What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
52 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+70THIS JUST IN: Google caught promoting its products!
Full story at 11. - konspence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Honestly, I really don't care about the tips, and they're getting too much attention. I hardly even notice them, they're not big or anything, it's relevant to the search, and it's the company promoting one of ITS OWN products. No big deal is what I think.
- Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14True, but you can use Google's search without being required to use Picasa or Sketchup. They're allowed to have AdSense ads, but they can't promote their own crap? Seems silly to me..
Windows on the other hand, you can't install it without getting IE along with it, I see it as a rather different scenario. - thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This was an interesting comment from the "Blog community's response" section:
"Blake's argument is right in that Tips subverts Google's mission statement, is a breach of trust, degrades the relevance of search, is outside being a customer of their own advertising and amounts to a new age of bundling with the deception of choice. But wait, there is more. This could be seen as a commercial interest defining a default. As much as it pains me to point it out, doesn't the Firefox browser offer the Google (search box) as the default due to revenue incentives?"
--Ross Mayfield's Weblog (http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/12/the_search_for_.html) - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"Why does Google complain that Microsoft is bundling IE7 with Vista, yet they turn around and self promote their own products through their search engine"
Apples and oranges. Microsoft is a monopoly software company. Google is an advertiser, and not a monopoly.
Advertisers advertise themselves. TV channels promote their own shows. Cable runs spots for cable service. Satellite TV runs spots for satellite service. Telephone books promote themselves. Billboards run "Your ad here" ads, promoting themselves. Radio stations run spots for their own shows.
Google is an advertiser. They promote their own services above those of others. That's what advertisers do.
If that's not okay with you, just stop using google. It's that simple. - cubeeggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This article is really stupid. Apple.com promotes Macs and iPods. Microsoft.com promotes Windows Vista, Zunes, and security updates. If I go to Ubuntu.com, they promote Ubuntu. Why shouldn't Google.com promote Blogger, Picasa, and Google Calendar?
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Oh, please.
This is "wrong" in the same way a network television station is abusing its commercial TV position by advertising upcoming TV shows on ...itself.
You would have to have been living in a home without electricity and television for more than half a century, and never listened to commercial radio or NPR to make a credible claim that this seemed strange to you.
When was the last time you saw a broadcast network TV show advertised - on a _competing_ broadcast network's TV channel?
Get off it, man. I haven't seen this presumed unwritten rule broken since, well, an hour ago when the TV channel I was watching aired a commercial for tonight's 11 p.m. news.
For that matter, radio stations are always promoting their upcoming contests, concerts, shows by their own hosts, and just about everything else under the sun.
Go look in a magazine, there are ads in the magazine for upcoming issues of itself that the publisher has stuck in there.
For over a decade, when you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows, it has come with a booklet of ads. When you register your "warranty" for a software or computer product, you magically start receiving ads from the vendor for other products that they sell.
Honestly, if they pushed everyone else's page results to start on page 2 then there would be a big problem. If they mention one product of their own on a page, people call that "branding", promoting "product recognition" and fostering "goodwill".
If they set it off somehow from the regular search results, which they always seem to do, that seems like they have separated the commercial from the show, or whatever you want to call that. They honestly do that in 6 ways:
1. Put the word "Tip:" at the front of the message.
2. Put a small graphic icon in front of the tip; something that distinguishes it from search result hits.
3. Include their own name "Google" in the hyperlink at the end of the tip, meaning they are not trying to conceal their association with its destination at all.
4. Layout the tip slightly differently than all of the search result hits.
5. Abbreviated URL that shows up in search results - in highly contrasting bright green no less - is instantly seen to be absent from the tip
6. The tip is not "with" the search results, it is at the top of the page, above the search results, where site/specific material have appeared on the web for the past dozen years - and in fact where it still does on Microsoft's, Apple's, and Yahoo's portals and and regular web sites.
Furthermore, when the Google products and services do show up in search results they are not necessarily at the top. Google Spreadsheet is the top hit for "spreadsheet" but Google Calendar is the 3rd hit for Calendar. And it probably earned that position considering it actually is more well-known than Project Sunbird, which happens to fall a few spots below it.
Personally, I have bookmarked Yahoo Calendar online, and I probably put a link to it on a public web page somewhere too. A million other people probably did the same thing since it does not suck, it is neat, and it is kind of handy. Plus, a lot of sites mention it - and have links to it on all their site's pages! Duh, that makes stuff go to the top of the list.
Applying some heuristics to probe to see searching for words occurring on Google service pages automatically pulls them to the top you find - wow, that does not happen. Google is not automatically promoting their pages to the first position in search results list. That behavior is apparently not taking place. Instead, other pages appear before they do.
My conclusion is that being perfectly aware of the common practices in all other media of self-promoting one's products - and being able to see that the tip is clearly distinguished from hits - one would have to be evil oneself to call Google evil in this case.
Now for people who have never watched TV, opened a magazine, or even listened to the radio, and are almost legally blind - maybe they are justified, if they have one of their "sighted friends" type a complaint they dictate aloud for them to put into their blog. I could see why that infinitesimally small to completely non-existant demographic would be reporting this disconcerting thing they have "seen" that upsets them.
Did Google change everything just before I looked at it tonight, or was what these people wrote in their blogs a massive misrepresentation of what shows up on the page when a search is performed? Because with what I see right now, I trust Google a LOT more than I trust them based on the evidence of what I see with my own eyes. - Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8how old are you?
Jesus, the quality of posters these days is rapidly going from bad to worse - Fidodo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they didn't bundle IE7 what browser would I use to download FireFox?
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To me, not really tbh. Ive grown accustomed to 'zoning out' the position of ads on the search results ( as opposed to blocking as i do with graphic ads ) and am unlikely to notice anything in them.
Text ads arent obtrusive enough for me to start finding ways to remove them so i tolerate their presence.
When i search im after the results i want only, not adverts and so i dont look at them
since these tips appear in the same 'area' i dont notice them unless specifically looking for them, and so dont make me lose trust in the results accuracy - sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Another idiotic, grammatically incorrect description. Another false uproar over monetization of the Internet. Thanks for innovating!
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Lame (the article, not Google). However, if Google comes out with a browser and locks everyone else out (like MSFT did), then this is an issue.
- Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you don't like the tips feature don't Google your searches..search elsewhere.
- scratched, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Google doesn't have +90% of the market share, so it's not like IE7 and Vista.
There is plenty of competition for google still out there. Google, unlike Microsoft, still is offering alternatives. Vista only comes with IE7 as an included browser, but google still lists competitors just underneath their products so you still have a fair choice. - Bentley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why are people harping on Google for this? Google makes the world a better place. If you don't like it, use something else - it's not like you don't have a choice
- eruin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google "search" and msn search gets listed above google. You lot are toads.
- Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would be more concerned if Picasa suddenly landed at the top of all search results. At least this way it's extremely obvious that it's an ad, not the top result. So does that mean, as Blake Ross says, Google products aren't doing as well as they hoped? Maybe. But at least they're being honest. Big freaking deal. It's not like you have to go through a huge splash page promoting Google Calendar. It's harmless and out of the way.
You know why tons of people aren't using the products already? Because until now most people probably weren't even aware of them. Google usually links to Images, Video, News and Maps - and unless you click 'More Services' and 'Even More' you'd have no idea Google offers as much as they do. I'm sure most people have never bothered to go to that page, nor do most people read digg or any of the Google news blogs. - steveng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you haven't become immune to all of the ads (for Google as well as for others) then you should not be on the net. I'm fine with what Google is doing, they need to promote there products, what's a better place than on Google; As long as they make sure to tell you that things are ads, and that they are promoting there own products, its fine. As far as anyone knows, Google is not affecting there search results, which is all you should be looking at anyway.
- d722002, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Although I don't like the quality of this post, I think he's right.
What's wrong with a company wanting money? Have we suddenly become a communist world?
Why should we all have to switch to Firefox? Responsible web users don't generally need to worry about pop-ups, hackers, spam, or anything like that. I'm perfectly happy with IE7, never been hacked in my life. I've had this computer for 3 years and have had 1... thats right, 1 piece of spyware.
Education about the dangers of the internet should be a higher priority than making the Firefox Download Counter look bigger... and besides, most of the people at risk are the computer illiterate 15 year old girls who only know how to open AIM and visit Myspace... you really expect them to know what firefox is or how to get it? - bunni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a bad idea not because it's evil, but because it pisses off advertisers. Last time I checked AdWords/AdSense is where Google makes its money.
- DavX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The reason it's a "tip" and not a full link is likely because this way it can make the user aware, but not force it on them. The results are not changed in any way, it's just one line of text added at the top. This really isn't evil, what the ***** do you expect to get when you search for "photo sharing" Why shouldn't it be on the list?
And for that matter, why the ***** shouldn't Windows have a web browser? Should we all install our choice from CDs when we buy a new computer?! Should Microsoft be responsible for maintaining a list of ALL the web browsers and giving the user a choice? Thats absolutely ridiculous, as is this article. This isn't evil. - d722002, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Now then, as for the people at the beginning of the comments who were arguing that Microsoft has a monopoly simply because it bundles IE with Windows...
What about Apple bundling Safari with OS X? Or nearly every major Linux distro bundling Firefox?
What about Apple including iTunes? Why can they do that, when the European Union won't let MS include WMP?
I understand that IE is integrated into the OS (in XP), but still... all reports currently suggest that IE will be less integrated into Vista, in order to make it more secure.
And another thing, if you dont like IE, Don't Use It! Firefox and Opera were made for a reason. - DevlinD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the whole issue here is not that Google is promoting its products ahead of other people's, its that Google's some of their products that are not "the cream of the crop" are supposedly being put in a spot where they are more likely to be accessed by users ahead of services that are better. The whole point of Google's search is that it is non biased and only gives back the highest quality results that are only heavily skewed by how popular they are.
But seriously, its not like they are gaming their adSense system and putting their ads ahead of other advertisers that are paying money for them. They just give a little suggestion that promotes Google's products/services that are SEPARATE from the search results and ads on the side. On top of that while they may have a little icon next to them the font is not bolded like the font in the ads and is smaller than the search results, nowhere are they implying that their service is the number one search result.
I think Google is doing this to get around the "five links" theory that plagues them. On the Google homepage there are five specific links that will allow a user to search under Web, Images, Groups, News, and Maps. They only limit the number of these links to five because they figure anymore could possibly cause Google to lose the simplicity factor that so important in making their search engine the most accessible. But if you look at the last link you will see "More". This link is hardly ever clicked on however it contains a slew of Google products and services that are almost never seen because hardly anyone ever clicks on the "More" link. If nobody even knows these services exist, how are they supposed to become popular? It makes sense for them to offer these services as a suggestion to accompany (not modify) their search results. You already have the largest audience on the web that actually pays attention to what is on the screen, you would be STUPID not to use it.
Google is an advertiser, so why is anyone getting on them for advertising their own products in a fairly non-intrusive manner? - miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think of google as a business, but don't mind the tips. as long as it isn't obtrusive or misleading. to generrate more bloggers, i suggest they focus on making some decent default blog templates.
- cynicist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least they're promoting free, good quality products on their own search engine.
- mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@d722002:
your point is valid, except that linux distros are open-source and so is firefox, and there's no money exchange going on there. google, apple, and microsoft are all out to make a buck, so the game's a little different for them. - JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I was starting to get suspicious that pundits in the forms blogger types and so called analysts were writing FUD pieces about big companies that are semi-competition with another company that just happens to be trying to perform a difficult pair of product roll outs one right after another.
Then, I looked at one the subject of the BLOGMA article was exactly 9 days before the one this digg points to.
title - "Latest tech ailment: Mouse rage syndrome"
src - http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6145122.html
abstract: UK researchers have discovered that users suffer physiological effects such as higher blood pressure when a web page renders slowly, and the author that wrote about this grunts too.
real subject: impatience
surprising? no
hotness: none
Guess what? People's heart speeds up up when they want to get somewhere faster than they are, and they are stuck in traffic. It also goes up when they are late for dinner or an appointment. It goes up when they are with someone they are attracted to or when they are about to give a public speech.
Oh, and what does is at the top of THIS Blog's page, you ask?
"HOT BLOG TOPICS, CHOSEN BY EDITORS & READERS"
My only question is do lose faith in the editors, readers, or blogs that are responsible for the ridiculous article that states the obvious like some newfound discovery - and, isn't it evil to carry the highly dubious self-promotion "HOT BLOG TOPICS" at the top of the page? Isn't that kind of promoting the stuff on the site? Isn't it kind of true? Are these really the hottest topics around? NO!
I smell evil... and the net effect of this digg is not that I have lost faith in Google, but rather that I have lost faith in BLOGMA at news.news.com! - dan.grover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't understand the issue. The search results themselves are not in any way altered to promote Google's products -- the integrity is not at stake. It doesn't place Google's products at a #1 ranking -- the search results are not altered. It puts an entirely separate "tip" on the results page based on what you searched for, and delivers the same search results.
- slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought it was "don't be evil"?
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's see no evil
- jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When someone googles "share photos" the top of the page points to Picasa, but it is clearly marked as not being a normal search result. After that it links to lots of other sites. When you "I'm feeling lucky" the same words, it takes you to Kodakgallery.com, because it's the top of the normal search results.
I see no breach of trust here. If they tried to imply that Picasa was the top search result, that might be different. But anyone who has used Google more than ten times or so should be able to tell search results from advertisements. - northerngeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To be fair though they do get cream from the adverts for other peoples products, Microsoft apparently shouldn't bundle IE7 with Windows when Macs can do as they please, hell my Linux distribution came with four web-browsers. Microsoft is being quite good nowadays and are finding it hard to catch a break because of all these double standards people have.
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@winrules , sure they do. Google "search" and see what comes up as the top result.
- ikoul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Um.. doesn't google also have tips that promote Firefox? (I swear I've seen them. A lot.) If so, that guy should probably shut up.
- sparc2112, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@JohnnySoftware
I agree with you... but I have to say, I have seen less wordy thesis papers. Passionate much? - dotlizard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4i think that's a smoking mirror too.
- steveng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The EU got on Microsoft rather than Apple because Microsoft is an anti-trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust) situation; Because MS has 90+% of the market it is considered anti-competitive.
That being said, you're right, it is very stupid. M$ should be able to bundle whatever they want with there OS, if it's crap, people will go to iTunes of Firefox. - skeletron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm using google because I want to use google products. If a google search for "photo sharing" doesn't tell me about picasa just because it isn't in the first few results, then that's a failure to me.
People using google search and searching for "photo sharing" can be expected to have some interesting in google's photo sharing program. Certainly moreso than people using msn to search for "photo sharing". - blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10This is the most brain damaged pussy-ass whiny-bitch open source buttfagMcCocksuck ***** thing I've ever ***** heard of, and is even more of a masturbatory ***** than the the ***** Debian ***** got into with Firefox.
No offense meant to any gay members of Digg, BTW.
How about we ask this same developer ***** what he thinks about all his fairy-***** cronies that spam the entire ***** world up with links to getfagfox... err... getfirefox.com? How is THAT not leveraging your position? Oh yeah, that's right, it isn't! Just as how ANY company promoting its own product isn't leveraging their position.
Then again, he's probably one of those ***** that gets pissed anytime money changes hands. "OMG!!! MONEY IS TEH EEEVIL!!!!!"
This message posted using Firefox 2.0. - northerngeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@scratched
Re: Google offers Alternatives...
Yeah and Microsoft will never allow Firefox to run on Vista, or Opera, or any other number of different browsers, those bastards! Google still promote their own stuff heavily, Google Pack puts Picassa and Google Earth in there.
Google isn't the best in many areas for search and I have lost trust in them due to many things they do because I followed the company closely but nothing is going to change the majority of the public's mind because Google has peoples minds in a vice.
Yeah Yeah Yeah I know I'll get dugg down despite the fact Microsoft does allow alternatives, doesn't lock their OS for only certain hardware or the reverse, it's peripherals run on their competition's machines and their search engine works fine with my Linux box- I tell you Microsoft must be plain evil! Meanwhile the guy who gives Google praise for offerin alternatives and denies basic fact that Microsoft is quite good for allowing individuality really gets dugg up. - generika, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This seems like a minor complaint regarding Google - I have much more concern regarding Goog's privacy policies and the way they keep so much cross-referneced data of users. They have a huge, ever-increasing and sophisticated database that they keep on everyone that uses them, in an era where privacy rights are flying out the window and our constitutional rights are being taken away. Sound like a recipe for disaster to me - potentially very scary stuff, and the fanboys just keep up the the "see no evil" routine.
- derekfranklin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow!
The amount of time and energy devoted to debating something as simple as a 'tip' is incredible.
How do people deal with 'real' life? Seriously? - Rockmaninoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is utterly ridiculous. Google does not REQUIRE the user to use their products. They are a company based around expanding the use of information and making data available to everyone on the Internet. Last time I checked, when they "suggest" to a user that they can use a Google-branded product, there are HUNDREDS of other options listed directly underneath. CNET's claim is preposterous; I think that they're just trying to jump on the Google-empire bandwagon.
Of course Google will suggest that others use their products; they have devoted enormous amounts of time and resources to the development of these programs and algorithms. They aren't abusing their position in the market, however. This is similar but distinctly different from Microsoft's Internet Explorer scandal. Google does not force users to utilize their other programs; rather, they give them the option to use a similar and powerful program to complete a task. - RailroadSnake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Matt Cutts' take: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/my-thoughts-on-recent-google-tips/ (He works at Google on web search.)
This is a dup, btw: http://digg.com/tech_news/Firefox_Man_Loses_Faith_In_Google - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Why does Google complain that Microsoft is bundling IE7 with Vista, yet they turn around and self promote their own products through their search engine."
Probably because Google is a free service that you have to choose to use. You've already payed Microsoft for Windows.
I think the bigger question is why it's not okay for Microsoft to bundle IE with Windows, yet no one says a word about Safari being included with Mac OS X. - an0n1m0us, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Hell no
Blake Ross has been doing nothing for ages and is just looking for some way to alleviate his own boredom and fill up his desire to be a Hollywood star. WebOS? ***** there are already 10 out there? Take the parakeet and let it be free to fly away to cyberia where it belongs. At least Hewitt has produced the brilliant Firebug (though is leaving that at version 1).
Get back on Firefox Blake. It's a memory leaking piece of junk, as much as I love it. Version 1 of anything is never good enough. Fx2 was a cosmetic release. Fx1.5 not much more than that either. They say never buy the first model of a new generation car. Wait for them to fix all the kinks. Why then has Goodger and Ross and Hewitt and co apparently abandoned Firefox after version 1? FFS AFAIK Goodger is getting PAID by Google to work on Fx but where is the evidence, the output?
Google behaving badly? FFS Gmail scans everyone's mail! It did this while Ross and co were happy building their $100m a year Firefox project off a ***** of slave labour and taking all the kudos at the same time! If scanning people's email is not worse than showing a few keyword-matching 'tips' them I'm a looney! - drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Google is a Megacorp and just like other Megacorps they're slimy the only website with a Halo over its head FOR NOW is Craigslist
- acs12798, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0So,
Microsoft Live search "search" or "browser", I don't see how google is better than Microsoft in that regard. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"but google still lists competitors just underneath their products so you still have a fair choice"
They do? - dmr0240, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I lost trust in Google awhile ago, probably starting when they went public.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is