Blown To Bits

Search Engine Neutrality?

Monday, December 28th, 2009 by Harry Lewis
Over toradol cheap time, postpartum thyroiditis can lead to an underactive thyroid, or purchase estradiol valerate online hypothyroidism, in which the thyroid gland does not make enough cheapest gel thyroid hormones. If an adult has enough flexibility in their buy discount viagra spine, they can wear a corrective brace full time, then buy generic norvasc transition to a supportive part-time brace or no brace. In cost prozac most cases, doctors and researchers use the term "mixed dementia" nexium prescription to refer to the combination of Alzheimer's disease and vascular cheap viagra pill dementia. This is because some complementary therapies can negatively interact norvasc online with mood management or some medications. Some individuals may undergo buy glyburide sale surgery where a urologist implants a device that helps them buy generic kenalog problems maintain an erection. Your doctor will advise you on the find cialis dosage and administration of Remicade or Humira that's right for buy cheap griseofulvin without prescription you. They work by slowing the heart rate and prolonging buying cheap lasix alternatives professional diastole, which is when the heart is relaxed and not contracting..

Adam Raff, a founder of Foundem, an Internet technology firm, makes the case in today’s New York Times for “Search Engine Neutrality,” which is kind of like network neutrality except that the nondiscrimination policy would apply to the way search engines return their results. As Raff states it, search neutrality means that “search engines should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive, impartial and based solely on relevance.” He objects, for example, to Google favoring its own map service over competing map services. And he objects to the way Google down-ranked his company’s product comparison service, which, he says, severely impacted its business.

Many of the points Raff makes are versions of thoughts in Chapter 4 of Blown to Bits, where we discuss the distorting lens phenomenon and an extreme case of search oblivion at the hands of Google’s ranking. (We also make the point, as Raff notes, that some of Google’s keyword auction technology was the invention not of Google but of Overture.)

But can search “impartiality” and “relevance” really be defined statutorily? I doubt it, or rather, I doubt we would want the hash that Congress or a regulatory bureaucracy would make of an attempt to regulate the semantics of the entire English language (and not just English). And lots of things affect Google’s rankings –see the Webmaster Help page, which includes advice such as not creating pages with little or no original content. I don’t think we want a legal entity judging whether pages were downranked for these or other reasons, or whether Google’s Safe Search filter has improperly omitted someone’s web page entirely.

In the presence of competition, none of this would be a worry. People would choose a search engine based on whether they liked the results it delivered, or perhaps on the basis of quality ratings by an organization such as Consumers Report. They could move if the search company changed their policy. The same is true with net neutrality, actually — the demand would not be so compelling if the number of choices of Internet services were not limited to one or two in so many places.

Monopolies are always dangerous, and this op-ed drives home that point. Not sure I am persuaded about the remedy, though.

Note: Any account written by an agent of a company unhappy about where its name turns up in Google searches should be regarded skeptically. There are lots of possible reasons for Google to downrank a site that have nothing to do with Google trying to gain an advantage in a new business sector, and Foundem’s web page design certainly doesn’t dazzle. Would love to know the full facts here, but I don’t.

Comments are closed.