I particularly love this section:

> Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine.

> But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results. For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's homepage when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine.

> In general, it could be argued from the consumer point of view that the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model of the existing search engines. However, there will always be money from advertisers who want a customer to switch products, or have something that is genuinely new. But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.

"For example, we noticed a major search engine would not return a large airline's homepage when the airline's name was given as a query. It so happened that the airline had placed an expensive ad, linked to the query that was its name. A better search engine would not have required this ad, and possibly resulted in the loss of the revenue from the airline to the search engine."

---

If you go and search "Delta" today on Google, the top result is an advertisement for Delta that points to delta.com.

This is because delta doesn’t want southwest’s ad to show up when people search for delta

"...or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Nice link. It is incredibly interesting that the Google founders were so outspoken against advertising.

I’d love a detailed account of the process which derailed these moral ideals. Anyone?

The progression makes sense.

1. Let's make a better search engine. 2. Let's put ads on our search engine. 3. Let's create our own ad network so that we can control what ads look like, so they're unobtrusive. 4. People like our ads, let's put them on other people's pages. 5. People want more interesting ads, let's expand out. 6. Our business relies on ads, we need to collect more user data so we can focus ads even better than our competitors.

By doing advertising 'better' they could make a better product. Unfortunately, they went down the exact same path that other advertisers did: getting more invasive and more aggressive and less user-centric. I hate slippery slope arguments, but this seems to apply in retrospect.

Alright. So it was just a flat out mistake to think morality was considered even in the slightest.

<sings>

For the love of money

People will steal from their mother

For the love of money

People will rob their own brother

For the love of money

People can't even walk the street

Because they never know who in the world they're gonna beat

For that lean, mean, mean green

-- For The Love Of Money, O'Jays

Most of the steps down this slippery slope were likely to the end of providing a better service. that is why it is insidious, you don't need to act "the love of money" to end up serving "the love of money"

> I’d love a detailed account of the process which derailed these moral ideals. Anyone?

It's relatively easy and fits into what Google has been doing: they want advertising to fit the (current) needs of the consumer, and the better the fit, the more money they can command for ad slots - compared to the "old guard" which simply firehosed advertising around without any kind of conversion tracking or effectiveness.

For example, when I'm in Munich and searching for a haircut and I get ads for a haircutter in Berlin, that ad money is wasted for the advertiser, and I as a customer lose one potential spot for a Munich based haircutter. When Google now shows me an ad for a Munich haircutter, or even better, one that is less than 5min of walking away, then both the haircutter benefits (from my haircut) and I benefit (for not having to walk more than I need to).

Or, to expand on this example, metadata like opening hours - advertising for a store that is closed is wasted money when I need an open store.

All that acquisition of ever more data is what drives Google: the more data they possess, the more fine they can tailor your advertising, and thus be geared towards both advertisers and users at the same time. After all, if the ads aren't effective, the advertisers will pack up shop and leave, and the users will be frustrated because they don't get what they need.

They later acknowledged that ads could give better experience. Their earlier beliefs in the beginning were probably based on the ads at that time. 1 search engine didn't distinguish bw search results and ads, leading to bad user experience. Clearly, Google eliminated this.