Misfortune Sucks, But It's Not Google's Responsibility
from the slippery-slope dept
Ars Technica has been following the story of Mario Gianna Masiá, who has been engaged in a legal battle with Google's Spanish arm over the search results for his business. His family opened the Camping Alfaques vacation spot in 1956, and in 1978 a tanker-truck explosion on a nearby road left 200 campers at the site dead, resulting in a lot of disturbing photos in the media. Masiá's father decided not to change the name of the business—it was still fully supported by locals and clients (the disaster was in no way their fault, and they were powerless to prevent it) and he said he had no desire to "erase history". Masiá later took over the business, and was shocked two-and-a-half years ago when, after one of Google's many adjustments to its algorithm, the grisly photos of the 30-year-old disaster began appearing near the top of the search results for the site. He wants them gone.
Now, to his credit, Masiá sounds a lot more reasonable than most people who have a problem with Google's results. He's noticed the bizarre fact that the generic query "camping alfaques" produces the disturbing images, while the more specific "accidente camping alfaques" doesn't. He understands that Google results are purely algorithmic, but feels this is a problem with that algorithm, and has been trying to get it fixed:
A regional IT consultant told him that the websites hosting the pictures had no interest in making any changes, so Mario decided to try Google. He began reporting the images as offensive, using Google's own tools, sometimes clicking on each five times a day; it had no result. He sent a certified letter to Google, begging them to associate the graphic images with searches for the accident and not with generic ones for his campground; they said there was nothing they could do.
... "We don't want to erase history, we want them [Google] to classify properly the information," Mario told me. He cited other searches, such as the one for the "MGM Grand" in Las Vegas. The hotel suffered a famous fire, but no picture or links to it appear just by searching the hotel name. Only specific searches for the tragedy bring up images of the burning building. Most of the world's accidents and terror attacks don't bring up such "horrific close-ups of people," Mario said.
After taking legal advice on the question and making no progress with Google, he finally sued the company's Spanish subsidiary in a local "court of first instance" in Spain. He didn't want any money; he wanted the images moved to other searches that he argues are more appropriate for the information. Last week, a judge threw the case out, saying that US-based Google Inc. had to be sued instead, as they were responsible for the algorithm.
The MGM Grand example seems damning at first, until you consider that it is a globally famous landmark that was the largest hotel in the world for years—and that was turned into Bally's, while the new MGM Grand Las Vegas has become an even more famous spot and is gobbling up lots of the search results.
Ars compares the situation to a few others, such as Google's "explanation page" linked from the distressing results for the query "jew", the changes Google has made to address "bomb" attacks that mocked public figures, and the suicide hotline notes they use in some countries. All those examples have key differences, though: the explanation page started as an internal Adword buy, and now exists as an organic result; Google bombs were addressed with algorithm changes, not curation; and the suicide hotline was included in their program to highlight emergency services information, just like fire and poison control phone numbers.
The fact is, sometimes bad things happen to good businesses. It's unfortunate that Masiá's business must contend with the fallout of an accident that he could not control, just as it's unfortunate when a crime scene shuts down a retail street during vital business hours, or when a "haunting" rumor forces a real estate agent to sell a house for less than its value—but bad fortune is a part of life. Google has to take an all-or-nothing stance on curation, because if they meddle with the results for one complainant, where does it end? Should a search for "Kent State" not return photos of the infamous massacre? Should a search for "Tiananmen Square" show only peaceful, touristy shots as it does in China?
Masiá is considering his next move, possibly planning to appeal the Spanish court's ruling rather than pursuing a judgement against Google in the U.S. as the first judge ruled he should. If he does, hopefully the appeals court will uphold the decision, and Masiá will realize that though he got a bum-deal, it's not Google's responsibility to fix it. But given Spain's mixed history of rulings about Google results, anything could happen.
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: misfortune, search results
Companies: campign alfaques, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Or he could do what he's done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or he could do what he's done!
If not, don't forget the Actress who sued Amazon for revealing her true age. That ended up so well.
Or the lady that sued search engines because her name was linked to performance enhancing drugs.
While it sucks for the owner to have searches leading to the images, suing is only going to make it worse. He would have been better to make a page about the accident and explain why the results came up and this happened 30 years ago as an accident near the establishment. Including links to the stories that are generating the results would have also been helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Or he could do what he's done!
I don't really hate this man for his lawsuit, I don't see most of the internet community attacking him with vitriol for it. He's being reasonable, requesting a change be made, and has some sound (though I would argue misguided) logical reasons for it. He's not really demanding anything or being greedy, just trying to get things change and is using the proper channels to do so (suing someone and appealing a ruling should be allowed in my opinion...if you've got the time and the money go ahead).
So yes, these articles are going to be the first thing that pops up. And people may read them and realize "oh...that's what's going on...ok then" and then camp there anyway.
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Golden Opportunities
His campsite could become the destination of choice for the gothic/morbid/weird crowd. Throw in a little crime-scene/educational stuff and you could totally get some government/college funded college-kid field trips too!
The guy's got the kind of publicity you simply cannot buy with money--and he's just pissing it away. Sad, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Golden Opportunities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasonable Compromise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasonable Compromise...
Like the article said, it's just bad luck all the way around. The best "official" way to deal with this is to get whoever hosts the images to retag them from the camp site name to camp-site-name-accident. But it seems they weren't interested in doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasonable Compromise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasonable Compromise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasonable Compromise...
Or for movies to WB, and and and
Oh and for software they could do the same for...and and and
Better to say no and not set a precedent that anyone could ever use against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasonable Compromise...
Could they CHOOSE to give the greedy arrogant bastards in the Content Cartels free advertising too? Of course the could but why would they do that? It would do them absolutely no good whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choosing to give away ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again, the shittiness of Google's algorithm is shown.
I'm sorry, but Google search sucks. Every time I make a search, I have to come up with some weird combination of double quotes and minus symbols just to get half-decent results. And even then, I think that Google decides to drop some of the search terms for some random reason.
Not to mention the times where Google just goes like "You were searching for X, but I'm showing results for Y, because I assume that, if I don't know what it is, it's probably a stupid mistake on your part, dumbass".
Oh, how I wish Google was more like in the old days, where you got pages about what you wanted, not what Google thinks you want.
/end rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I'm not calling you stupid.
What I bet has happened is that people searched for "camping alfaques", those people saw the accident links further down in the search results and clicked there to see what that was about. That in turn made the rankings on those pages higher, and moved them up in the search results. Soon, these links ended up as first page results, meaning they got more exposure, more clicks, higher rank....vicious cycle.
Now they are at the top b/c at some point someone searching for "camping alfaques" clicked on something other than what the search would normally be used for. Google's algorithm has associated "camping alfaques" with the accident b/c that is where people clicked after doing that search.
Thus, it's the stupidity of people that caused this, not Google's algorithm. The same can be said for when it does the "You searched for X, but I'm showing results for Y". B/c enough stupid ppl made that mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
These days that trick doesn't work as well as it used to. Never heard of that double-quote thing; I'll have to look into that.
What's up with Google's weird desire to give people what Google thinks they want instead of what they say they want, anyway? I still remember getting annoyed about the way Chrome 9's address bar autocomplete works. I checked, and the Chrome forums had pages of people demanding that URL autocomplete be removed, or at least able to be disabled. Eventually a dev popped in, said he was the guy in charge of it, and that they'd try to tone it down a little for Chrome 10.
I'm still using Chrome 8. (Well, SRWare Iron 8.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+search
As for Google's weird desire to give people what they want instead of what they asked for, you should remember that you're probably not average. Based solely on the content (and grammar) of your post, you're probably well above average, intelligence-wise. The fact that you know how to properly format a search query does not mean that most people do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"using Google's own tools, sometimes clicking on each five times a day" - Well hell if he just uploaded 5 pics a day to facebook, twitter, photobucket, google, etc his problem could have gone away by now.
Just think if all the time and money wasted trying to litigate was spent on an advertising/social media campaign. He could easily bury those pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not if those aren't interesting to anyone. The inbound links to those images need to drown out the accident pics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just think if all the time and money wasted trying to litigate was spent on an advertising/social media campaign.
"The inbound links to those images need to drown out the accident pics."
Again, if time spent was spent wisely, he could bury those pics in a short amount of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transitory versus Permanent Affects
By the way, did you mean to write "damning"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transitory versus Permanent Affects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Transitory versus Permanent Affects
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transitory versus Permanent Affects
That depends. News would definitely circulate and remain online. If the crime was murder, that could generate rumours that bring down the value of property on the street (e.g. a typically quiet neighbourhood becomes associated with a notorious murder), and so forth.
"A rumor about a haunted house affects the price of that one house, not the broker's entire inventory."
...and the instance above only affects this one campsite, not his entire business chain. It's not Google's fault if it's the only business he has, just as it's not the haunting rumour's fault if the agent only has one property to sell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transitory versus Permanent Affects
There are many, many retail businesses that make virtually ALL their money during one or two weeks of the year. Being shut down for ONE of those days can, quite literally, put a whole store out of business - or put them a full year further away from profitability. Running a small business is tough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The text result(s) also show a headline and a date which may go back a number of years. Now if you go directly from there to the pictures you get the pictures of a 30 year old incident I guess.
It does seem there's a bit of weakness in Google's famous algorithm from what the owner of the campsite is complaining about and to my mind Google should look into it and do what they can to mitigate it. The suggestion that they offer a sponsored link position sounds good to me but I can also see good reason why Google wouldn't do that from a sales perspective not to mention liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its unfortunate that the original picture host was unwilling to change the tags on the images. I think that also could have helped to change the ranking of them. Maybe the original host will change their minds and try to help out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point is, just like the MAFIAA shouldn't be focusing on litigation, he should accept the result and move towards a better model to fix this issue. Maybe it involves a better business model too lmao
In any case, god luck to the camp. Except that in this case (vs Google) I think the decision was pretty sane and all right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Buy a google ad so your page is in the sponsored links at the top of search results.
2. Change the name of your camp ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, the problem here seems to be that the guy has an emotional, rather than business, objection to the images. This is why he's had so little luck so far. Google won't censor the images no matter how much he asks, because they're historical record. They won't game the system to protect his feelings.
At this point, it's tough. It's an unfortunate part of history that, in the information age, can't be buried. The events in the photos happened, and his campsite is as tied to them as any scene is to any notorious event. It might be sad that, at this particular moment in time, his site's name is more closely associated with the accident than it was a few years ago, but that will pass. In the meantime, this story is probably causing more searches than before, and therefore keeping the accident on top of the rankings. Really, he only has one option, although it may seem a little harsh to say:
4. Get over it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/business/in-personal-data-a-fight-for-the-right-to-be-forgotte n.html?_r=1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2012/02/24/how-the-right-to-be-forgotten-thr eatens-the-internet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]