jtara - 3:48 pm on Dec 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ads and search people are in separate buildings, use separate algorithms, report to separate managers (all the way up to the top), and so on.

Ah, yes, the Chinese Wall.

Google the term, then tell me it has worked well for consumers of the financial industry.

Oh, abuses have been reduced to the level of dull roar, after decades of fine-tuning and ever-increasing government regulation.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, large financial institutions have faced similar issues of inherent conflict of interest. By their very nature, they engage in financial activities that go against the interest of their customers.

The solution has been a complex set of regulations intending to place a "Chinese Wall" between investment banking and trading operations. There continues to be a problem, as the perfect Chinese Wall still hasn't been invented.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Google is evil. Just that by it's very nature search and advertising are at odds, with the search user being the loser. Market forces - not Google or any other search company - work against search quality as long as the revenue model is contextual advertising.

Do I think that Sergey and Larry sit there discussing how to hobble search even better this week so that more people will click on ads? Probably not. Do I think that financial results by necessity drive a public company, and that the inevitable trickles from the fingers of the accountants to search results? Absolutely.

Yes, quality will be driven by consumer demand. But in a field that for whatever reason has limited competitors at this point, it is a slow process. Progress is limited to what is necessary to please consumers, which, apparently does not require much.

We could draw an analogy to TV. What would TV be like if it were in the interest of advertisers to have cr*ppy TV shows? Oh.... never mind! ;)