> our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches.
If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results.
Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top results at product search are crap. There are three things that people usually prefer links to when they search for a product:
1. High quality product information - that's usually the website of the manufacturer. Amazon is not too bad in some cases but smaller retailers usually lack a lot of useful information.
2. Best offer - when you pay for being a top result on Google product search, then it's hard to claim you will be able to provide the best price.
3. Buyers feedback - sites that are larger usually have more prior buyers and thus more feedback. Google's very own ratings (which the scrape from other sites that allow them I guess) is usually crap compared to what you find on Amazon.
So basically, if Google would want to provide actual useful search results, this would just be a link to the manufacturers marketing site, a link to the best offer and/or the result page of a price-comparison site, and a link to Amazon and/or comparably large local retailers. Results based on who payed most is not what people usually want, don't try to argue that this is true.
> If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results.
If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for. It'd be like if I searched for some random bit of information on Google and the top result was a link to the same search results page on Yahoo.
> usually the top results at product search are crap
According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users disagree with you on that. I'm one such user. I don't typically use Google's shopping results as the _only_ source of product information for me, but I do occasionally use them as one source.
You also seem to be misunderstanding what the links they show actually link to. Buyer feedback and product information for individual products are available on the landing page (from a third party site, I might add) you get to when you click on a link to a product. The main difference is that you get to the product page directly rather than having to go through _another_ search results page from a third party to find what you're looking for.
>The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for.
The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages', but link to the actual product itself. You're already in agreement with them, so stop arguing :)
The only problem here is that Google seems to think that its mission is to setup a tollbooth on the internet rather than indexing information and just responding to search queries.
>According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users disagree with you on that. I'm one such user.
An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome" - You'll have to excuse the people who don't take that seriously.
> The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages'
Really? It certainly sounds like that's what he was talking about:
> wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site
In any case, linking directly to the actual product is _already_ what Google does. So if that's the goal, then what's the issue?
> An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome"
That's another thing about this ruling that I don't get. Google's "Product Search" results are essentially paid ads, and they're explicitly marked as such. (Example: https://imgur.com/m5rGqLa)
With this ruling, isn't the EU pretty much saying that Google isn't allowed to display ads on their search results pages, because those ads are displayed at the top of the page, thus "giving prominent placement to Google's own service"? That's ridiculous, right?
Google was not fined for displaying ads, but for promoting its services, illegally, via product tying. Google search should be responding to a query with relevant web pages that their crawler indexed. Instead, they insert a popup that links to their shopping service and try to make a buck off of that. This is the first complaint, the second is that they demoted rival shopping services from their search results.
I can't really speak to the second complaint, since I'm not privy to the internal workings of Google's ranking algorithms (though I have anecdotal evidence that the overall quality of Google's search results in these situations is just fine), but as for the first one: as a consumer I very much like Google's integrations between search and their other services. Those integrations are one of the main things that makes Google's search engine better than its competitors. Being able to search for a nearby business and immediately see whether it's open, with a link to get directions to it on Google Maps, is incredibly useful. Same goes for the product results being discussed here, and for other services like Google's built-in calculator, dictionary, image search, etc.
If such integrations are illegal under EU law, then in my opinion the law is harmful to consumers and needs to be changed. I'm not an EU citizen though, so I don't really have a say in the matter. I can only sit back and hope this ruling only results in the quality of Google's search results being gimped in the EU, and not in non-EU countries.
>Being able to search for a nearby business and immediately see whether it's open, with a link to get directions to it on Google Maps, is incredibly useful. Same goes for the product results being discussed here, and for other services like Google's built-in calculator, dictionary, image search, etc.
A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got popular.
I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do have a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their unsuccessful services by integrating it with a successful search product is wrong and harms competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's promotion of their closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google spends a lot on lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we will see such enforcement in the US.
> A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got popular.
You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers?
No, you don't, you have mistaken Google for something other than a private company. Only you've made that mistake arbitrarily, as evidenced...
> I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do have a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their unsuccessful services by integrating it with a successful search product is wrong and harms competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's promotion of their closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google spends a lot on lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we will see such enforcement in the US.
... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words.
Of all the arguments in favor of this ruling I've read, this one is by far the weirdest.
>You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers?
The point was, 'whoever has the power, makes the rules'. Google skews search results whenever it wants to promote its services. Given Google's dominant position, this harms competition. The EU is addressing this.
>... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words.
An open platform has absolutely nothing to do with the source code. For e.g. Linux would be an open platform even if you had no access to the source code. This is because you can run any software you want, poke at any and all bits in memory, call any API you want, extend the OS using documented APIs in any way you want, etc. OSX and Windows are open too, with some caveats relating to their app stores. iOS and Android are not open platforms.
Google is creating tightly integrated closed platforms where they control absolutely everything, and doing anything that is not "blessed" by them is automatically illegal and violates their TOS For e.g. If you came up with a better commenting system, you can't create an app that lets you watch youtube videos and comment using your own system. If you came up with a better stock ticker, you can't compete with google because typing 'apple stock quote' popups up their own service and there is no way to get that top spot. Such integrations combined with their dominant market position harms competition. Anyway, i've spent way too much time on this story so this will be my last comment. Need to get back to work ! :)
Heh, now you're complaining about a site having its own commenting system. And that Android isn't an open platform.
Your definition of open and closed is hilariously misguided, I see absolutely no reason or point in accepting it. And, as your entire argument hangs on that faulty definition...
If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results.
Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top results at product search are crap. There are three things that people usually prefer links to when they search for a product: 1. High quality product information - that's usually the website of the manufacturer. Amazon is not too bad in some cases but smaller retailers usually lack a lot of useful information. 2. Best offer - when you pay for being a top result on Google product search, then it's hard to claim you will be able to provide the best price. 3. Buyers feedback - sites that are larger usually have more prior buyers and thus more feedback. Google's very own ratings (which the scrape from other sites that allow them I guess) is usually crap compared to what you find on Amazon.
So basically, if Google would want to provide actual useful search results, this would just be a link to the manufacturers marketing site, a link to the best offer and/or the result page of a price-comparison site, and a link to Amazon and/or comparably large local retailers. Results based on who payed most is not what people usually want, don't try to argue that this is true.