I binged it, and it took me to this zdnet article: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-advertising-and-search-e...

So the author of that observation is Sergey Brin himself. Lel.

I try not to overuse the reference, but "Anatomy of a Search Engine" [1] is so deliciously prescient and ironic that it's hard to avoid. It's funny how hard Sergey and Larry shifted once personal fortunes changed their motivation.

[1] http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

"For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors"

That's basically what Google got sued for in the EU and they lost. The friendly companies were other Google properties.

The shopping fine? That wasn't a case of results being secretly promoted like the paper was worried about. The shopping ads were labeled as sponsored.

It is rather delicious.

(Not to be confused with del.icio.us, which is now ... Pinboard.)

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody use "bing" as a verb, outside of a Microsoft ad.

(Assuming that your post isn't a new form of Microsoft ad, that is.)

https://duckduckgo.com/ also had this link as its #1 result. I much prefer DDG - have converted across all my devices now in the past month and I'm really, really liking it. (Sorry off topic, but it's contextual.)

What's that then, I ducked it? :-)

Doesn't DDG use Bing behind the scenes for substantial number of queries?

quacked it?

Anecdata:

I use Bing regularly. Sometimes I'll say I've binged something, but I have a hard time doing so without a little hint of sarcasm or self-awareness in my voice.

It gets weirder when people are using the term "Google-fu" - gotta say "search-fu" if you can't stomach "Bing-fu"; neither option is great.

But hey, the rewards points are redeemable for Amazon cards...

Users are the goods, not the clients, of Google.

Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise.

The content of 3rd party websites is the merchandise. Users are users. Just because it's financed by ads doesn't mean they're not interested in your experience. Facebook currently experiences how problematic declining user engagement can be. If Google search quality ever drops below that of others (Bing, Yandex), they'd be in real trouble. Their superior search is the only reason they make all that money.

I get that some are dissatisfied by "paying" with ads. But the alternative would be a paid-for search engine. Not only would that potentially exclude some, it would also make it harder to access search for people from low-income countries. Currently, US and Europe subsidise operations for money other areas, allowing them to get the same search experience. That'd change with a paid-for model.

> Remember: if you get a service for free, then you are the merchandise.

Like Wikipedia, right?

Exactly. The number of wikipedia users is used when soliciting for donations. Donators and wikipedia users probably have some overlap, but that's also true of Google Search users and advertisers..

Right, which shows that the notion that "you're the product" is stretched so far to fit this idiotic platitude that it's more or less meaningless.

Wikipedia is run by non-profit organization.

jokes on you, I pay them monthly.