when you search for American Airlines or Jetblue then it is clear that Google is favouring results against other companies in the same industry.

My point is if I search for jetblue and I dont get the southwest image that's not a banner ad, at least not in the traditional sense. If fact if you search for southwest without being in this test group you'll see a southwest image on the right side. Is that a banner ad, if so these images are old news.

Now if I were to search for plane tickets and get the southwest image, that's a banner ad.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#163

Post by brymaster »

mapgrep wrote: post #68
jeffclark wrote: post #14

In related news: I am no longer with my college girlfriend, despite the fact that 8 years ago I told her I would never leave her.

Good to know that the company that holds my email, appointments, two-factor-auth, credit card number, and search data has the reliability of a flaky college freshman. Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations (when they're not insisting that no corporation would ever be so stupid as to break a highly visible promise because the outcry would be…

Reading this is a breath of fresh air from the traditional "defend Google or other corporations at all costs" type comments. Maybe now we can drop the meme that Google is some altruistic entity and realize that ~97% of their revenue is from advertising. This is why they exist.

It's now just a matter of time before paid inclusion results show up in the organic SERPs like Yahoo used to have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paid_inclusion

Edit: Whoops they already broke that promise too!

http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embrace...

The best part is in Google's original IPO filing they promised not to ever accept money for inclusion of results:

> "Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating."

> "We do not accept money for search result ranking or inclusion. We do accept fees for advertising, but it does not influence how we generate our search results. The advertising is clearly marked and separated. This is similar to a newspaper, where the articles are independent of the advertising."

> "Some of our competitors charge web sites for inclusion in their indices or for more frequent updating of pages. Inclusion and frequent updating in our index are open to all sites free of charge."

> "We apply these principles to each of our products and services. We believe it is important for users to have access to the best available information and research, not just the information that someone pays for them to see."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125041...

Times sure have changed!

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#164

Post by raldi »

pmelendez wrote: post #142
raldi wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever wrote that is wrong. Click the "[2]" citation, and you'll see that it in no way backs up the claim.

Ok.. I know the discussion is going way off-topic and getting pedantic connotations. To illustrate the point in my original comment, I would like to make a last cite from Britannica. @dragonwriter: For some reason I can't reply your comments, I guess HN is delaying replies after a while precisely to avoid long off-topic threads (although they are fun :) "contract, in the simplest definition, a promise enforceable by…

And a promise, in the simplest definition, is not enforceable by law. That's why it's totally different from a contract.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#165

Post by raldi »

mcguire wrote: post #144
raldi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What 10 links would a hypothetically perfect search engine return for that query? Edit: Judging from the replies, many of you seem to think my question was "how many ads would a perfect search engine show?" Please note that this is not what I asked.

How about this part? http://i.imgur.com/IhQLUoD.png Edit: Judging by your edit, you seem to be confusing "what should they show" with the original question, which is something like "Why is the right 50% plus the top block of the left column ads?" The answer to your question is "whatever links match the search terms based on their wonderful, wonderful indexing algorithm."

What's the difference, in terms of end-user experience, between the links you circled and the ads?

They're both to stores selling trash cans.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#166

Post by mathattack »

tedunangst wrote: post #117
mathattack wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - 8 years is a long long time. And who is actually harmed? Would it be less evil if Google had to put banner ads up to make payroll?

Would it be less evil if Google had to put banner ads up to make payroll? I think so. Google can't really pass this off as "the economic situation forces us to make a really difficult choice."

But is it really any different from a shareholder getting paid versus an employee? These are pension funds and 401ks counting on the money.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#167

Post by rafitorres »

freehunter wrote: post #148
milliams wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it shows banner ads for companies including SouthWest Airlines on pages which include them in web search results. It's not just 'If you search for Southwest Airlines'. It's if in the list of results for the thing you searched for there's a Southwest Airlines page. It could be coincidental but suddenly you have a large advertisement at the top of your page. It wouldn't be outside the bounds of possibility for this to…

I only see the ad when I search directly for "Southwest Airlines". For example, search for "Southwest check in". Southwest Airlines is the number one result, but there's no ad on the page: https://www.google.com/#q=southwest+check+in

I see the ad if I search for just "southwest".

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#168

Post by taway2012 »

derscheister wrote: post #145
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that corporations exist to maximize // Some, probably most, not all.

Exactly which company doesn't exist to maximize profit?

There is such a thing as a B-corporation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation

"A benefit corporation or B corporation is a corporate form in the United States designed for for-profit entities that want to consider society and the environment in addition to profit in their decision making process."

E.g., Patagonia is a B-corp.

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#169

Post by velik_m »

enraged_camel wrote: post #107
jeffclark wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations At some point, people realize that corporations exist to maximize profit and not necessarily for the good of the customer.

Then why are they making promises for the good of the customer? There are plenty of corporations who don't make such promises.

To maximize the profits?

Re: Google breaks 2005 promise never to show banner ads on search results

#170

Post by bsdetector »

awj wrote: post #127
lisper wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will.

Source for that? I'd prefer to hang on to my outrage until it's actually justified.

Google gets all its revenue from advertising and cost per click was down another 8% in 3rd quarter compared to 2012, continuing a trend since 2011:

http://www.hochmanconsultants.com/articles/je-hochman-benchm...

To grow revenue when your product is selling for less you need to sell more of it, so ads will start appearing everywhere. It's just common sense. What else are they going to do... fire people and start a mass exodus?

Post reply on HN