I think it's obvious that when we talk about search results, we're talking about search results, not ads.

Saying that ads make things worse isn't an interesting observation. That's just the internet. It's nothing specific to search.

When the ads are interleaved into the organic results with only a tiny gray "Sponsored" label to differentiate them, that's making search worse. Amazon is the one mixing them up, not me.

The point is, we can measure the quality of organic search results, that's the topic here, and I don't see any evidence of Amazon engaging in this "Gruen transfer" for organic search results.

Obviously putting ads in search is going to worsen the overall quality of search+ads. But that's not an interesting observation to make because we all know that already. It's by definition. And it's clear Amazon is doing that to make money from the ads, again not as a "Gruen transfer" effect.

  >[It isn't "Gruen transfer" because it's an ad to make money.]

Why would that particular carve-out be considered part of the definition of "Gruen transfer?"

Seems more like clicking on ads is the end and Gruen transfer (via intentionally confusing ads with search results) is the means.

FTA: "The 'Transfer' part is the moment that you, as a consumer surrounded by a deliberately confusing layout, lose track of your original intentions." This still seems perfectly applicable to me?

FTA: "The last time I checked Facebook, maybe 10% of my feed was updates from friends. The rest was a combination of ads, memes, and influencer marketing videos..." So putting ads in lists where they don't belong is explicitly included in the definition, despite your attempt to exclude it.

I think you're being too charitable. The user doesn't just experience the organic search results but the whole thing, ads and all. It's entirely Amazon's choice which ads to run when and where so you can't rule out intentional "Gruen transfer" in the overall results by placing ads for maximum confusion.