It's funny how the prototype search engine page linked by the document (google.stanford.edu) now presents Stanford's GSuite instance, i.e. the suite of collaborative tools Google have since produced with the income from the search business presented in the document.
It’s interesting to ask the opposite question. How many companies currently are very successful because they shun advertising and protect the users privacy?
"Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users."
"For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers."
"Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]."
"This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed."
Where do [Ads by Google] appear? It might be easier now to tell the ads from the results, but the ads are still at the top. The easiest click/tap a user can make. Who "deserves" to advertise there at the top? The highest bidder, in a non-transparent auction.
"For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results."
Today, we see all manner of compliance with whatever Google asks of websites. Websites that do "X" will be favoured in search results, and websites that do not do X will be non-transparently penalised behind the scenes. For example, X could be use of a protocol or participation in a program controlled by and designed to benefit Google's business. Over the years, there have been so many instances of X, I can no longer keep track. HN readers can easily list multiple examples of X.
"In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."
Google and others have met the world's needs for a commercially-focused, advertising-funded search engine.
However we still need that "transparent" search engine "in the academic realm" referred to in this paper. As it happened, Google is not it.
Because the text-only ads look much like search results, it is arguable they never needed to cross the line. Having the ad urls appear at the top of the search results page and be relevant to the search query was enough to get people to follow them.
However, I think it is indisputable that the "insidious bias" referred to in the paper has existed for many years, where parties pay to get listed. Of course, they might not pay Google.
Consider "Parasite SEO" which was just on HN front page.
There was some previous discussion
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14289750 (5 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8587541 (11)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3637425 (5)
It's funny how the prototype search engine page linked by the document (google.stanford.edu) now presents Stanford's GSuite instance, i.e. the suite of collaborative tools Google have since produced with the income from the search business presented in the document.
meta
> Appendix A: Advertising and Mixed Motives
This section is especially interesting, considering that Larry basically runs a giant advertising company at this point.
Could the company have been successful if it went down a different path in terms of revenue?
It’s interesting to ask the opposite question. How many companies currently are very successful because they shun advertising and protect the users privacy?
"Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users."
"For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers."
"Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]."
"This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed."
Where do [Ads by Google] appear? It might be easier now to tell the ads from the results, but the ads are still at the top. The easiest click/tap a user can make. Who "deserves" to advertise there at the top? The highest bidder, in a non-transparent auction.
"For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results."
Today, we see all manner of compliance with whatever Google asks of websites. Websites that do "X" will be favoured in search results, and websites that do not do X will be non-transparently penalised behind the scenes. For example, X could be use of a protocol or participation in a program controlled by and designed to benefit Google's business. Over the years, there have been so many instances of X, I can no longer keep track. HN readers can easily list multiple examples of X.
"In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."
Google and others have met the world's needs for a commercially-focused, advertising-funded search engine.
However we still need that "transparent" search engine "in the academic realm" referred to in this paper. As it happened, Google is not it.
While ads and regular search results on Google are a bit harder to distinguish these days, I don't think they've actually crossed that line?
Everything else changed, but there is still that.
Because the text-only ads look much like search results, it is arguable they never needed to cross the line. Having the ad urls appear at the top of the search results page and be relevant to the search query was enough to get people to follow them.
However, I think it is indisputable that the "insidious bias" referred to in the paper has existed for many years, where parties pay to get listed. Of course, they might not pay Google.
Consider "Parasite SEO" which was just on HN front page.