Can you imagine the reaction Google’s leadership had behind closed doors to the New York Times‘ editorial that suggested the company let the US government take a peek under its hood? It really is a “when hell freezes over proposition.”
The venerable Times suggested, among other things, Google let the government check to see whether the search engine algorithm tweaks are benefiting Google’s other businesses:
Still, the potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses.
In other words, the Times wants the world to see what the wizard is doing behind the curtain. Many of my peers and colleagues feel the Times is out of line here, but I commend the publication’s curiosity. They, just like me and every other high-tech journalist, simply want to know what’s in Google’s secret search sauce.
It’s not unlike sampling an exquisite barbecue sauce and wondering what that ingredient is that makes it taste so darn good. Chefs rarely like to share.
But here is what the Times failed to consider (or didn’t care to mention) in its appraisal: If the government were to get under Google’s search hood, it could be big trouble because the government can’t be trusted when it concerns Google.
The government is listening to Microsoft and other rivals gunning for Google and is leading a witch hunt not seen since, well, the one that burned Microsoft a decade ago. More on this later, but first some background.
Here’s the rub: Google is notoriously and infamously secretive about the hundreds of changes it makes each year to its search algorithm.
The company has expanded its search and web services offerings to several other areas – Maps, Buzz, YouTube – and surfaces those items as part of its universal search experience for its general web search engine.
Smaller companies such as Foundem feel betrayed by Google, as the reigning search champion with 66 percent market share in the United States and more worldwide.
Foundem and others argue Google is downplaying their product results and promoting its own.
The claim is that Google’s search engine is no longer objective and that Google would rather push users to Google Product Search or other Google properties than Foundem, Microsoft Ciao for Bing or anything else.
Another great example: Google just bid to buy ITA Software, which would provide it with flight info that fuels most of the online travel industry’s (and Microsoft Bing Travel’s) listings.
Google is, in effect, cutting out the middleman by becoming the middleman on its own search engine.
Page: 1 2
Two updates to Anthropic's AI chatbot Claude sees arrival of a new business-focused plan, as…
Most people in the United States view TikTok as a Chinese influence tool a poll…
UK regulator confirms it is investigating whether OnlyFans is doing enough to prevent children accessing…
Dismissed staff file complaint with a US labor board, and allege Google unlawfully terminated their…
Elon Musk dismisses two senior Tesla executives, plus the entire division that runs Tesla's Supercharger…
Eight newspaper publishers in the US allege Microsoft and OpenAI used their millions of their…
View Comments
Did the writer actually read the NYT column? It says that it'd be good if Google revealed the editorial guidelines that guide its changes to the search engine, not reveal the algorithm. The story actually advises the opposite of what this writer is ranting against:
"Google provides an incredibly valuable service, and the government must be careful not to stifle its ability to innovate. Forcing it to publish the algorithm or the method it uses to evaluate it would allow every Web site to game the rules in order to climb up the rankings — destroying its value as a search engine. Requiring each algorithm tweak to be approved by regulators could drastically slow down its improvements. "