Are Google's practices hurting consumers?

A new study shows that users interact more with search results based on relevance, rather than skewed toward Google's own content. But some claim Google's activities are innocuous.

|
Jens Meyer/AP/File
In this April 17, 2007 file photo, exhibitors work on laptop computers in front of an illuminated sign of the Google logo at the industrial fair Hannover Messe in Hanover, Germany. Google faces criticism for anti-competitive activities following the release of a new study Monday.

When you enter a simple search term into Google, your results are often top-heavy with Google-affiliated content, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt explained last year in Berlin. However, the company’s practice of promoting its own content may be harmful for consumers who would prefer results prioritized solely by relevance, a new study suggests.

The study, sponsored by Google competitor Yelp, found that users engage with “organically determined” content that includes links from competitors 45 percent more than with results generated by Google’s algorithm that weights its own content.

“This suggests that by leveraging dominance in search to promote its internal content, Google is reducing social welfare –­ leaving consumers with lower quality results and worse matches,” the study reported.

Tim Wu – co-author of the paper entitled “Is Google degrading search? Consumer Harm from Universal Search” and leader in the net neutrality movement – told The New York Times he used to defend Google’s competitive practices, but Yelp convinced him to do the study. The results, he said, were surprising.

“The idea that you can build a better version of Google search engine pretty easily if you don’t exclude competitors to me was a pretty startling finding,” Mr. Wu said.

In an email to SiliconBeat Monday, a Google spokesperson called into question the validity of the study, accusing the Yelp research team of using “flawed methodology that focuses on the results of just a handful of cherry-picked queries.”

Google asserted in the email its commitment to providing “the best results for its users.” Some evidence still suggests Google may be doing just that.

Users searching for simple, objective information – like the answer to an arithmetic problem, a currency conversion, or a weather forecast, for example – save time with Google’s services that give these answers as a top search result, the study acknowledged. It only becomes a problem when the search engine is asked more subjective questions – like searching for the best doctors or restaurants.

Another potential flaw in the study is the assumption that more clicks equals higher user satisfaction, critics said according to The New York Times. Clicking through more links may be a sign of frustration, rather than satisfaction.

According to the New York Times, however, Google has been accused on several occasions of violating antitrust laws, and the evidence of this study could further fuel that argument.

The European Commission charged the company in April with abusing its market power by distorting search results in its favor, Reuters reported.

Google has until August to reply to the charges, and faces a fine based on the revenues it has gained from European Union countries.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) bureau of competition also investigated Google’s practices in 2012, and recommended that the FTC sue Google for anti-competitive practices. The agency ultimately chose not to pursue a lawsuit, angering Google’s critics and competitors.

The Yelp study may provoke the FTC to reopen the investigation, The New York Times reported, and could bolster the European Commission’s case.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Are Google's practices hurting consumers?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0630/Are-Google-s-practices-hurting-consumers
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe