There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
from the can-we-kill-this-myth? dept
It seems that various anti-Google organizations have picked up on this bizarre and misguided notion of "search neutrality" as a key stick with which to attack. The idea is, obviously, a play on the concept of "net neutrality." It's been pushed mainly by AT&T and various anti-Google think tankers, but now it appears that Microsoft is getting into the game, suggesting that "search neutrality" is a problem and pointing a finger directly at Google.This is ridiculous on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to begin. First, "search neutrality" is not a problem because "search neutrality" makes no sense. The whole point of search is to be biased. The whole point of search is to recommend which sites fit your query best. "Search neutrality" isn't search at all. It's a list of unsorted and totally useless links.
Second, Microsoft should know better than to complain about Google's actions and suggest they're in some way anti-competitive. Remember that, even if the actual penalties (penalties? what penalties?) made the ruling meaningless, Microsoft was a convicted monopolist. Having big competitors point fingers at each other screaming about "anti-competitive" behavior is just silly.
Finally, Microsoft's Brad Smith apparently is claiming that "the biggest lack of competition" is in the search space. Really? Well, let's compare, shall we? According to some recent research, Google has 85% of the market in search. That is a lot, granted. But... what about the operating system? Oh, look. The same research firm shows that Microsoft has 91% of the market. What's next? Operating system neutrality?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: neutrality, search neutrality
Companies: google, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
MS can go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search
MSFT having been a "convicted monopolist" (I suppose you mean having been convicted of abusing its monopoly, because being a monopolist is not prohibited either in the EC or in the US) is just irrelevant for competition arguments in other (or even the same) sectors.
The tune gets old. I for one am under the impression that MSFT is on the right track again. It is now effectively an "incumbent" compared to Google and Apple, but I see it bouncing back with innovating products like Surface and Kinect. I predict pretty things in the years to come from MSFT. (And believe you me, I'm a big Google fan)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search
That is why I use Linux. My OS doesn't need to be "pretty," it just needs to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search
I actually took it a step further in the past year and went out of my way to make sure that I have several operating systems in my home (notebook is Win7, desktop is Linux, phone is Android, and I'm going to buy an Apple netbook to dick around with so I can see their OS). Not that everyone has the ability to do this, of course, but as long as I'm going to have multiple machines, I'm not going to pigeon hole myself into an OS....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Search
Erm, unless you're just referring to games: no. No, you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search
He probably is. I know that's one of the primary reasons I keep my Win7 machine around. Beyond that, I like to stay on the up and up w/OS (I work in the IT industry, after all). But I think even more than that is a general curiousity when it comes to technology. I'm weird like that. I love learning about the latest tech and even established systems and protocols, both because I enjoy and am often awed by the technology but also because I routinely weave technical information into my writing, a la Michael Crichton....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Search
...how did you know my nickname? ;)
Seriously, though, that's what most of my friends call me. Quite a life I lead....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search
I suppose next you're going to tell me that bing is innovative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search
It's the same as Apple, they haven't invented anything in decades, they're just better at putting other things together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search
Oh, they have you on retainer as well? You should probably disclose that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How quickly would the 'better' search results get ignored for a better user experience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Microsoft is not one to push "search neutrality". They've been known to hide anti-Microsoft search results and giving their sites higher priority over anything else (and yet, they still do it poorly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I might be willing to give up some Search Discrimination to gain True Net Neutrality and OS Neutrality. Require Linux support and all cpu salesfloors must have multiple OS's on display and for sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"blank" neutrality applies to any network industry, including search and OS. in search, we might not want certain sites scrubbed from the results, or discreet paid top five results, or a closed API, or the ability to only Google from Android and Chrome. in OS, we might not want exclusion of certain programs, API changes to void compatibility, or anything else Microsoft has done to upset the EU.
the author seemingly fails to grasp the concept of neutrality in these situations. yes, google so far has been tamer than microsoft in their exercise of market power, but it's an aside. the opportunity for abuse is rife in both fields.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's true of your other examples now. If you don't like google, switch to something else, there's nothing stopping you. Don't like Windows? Use a different OS (there's not a lot of competition there, but at least some of it is free).
The best solution to neutrality is generally (if not always) ensuring strong competition in the market, not directly mandating neutrality. Encouraging competition is less likely to have unintended consequences, more likely to actually solve the problem because it may be less vulnerable to regulatory capture, and could solve any number of other problems in the same market all at once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Market dominance does not a monopoly make
As for Google, I have no idea how the search engine can be seen to be monopolistic. Google isn't twisting people's arms to use their search engine. They're not using dirty tricks against their competitors. The consumer has the choice to use other search engines. It just so happens that Google is a damn good search engine, so that's what most people use. Google is free to use whatever algorithms they want. If AT&T doesn't like it, then they're free to develop their own search engine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google? search neutrality isnt about their monopoly position, rather the idea that their search should be entirely independant of the influence of other parts of their company. if you want to get your pages indexed faster, use google tools, put google ads on your site, etc. some people suggest that fast way to better rankings is often to buy keyword ads on google, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why? What is the justification for this idea? Google is free to define their algorithms any way they want. If they want to remove every page that has the word "bing" in it from their results and not tell anyone, then that's completely up to them. If you don't like the results that Google gives you, you're free to go somewhere else for your search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, you did it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yes, OS neutrality would be a very, very good thing. It that were to ever happen, MS would shivel and die. Or actually develop products that are good on their own merit, not because people have no choice but to use them because the apps/games they want only work on Windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A WebmasterWorld thread points to a recent presentation video by Yahoo and Microsoft of the transition timelines for Bing to begin powering Yahoo on both the organic and paid side of search.
Did you know that Bing is already or will very soon begin testing powering Yahoo's search results? Yes, in Yahoo Search, you should technically see the same organic results that you would see in Bing - possibly any day now. Of course, this is being tested and you and I may not see it, while your neighbor may see it. This should be in testing mode right now.
When will Yahoo switch completely over to Bing? Either in August or September of this year. That obviously assumes that the tests go well. But we are looking for an August or September 2010 transition on the organic side of Yahoo to Microsoft search.
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/022397.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adds
That's why Google has adds based on your search criteria. But yes, if this does happen, it should be exposed and stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Convicted monopolist" is a stupid meme that needs to die. Abusing a monopoly. Good to go. There is, however, nothing illegal or wrong with simply having attained a monopoly position. This phrase is on par with spelling their name Micro$oft.
> google? search neutrality isnt about their monopoly position, rather the idea that their search should be entirely independant of the influence of other parts of their company. if you want to get your pages indexed faster, use google tools, put google ads on your site, etc. some people suggest that fast way to better rankings is often to buy keyword ads on google, etc.
Collecting additional information on usage from their other toolsets to improve the core algorithm is not some evil plan. If an add to a page gets lots of clicks, it stands that the content is relevant and useful. Raising the organic placement when this happens helps the consumer find relevant information, and the business by channeling otherwise paid traffic through a free channel.
Watching Base usage to discover useful products / content and raising the relevance of that data for organic search makes sense.
Using google analytics to watch what pages on the internet are most active is a huge boon to knowing what people want.
This isn't a conspiracy. It's finding novel sources of information for supplying opinionation to a massive artificial intelligence process. It has to learn what to like from somewhere. Sure pagerank is great, but there are tons of local maxima and disparate groups of interconnected pages with similar information and popularity. Which do you show? How do you know which is good and which is popular because other shitty content linked to it? They have to find sources for these things.
Microsoft is complaining to cause headaches for Google, not because they have found an actual problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Microsoft were convicted in a court of law of anti-trust violation, meaning that they were convicted of abusing their monopoly. Whether you agree with the shortened term "convicted monopolist" to describe this, it doesn't change the fact they were convicted.
However, I do agree with the rest of your points.
"Microsoft is complaining to cause headaches for Google, not because they have found an actual problem."
Indeed. it's like the way they attacked Linux. They found they couldn't simply buy a competitor out or sue them out of existence. Rather than actually compete on level terms, they instead tried to spread FUD against open source, financed legal challenges like the SCO cases and threatened to remove the massive discounts they give to manufacturers like Dell if they supplied Linux or OS-free machines. That's why you never see an advertising push for Linux machines and why you're forced to buy a Windows licence you'll never use if you shop big box retail.
It's the same thing here. Bing has not been a particularly big success so instead of improving it to compete, they want to get the courts to make Google less valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do agree. Thankfully, dell and hp are slowly allowing more Linux and FreeDos PC's. and you can always shop at System76.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Search neutrality is a concept of content inclusiveness and accessibility, where all sources of content have an equal chance at meeting the search relevance criteria. The "problem" this concept addresses being that a search engine could exclude for any reason content that they do not "like".
That being said, search neutrality does not align well with the for-profit search model, as advertisers need to be seen or they are not getting advertisement value. Google fanatics will deny this, but every profit driven search engine's relevance heuristics are stacked (and remotely manipulated with support of the search provider aligned SEOs) to favor paid links.
Google is paid per click on their advertisers' links. This is how they became the powerful corporation they are today. I do not think anyone has the right to tell Google how to run its business, I'm just saying they are not in it for the love.
Mike, however is correctly pointing out the absurd, in that the ideal of search neutrality is now being used as a red herring by competitor search engines in order to gain some footing (and perhaps direct government assistance).
In the linked article (lol Hillicon Valley almost says it all.. freaking mercantilism!) the article first evokes the ideal:
That's all good. But then he goes on to quote the MS exec and reveal the red herring:
True, a dominant search engine is in the perfect position to limit content access in any way it pleases. However it's clear to me that, considering the forum, these people are really after government assistance in the market.
The last thing we need in the area of content neutrality is a government guided mandate.
Let the users sort out who they think is the best search provider for finding content. An overly oppressive search heuristic will eventually reveal itself, and open up an opportunity for someone else to "do search better" and start running away with the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
I wish you were being sarcastic but your not. Are you even aware that people have the power to give a thumbs up or thumbs down?
Probably not, because by the looks of things your still looking up for answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
If you are referring to the activity of people in the (not so free) market, yes I am fully aware that people have full control of their decisions. I felt my post made that clear.
If you are referring to people having control over government activity, I would have to say, no, I am not aware of that. The prevailing mechanisms of our government are in alignment with commercial interests, and the government's role is to clear the way for the dominant economic powers to continue to dominate. If you have any doubt that the government's activities are aligned this way, I would refer you to that past 160 years of legislation.
Horse and buggy vs. the nascent auto industry. BP and the Coast Guard vs. The American Public
Mercantilism never died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Google engineers (like this one) will deny this too, because it's complete and utter horseshit. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Sure. I direct you to a Google search for Indiana tire legislation
Obviously, Google and Yahoo cannot neglect well-known government resources (and other resources such as Wikipedia), like the EPA so they are given priority. But if you scan down the page you will find the rest of page one filled by commercial sites. It is not until page 2 that the user will find the most relevant link from the Indiana state government.
By the way a quick review of the commercial sites on page one reveal that none of them actually contain all three words "Indiana tire legislation".
It is in the algorithm, and in the SEO.
The problem with being an engineer is so many get used to living in a silo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Maybe it's because the search you requested is fairly obscure for the large majority of searchers. You may be looking for the government legislation, but others are probably searching for compliance of companies to the standards.
For the most part, commercial results ARE the most relevant, especially when your search involves products.
I can guarantee you, though, that if Tire Legislation was actually something people cared about (like if a controversial bill was going through), you wouldn't be able to find a Tire company website within the first 10 pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Yes, and this obscurity makes the term perfect to illustrate the nature of the algorithm. This search was most likely not cached anywhere.
What makes you think Google hits should only look good for commonly used search terms?
Clearly commercial results are the most relevant based on Google's (and Yahoo's, and Bing's) algorithm. The only thing you left out was the fact that none of the page one commercial hits actually contained the entire search string I sent to Google.
I agree though, "legislation" is definitely a product. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
I'm not passing judgment on Google or anyone. I'm not saying results "should" look one way or another. I'm saying that Google's results (like Yahoo's and Bing's) are biased to advertisement. Plain as day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Everything else I've read from you seems like pure speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Search Neutrality vs. Red Herring
Google, Yahoo, Bing are all the same. None of them make significant money off of the "Sponsored Links" breakout, because nobody clicks them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't like the market wasn't full of competition when google came in, and it isn't like they overcame it by cheating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most good search engines (especially Google) rank pages by:
1) Number of viewers
2) Website history
3) Inbound links from well-ranked pages
4) "Quality" of website (judged by the algorithms)
5) Relevancy to search terms (like repetition of key words)
In that order. Meaning that no matter how you design your site, or how you try to play to the algorithms, you still can't beat the highly viewed webpages.
That's about as neutral as you can get, when reader trends are valued above website content and quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Put it this way: they may rate these as "3" and "4" in the relevance algorithm, but the weighting is not adequately distributed to prevent SEO exploitation using these criteria.
For people who remember Google's search performance before they licensed Goto.com's technology (pay-per-click keyword advertising), there is no doubt that advertisers are getting priority.
"Don't be insolvent."
More power to Google, I don't want anyone telling them how to run their business. I'm just saying, again, they are not in it for the love. Good for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whitehat SEO's can do little more than improve your ranking by a little, and only in comparison to other websites of similar standing. They focus mainly on gaming people, rather than algorithms.
There have been a number of competitions to try and get the #1 result listing for extremely obscure search terms. Who are the winners? People who use pre-existing reader bases to generate views. Link farmers and and keyword spammers only get immediate results, but ultimately falter once the algorithms have more to go on then initial site evaluations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have reached an accord. By "exploitation" I meant something more akin to "strip mining" rather than "cheating".
But, yes, Google ordained (or at least tolerated for the present) exploitation of the algorithm is clearly at play in the results.
Reciprocal links to Google "quality" sites are no more useful in gaining true relevance than a rogue link farm. It's like an NFL approved metabolic versus an unapproved metabolic: one will get you in trouble, one will not.
The rogue link farms are more likely used to serve those sites too cheap to pay for Google ad words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, what bugs me is that search engines allow me to choose "Past week. Past month. Past year." Why can't I specify, "from April til June. From May to July" or something. Perhaps I want something that I know is two months old and I don't want yesterdays search results cluttering up my search.
Also, only displaying the top ten results as the default made sense ten years ago when everyone had dial up modems but now it seems archaic. The default should be the top 100 results with options going up to the top 1000. That way I can better utilize a ctrl+F to help find what I want or I can quickly scroll down and identify links that I've already been to (ie: URL color). Perhaps search engines should also have an option that allows you to only search through links that you've been to with a browser plugin to facilitate the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The thing is that many of the complaints made by people who use search engines look like they can be solved by adding more advanced tools that allow people to better refine their search. Of course learning how to use all of these advanced features once there are too many of them can become overwhelming for the average user. Perhaps users can create websites with embedded search bars that have preset features so that people can sorta create and share their own personal search engine (powered by Google or whatever of course) that obeys very specific settings defined by the maker of the page/user. Kinda like a user generated search algorithm powered by Google/yahoo/Microsoft/etc...? So people can put their own refined search engine as their homepage and allow others to do the same. Google already kinda does custom search engine settings though.
Regarding commercial or non commercial, it also looks like Google's advance search already has options like "Not filtered by license" or "Free to use or share" etc... which can help in that respect. I guess the problem is that many people (including myself) aren't even familiar with all of the options and tools that search engines often provide in their advanced features? You can even choose format (ie: PDF only, etc...) but perhaps an option to exclude certain formats and include the rest? Or perhaps an option to include only a list of selected formats instead of just one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another idiot article
THE search is to post out all the possible matches of my criteria , if your doing something else ill ignore it or find a better alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another idiot article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another idiot article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency not Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh how funny!
Be careful Microsoft because you just might be digging your own hole to crawl in!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
This would be a Utopia. As it stands, the list is sorted by who pays more for the top position. You get "What's Best" for the search provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
If you like their service, use it; if you don't like their service, don't. Make a better one, whatever. No one is twisting your arm. They aren't the government, it's just a search engine with plenty of crappy competition if you want to use something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search Neutrality
Fist of all, making a true 'query' on Google, or any other search engine I've tried, is not possible. While we may kid ourselves that we're asking a question, in reality we're merely searching for words and phrases.
Second, we search for words and phrases, NOT "sites that fit your query best". Web sites just happen to be the repositories of our search terms and the other text associated with our search terms. (This is not a trivial distinction).
Third, the "whole point of search" is NOT to be biased. I'm forever bumping up against Google's attempts to 'correct' search terms that require no correction, and sometimes Google even 'auto-corrects' my query and does a search on GOOGLE'S IDEA OF WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR, instead of what I'm actually looking for. I don't think I need to explain why such behaviour is beyond exasperating, as well as totally unworkable.
Should Google be forced to provide 'search neutrality'? Probably not. Should Google provide search neutrality in order to provide the most useful, flexible, and comprehensive search results? Absolutely, positively yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search Neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search Neutrality
By what definition of "query"?
Second, we search for words and phrases, NOT "sites that fit your query best".
Personally, I search for web sites. I'm not interested in finding words and phrases, I already have those. I want to find web sites.
Should Google provide search neutrality in order to provide the most useful, flexible, and comprehensive search results? Absolutely, positively yes!
What does search neutrality mean to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had search neutrality prior to Google
You type in a word and they would return hundreds of thousands of irrelevant pages without the bias that Google. Yes that bias Google has for finding the most relevant results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's lack of search neutrality
With all due respect, I had to challenge your head-in-the-sand views on Google's lack of search neutrality. see my post: http://precursorblog.com/content/mr-masnick-ostriching-search-neutraltiy
Scott Cleland
Precursor LLC
Publisher GoogleMonitor.com, and Googleopoly.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's lack of search neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google's lack of search neutrality
a choice quote:
The entire point of a modern search engine Is to be biased. If i simply wanted to scroll through a thousand-page list of websites that included the words "Cooking" "Time" "For" "Boiled" "Egg" to find a cooking site and information on cooking an egg.. well, i wouldnt want to. I want to find the "best" match, which current algorithms say is http://whatscookingamerica.net/Eggs/BoiledEggs.htm
Notice how i was not sent to a dictionary site that tries to link every imaginable word combination, and i was not sent to the application form for a paid-subscription cooking site because they paid off my search provider. I got a result that was biased (towards being correct) and transparent (the companies involved were not misleading me or hiding a connection)
You go out of your way to purposefully mix up terms and take tiny quotes out of their context to shape a "compelling" story.
Aha, they say that being transparent is good, and then someone else says that they don't want certain details of their ranking algorithms made public! Shock! Gasp! Moral Outrage!
What kind of headlines are next? "When Will Google Reply To Questions About Their Cannibalistic Orgies?" "New Google Technology Takes Over Internet Forever*!"
*at a closer look, you seem to be claiming this already.
All of the action-packed bulletpoints you make are questionable, many leading to an interwoven nest of "google action! sites" and the others leading to pdf.. PDFs for goodness sake, full of buzzwords and "Oddly Designed Phrases"
shameful, Scott. very shameful.
I wont claim that your head is in the sand, but it might well be somewhere else.. and is sure is dark there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting article thanks
I came across this article because I follow Matt Cutts and he twitted about you guys. Anyway, I had never heard of search neutrality it looks like a sucker punch for ATT for Google leading net neutrality except Google's campaign makes sense where as ATT's doesn't! And to see Microsoft, the biggest IT monopolist in the world jumping on the bandwagon for selfish reasons it is just a shame.
But that also tells you how well Google is doing and how desperate Microsoft and other search engines have gotten so Kudos to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on Search Neutrality
I thought you would like to see my latest piece on why search neutrality is important and why Google is anti-competitively discriminating with its monopoly search business. See: http://precursorblog.com/content/google-were-biggest-kingmaker-earth-googleopoly-update
Scott Cleland
Precursor LLC
Publisher, GoogleMonitor.com and Googleopoly.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]