1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Google Allegedly Manipulating Search Results Favoring Big Brands Over Small Businesses

Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by globalaccess, Oct 15, 2012.

  1. globalaccess

    globalaccess Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New York Times reported this morning that the Federal Trade Commission is preparing a recommendation that the government sue Google for allegedly manipulating search results to favor its own products and big brand shopping websites. The investigation, which began more than a year ago, is the most far-reaching antitrust investigation of a corporation since the landmark federal case against Microsoft in the late 1990s.
    photoPhoto: Robert Scoble.

    Google has been accused of using its vast power over the Internet to give unfair advantage to certain advertisers, namely big name shopping sites and companies which they own, and to discriminate against small business Adwords advertisers competing in the same verticals. While the mainstream media makes it appear that this is a recent development, Google have, in reality, been perfecting their technique for manipulating search results since as far back as 2004, all under the guise of ?providing a better search experience.?

    In December 2004, just before the big Christmas rush for online shoppers, Darren Rowse of Problogger.net lost more than two-thirds of the traffic to his digital camera website. For those who aren?t familiar with Rowse he?s one of the most respected bloggers on the Internet. So for Google to claim there were ?quality issues? with his site is like saying Nike doesn?t know how to make athletic shoes.

    Rowse, however, sucked it up because at that time, no one really suspected that Google might be using their powers for evil. Remember, the changes were all being made to ?improve the experience for the searcher.?

    A few years passed and on February 25, 2009, Aaron Wall of SEOBook.com published a revealing post. After yet another of Google?s famous updates, Google Executive Chariman Eric Schmidt was asked about Google?s agenda regarding brands and cleaning up the Internet.

    ?The internet is fast becoming a ?cesspool? where false information thrives,? Google CEO Eric Schmidt said yesterday. Speaking with an audience of magazine executives visiting the Google campus here as part of their annual industry conference, he said their brands were increasingly important signals that content can be trusted.?

    ?Brands are the solution, not the problem,? Mr. Schmidt said. ?Brands are how you sort out the cesspool.?

    ?Brand affinity is clearly hard wired,? he said. ?It is so fundamental to human existence that it?s not going away. It must have a genetic component.

    Using a rank checking tool, Wall also made a few startling discoveries. Small business websites and blogs that had previously been ranking for generic keywords were now being replaced in the search engine results pages (SERPS) by big name brands. For example, for the generic keyword ?health insurance? the un-brand website healthinsurancefinders.com was bumped down the list and Eatna.com appeared over night, from out of nowhere, at the number two spot.

    In December 2010, Google launched Google Instant which presumed to read searchers? minds and help them with their typing. All you had to do was go to your Google search box and start typing and, based on the letters you entered Google would provide the most popular search terms. Now you didn?t need to waste all the time pecking around on your keyboard, you could just type A or B or Z and Google would show you the most popular search terms.

    When they were accused of using Google Instant to manipulate search results, Google?s head of search, Amit Sinhal, denied the allegations, stating that the reason Amazon or Target kept popping up when searchers typed in A or T was because they were the most logical results based on statistics.

    However, Courtney Mills at IneedHits.com found that for 21 out of the 26 letters of the alphabet, the first suggestion that came up was always a name brand.

    Moving ahead to February and March of 2011 when Google unleashed their Panda and Farmer updates even more small business sites were dropped from the SERPs while big brand websites moved up to take their place.

    TheFind, ShopWiki,BizRate, Kaboodle, and Shopping.com, all competitors of Google Shopping. Merchant Circle, InsiderPages, American Towns, Roadside America and CitiTownInfo, competitors of Google Maps. TravelPod, MyTravelGuide and Trails.com, in direct competition with Google Places. Dozens of high ranking article directories and answer sites. All of these sites were removed from the Google index or buried so deep they were no longer a threat.

    An in-depth article at GrowMap.com by on February 27, 2011 states that Internet shopping search engine TheFind.com showed more than 4,400 stores with over 138,000 matching results when searching for the keyword ?business card holders? but Google only showed five results. And those five results were Amazon, eBags, Buy.com, Walmart and Office Depot, all big brand online shopping sites.

    In a similar GrowMap article inspired by eCommerce expert Rob Snell, author of ?Yahoo! Stores for Dummies? the author states ?Google KNOWS which of your keyword phrases convert! And they?re taking that converting traffic away from small business and handing it to their big brand buddies.?

    In essence, Google Adwords advertisers are paying high bid rates for exact match keyword phrases. After the advertisers do the legwork to promote those keywords, Google is handing them over to the favored big brand stores allowing them to highjack the searchers, even if the ads aren?t relevant. And typically Google helps them along by initiating another of the famous ?updates? during the peak of the holiday season, just in time for those big brand stores to snag the lion?s share of the business, crushing small business websites who rely on those holiday sales.

    According to the New York Times, the FTC has been questioning NexTag, a comparison shopping service that, since June, has been known as Wize Commerce. NexTag executives say in the last year their online traffic coming from Google search has fallen by half.

    Google?s answer is, they?re trying to clean up the Web and eliminate spam and weak content, and make the Internet a more pleasing place for searchers to hang out. By doing so, and by implementing all their complicated algorithms, they?re merely making it easier for people to search the Web and quickly find what they?re looking for.

    Google said in a statement on Friday, ?We are happy to answer any questions that regulators have about our business.? In the past it has said many times that ?competition is a click away.?

    But what they don?t say is that they?re burying the links. The only sites that are ?one click away? are the sites Google wants you to see. Google is cleaning up the web and they are making it easier for users to find what they?re looking for because they?re eliminating most of the competition so they can create a perfect Utopian society on the Internet.

    But top quality websites are disappearing from the Web over night. Small business advertisers who typically spend $300 in a month are watching their coffers get sucked dry in a single day, with zero return on their investment because Google gave the keywords to their competitors and their ads are being shown on parked webpages.

    If the FTC does decide to pursue the lawsuit, the New York Times says, ?The most probable outcome of the antitrust investigations of Google,? antitrust experts say, ?is a settlement. The broad principle, would be an agreement not to discriminate in favor of its products over smaller competitors.?

    The commission staff currently has a 100-page report drafted which is still being reviewed and the FTC is in the process of hiring a legal team to take Google to court. Three out of the five FTC commissioners would be required to vote in favor of the lawsuit before any action can be taken. Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC said a final decision will be made before the end of this year
     
  2. ja1myn

    ja1myn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    300
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  3. axus_auto

    axus_auto Power Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    502
    Actually, I personally don't find anything wrong with that. When we buy stuff, we naturally choose the reputable brands over no-name brands because of the trust in quality.

    So, the algo is moving towards rewarding this trust that brands have built up. The side effect is that Google itself is a large brand and its properties will indirectly benefit from the changes. There isn't much wrong with that.
     
  4. ibmethatswhoib

    ibmethatswhoib Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    Occupation:
    Staying Informed
    Location:
    Bay Area, Ca
    Home Page:
    [​IMG]

     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  5. danizdeman

    danizdeman Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    NJ/NY
    I was going to put a lengthy reply saying why this is wrong but you described it perfectly.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. axus_auto

    axus_auto Power Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    502
    No good?
     
  7. phatzilla

    phatzilla Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    cunts
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. ibmethatswhoib

    ibmethatswhoib Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    Occupation:
    Staying Informed
    Location:
    Bay Area, Ca
    Home Page:
    Ya me too, thought it was obvious.

     
  9. politico

    politico Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    237
    Occupation:
    Agency SEO Director + Music Producer
    Location:
    Canada
    The problem with favoring big brands over smaller competitors is that you're taking the choice away from the consumer. Let the consumer decide which "brand" to trust. That's the spirit of competition. And its not always the case that big brands have better quality than smaller competitors - just think of your favorite big-chain restaurant and compare the quality of food to your favorite mom and pop restaurant that uses fresh and authentic ingredients. There are dozens of other examples you could use to illustrate the same point.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  10. xxf8xx

    xxf8xx Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    596
    Occupation:
    IM
    I'm all for Google making changes to support smaller businesses, but can someone explain to me what they are doing which is actually "illegal". It's their company can't they do what they want with it? What will they actually be taken to court for?
     
  11. politico

    politico Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    237
    Occupation:
    Agency SEO Director + Music Producer
    Location:
    Canada
    I think the illegal part of it is by them manipulating search for big brands only, their stifling open competition between different companies. They own a huge share of the search space, so for them to do anything to favor certain companies or brands or products/services is illegal in a capitalist economy.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  12. axus_auto

    axus_auto Power Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    502
    So, by letting the algo stay as it is, how does it let consumers decide which brand to trust?
     
  13. -ReX-

    -ReX- Power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    274
    Location:
    Manly, Australia
    What he said. Google owns Google, so what can't they edit what google shows? It is no different to affiliate sites saying this product is better than that product because we make more $$$ per sale.
     
  14. xxf8xx

    xxf8xx Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    596
    Occupation:
    IM
    Exactly. If I own a company I'm obviously going to make it as profitable as possible without breaking the law. But if they are breaking some kind of law I would like to know exactly what law it is they are breaking.
     
  15. dotcomdesigns

    dotcomdesigns Power Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    646
    Location:
    UK
    They're not manipulating anything, it's their own website. If they want to stick porn images all over it they can. I am a small brand manufacturer and I'm stuck on page 3 while Amazon, eBay and other multi nationals are in front of me for selling inferior products. I don't like it and think it's not the best for consumers but I certainly don't think Google are doing anything illegal.

    Me, I've stopped using Google because I know where Wikipedia is and Amazon and eBay. I don't need to see their sites on the results pages every time I search for something. I guess if more people do this and they lose market share they may well level the playing field again. But if their end users are happy with the results then we're pretty much stuffed.

     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1