diberry - 1:26 am on Apr 14, 2013 (gmt 0)
Getting back on topic, this is interesting. Whitey has proposed a method by which Google could, in theory, make money by intentionally substituting "trusted" but irrelevant sources on less common/unusual queries. TOI has presented the opposite view, which I've always held, that if Google wanted to make money by manipulating search, they'd push the brands down and force them to buy Adwords, easily justifying it by saying the littler sites provide better quality content and/or users respond better to it. We also have corresponding theories about brand bias: that it's there to serve the purpose Whitey mentioned, or that it's not Google's ideal but rather the best they can do as the mountains of data escalate out of control.
Do we have any evidence or citations (not from Google) to back up either set of hypotheses?
Oh, and Ersebet? Let's discuss what is being said rather than our feelings about who is saying it. It's getting a little weird in here.