Google hit with $2.7 Billion Fine by EU

Google fined $2.7 Billion by EU commission

[jmccormac]

Looks like Google has been hit with a 2.4 Billion Euro / $2.7 Billion fine over its shopping venture.

[bbc.com...]

Given 90 days to end the practice of face further fines. Not good for Google.

Regards...jmcc

[jmccormac]

So even the vile Panda update is involved.

[foundem.co.uk...]

Regards...jmcc

[EditorialGuy]

Here's a European perspective from someone who knows his stuff:

[searchengineland.com...]

[heisje]

Article above at: foundem.co.uk

Stunning! an absolute must read!

Article above at: searchengineland.com

Total rubbish! Unscientific cheap blabber journalism, with possible hidden agenda (or not so hidden). Google spin. Absolute disgrace!

.

[jmccormac]

The Foundem article should be required reading. The Google fans obviously hate it because it lays out the evil nature of Google's activities in this case. The Searchengineland article is clueless pro-Google spin. It is the kind of clueless propaganda that impresses Google fans and nobody else.

The interesting thing is the appearance of that Panda kludge. Viewed in the context of its effect on all those shopping services, it could be argued that its intent was purely malicious.

Webmasterworld used to be a thriving forum. It is now a kind of wasteland where threads can go for days before getting replies and those are the lucky ones. Some of this is directly attributable to Google's ubiquity and its crushing of websites and businesses. Another factor is the incessant thread spamming and tarpitting from Google fans when anyone dares to point out that Google is not perfect. It has lost WW users and subscriptions. I cancelled my long-time paid subscription because it seemed like I was paying for the privilege of being trolled with pro-Google propaganda.

It is hard to think that even Matt Cutts used to post here as did many others. Some of them built search engines. directories and other services. Others built smaller websites and businesses only to see Google destroy them. Perhaps they got to see justice being done with this fine and the exposure of the evil at the core of some of Google's actions. But their businesses are still gone and those livelihoods and jobs that Google destroyed are gone too.

Regards...jmcc

[lucy24]

<topic drift>

The Foundem article should be required reading.

Yes, if I ever need to give an example of over-the-top gratuitous excessive unwarranted dependence on Flash to the exclusion of all other presentation options, I’ll know exactly where to link. I’m surprised they didn’t force me into Full-Screen mode.

Sheesh.
</td>

[Shaddows]

. Another factor is the incessant thread spamming and tarpitting from Google fans when anyone dares to point out that Google is not perfect. It has lost WW users and subscriptions. I cancelled my long-time paid subscription because it seemed like I was paying for the privilege of being trolled with pro-Google propaganda.

Funnily enough, I find the exact opposite problem, where threads, particularly the monthly update thread, is mindless Google-bashing.

For example, I'm pretty sure @jmcc and @heisje are counting me as a "Google Fan" - even though my journey on this thread's issue has gone from reading only the EUC statement, and thinking it was spot on, to researching what Google could possibly object to and actually finding cause. And then reversing back into a "depends on the legal definition of a supplier" position, which I'm sure will be subject to an appeal.

But anyway, at no point have I stated that Google deserves to get away from this, only that fines should be based on the law. For that, every comment I make is met with snide comments about the paucity of argument from "Google fans". As if Google-hating is the True Religion, and any action that demonstrates good, dogmatic hatred is not only permitted but encouraged, and to hell with the reasoning. If you don't demonstrate Google hatred, you must be a fan. No middle ground

I am deeply concerned with Big Data, and the privacy issues therein. I am equally, and perhaps more, concerned with Big Data failing to co-operate with law enforcement, or even to discuss a framework to allow law enforcement from non-US countries limited access. Though I'm not impressed with the argument of Google-as-thief, I am strongly against Google allowing second-hand content to outrank the primary source of copyright.

But my concerns about Big Data pale in comparison to authoritarian politicians flouting the law with impunity because they cater to the instincts of the baying masses.

By all means disagree with me, but do so on the merits of my argument, not because I am an apostate in the church of NeverGoogle.

edit spelling/grammar

[Shepherd]

Adorable the Siskel & Ebert like reviews: "Stunning! an absolute must read!" "Fascinating site" "required reading".

I am sure that an "article" and a "website" created by the plaintiff in a civil suit will be a totally and completely unbiased review of the merits of the case.

[heisje]

Adorable the Siskel & Ebert like reviews

Flattered to be placed along these two : they were a 20-year long success story : adorable, adored, had a fun life and made good money.

.

[mosxu]

While google is doing a great job with regards to search, managed to build an absolute technology and as a result a monopoly followed, the shopping where the money comes from was a failure amazon is in a much stronger position now as result and it will continue to be...

From the legal point of view sadly amazon or ebay and other brands are not considered competition. For whatever buyer traffic left 15-20% everybody should be allowed to compete including other comparison services.

No one is asking google to become a charity but simply allow competition on both search and paid.

[seoskunk]

What I found interesting about the foundem presentation is that it specifically linked Google algorithms with anti-competitive behaviour, does anyone know if this was in the EU case?

There was also once a thriving localised search industry, these rivals to Google have also heavily demoted, directory sites have been demonised by Google to the point penalisation. And then Google created its own local directory and gave it away free and bundled it in their search results. I think this is also anti-competitive behaviour.

[nonstop]

I think the EU case talked about sudden and dramatic traffic drops, the kind where 90% of traffic drops overnight.

Following the demotions applied by Google, traffic to rival comparison shopping services on the other hand dropped significantly. For example, the Commission found specific evidence of sudden drops of traffic to certain rival websites of 85% in the United Kingdom, up to 92% in Germany and 80% in France. These sudden drops could also not be explained by other factors. Some competitors have adapted and managed to recover some traffic but never in full.

[europa.eu...]

[jmccormac]

Wonder if there will be any proper analysis of the coincidence of the Google algorithm kludges and the traffic drops in the SEO media? Or will it be full of Google FUDbuddies wibbling on about the nasty EU and good little Google? That cliff in the graphs where the vile Panda kludge kicks in is rather stark.

Regards...jmcc

[jmccormac]

From the EUC factsheet:
"Google has abused its market dominance in general internet search bygiving a separate Google product (initially called “Froogle”, re-named “Google Product Search” in 2008 and “Google Shopping” in 2013) an illegal advantage in the separate comparison shopping market.

Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: Google's comparison shopping results are displayed, in a rich format, at the top of the search results, or sometimes in a reserved space on the right-hand side. They are placed above the results that Google's generic search algorithms consider most relevant. This happens whenever a consumer types a product-related query into the Google general search engine, in relation to which Google wants to show comparison shopping results. This means that Google's comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms.

On the other hand, rival comparison shopping services are subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including demotions (which lower a search entry's rank in Google's search results). Comparison shopping services in the EEA are prone to be demoted by at least two different algorithms, which were first applied in 2004 and 2011, respectively. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival comparison shopping service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. In practice, this means consumers very rarely see rival comparison shopping services in Google's search results."

[europa.eu...]

February 2011 was the application of the vile Panda kludge.

Regards...jmcc

[EditorialGuy]

There was also once a thriving localised search industry, these rivals to Google have also heavily demoted, directory sites have been demonised by Google to the point penalisation.

Google has argued (quite sensibly) that searchers don't want search results that lead to more search results. The person who's searching for "red widgets" or "St. Catherine of Siena" wants to click a result and find information about red widgets or St. Catherine of Siena, not a SERP or a directory page.

[Shaddows]

Florida was 2003, I wonder what the 2004 one was.

The "demotion" thing is the weakest facet of this case, although the NeverGoogle Mafia will obviously be blinded by hatred into agreeing with any anti-Google position.

I accept that, on the assumption that Shopping is a supplier under the law, promoting it relative to Organic search is illegal. You are simply not allowed to make "editorial" decisions that benefits either a supplier or customer to the detriment of others, if you have over particular large-minority share (36% off the top of my head, but not checked)

But to suggest broad-based algorithms actively demote rival services, as opposed to just force them to be subject to normal ranking criteria (which your illegal editorial is not subject to), is crazy.

Or in an alternative but equivalent statement, any algorithm change that results in a net fall for a product type that Alphabet is a vendor for, is illegal.


Even assuming Google is not biased, that means half of all algo changes are illegal (there being a 50/50 chance of a non-biased change being a net rise Vs net fall)

[Shaddows]

Google has argued (quite sensibly) that searchers don't want search results that lead to more search results. The person who's searching for "red widgets" or "St. Catherine of Siena" wants to click a result and find information about red widgets or St. Catherine of Siena, not a SERP or a directory page.

Yeah, and that is fine.

All they have to do is remove their own illegally-supplied comparison data, or allow all suppliers (comparison sites) equal access to that pre-Organic slot.

Or win an appeal that Shopping is not a supplier to SERPs. Which will be tricky, but not impossible. Why they didn't pull Shopping from SERPs while they made that legal argument is beyond me.

[jmccormac]

The "demotion" thing is the weakest facet of this case

The EUC has the evidence. You do not. All you have is your own opinion which is neither fact based or based on any declared expertise in algorithms.

Regards...jmcc

[seoskunk]

Google has argued (quite sensibly) that searchers don't want search results that lead to more search results. The person who's searching for "red widgets" or "St. Catherine of Siena" wants to click a result and find information about red widgets or St. Catherine of Siena, not a SERP or a directory page.

..and yet now they get a list of local results at the top of the page that promotes Google's own directory. I just find it funny that directories that competed with Google for local search results are now penalised to the extent that some are counted as toxic links. If you remember Google local results were originally supplied by local search engines such as Yell (betting they regret that now).

The "demotion" thing is the weakest facet of this case, although the NeverGoogle Mafia will obviously be blinded by hatred into agreeing with any anti-Google position.

...you don't change polarised positions in online debates, they just get more polarised and then people start slinging insults and accusations "NeverGoogle Mafia will obviously be blinded by hatred" - sad just sad........

[Shaddows]

The EUC has the evidence. You do not.

Well, I agree I do not have the evidence. But I don't agree that EUC does.

I mean, they could, but they don't say so.

They just say that some algo changes result in drops for a particular industry. Which is undoubtedly true. Looking at every algo change over 13 years (since 2004), and selecting two with a net loss for a specific industry smacks of cherry-picking.

Over the same period, I'm sure you could find two drops that affect, say, ornithology sites. Doesn't mean they were targeted.

I know I wont convince you, because any mud thrown at Google is required to stick.

"NeverGoogle Mafia will obviously be blinded by hatred" - sad just sad........

Hey, if you are open to changing your views (as I have shown myself to be), then the NeverGoogle tag doesn't apply to you. By definition, it only applies to people to whom Google is ontologically wrong.

ETA-

they just get more polarised and then people start slinging insults

Noted, thanks for the perspective. I will try and grow a thicker skin about having perfectly legitimate views being dismissed out-of-hand by people with a polarised view that I cannot change, and therefore are not the people I'm communicating with.

Although how you balance that with avoiding filter bubbles is a conundrum.

[jmccormac]

Well, I agree I do not have the evidence. But I don't agree that EUC does.

"Evidence gathered

In reaching its Decision, the Commission has gathered and comprehensively analysed a broad range of evidence, including:

1) contemporary documents from both Google and other market players;

2) very significant quantities of real-world data including 5.2 Terabytes of actual search results from Google (around 1.7 billion search queries);

3) experiments and surveys, analysing in particular the impact of visibility in search results on consumer behaviour and click-through rates;

4) financial and traffic data which outline the commercial importance of visibility in Google's search results and the impact of being demoted; and

5) an extensive market investigation of customers and competitors in the markets concerned (the Commission addressed questionnaires to several hundred companies)."

[europa.eu...]

Or was it some other evidence?

Regards...jmcc

[nonstop]

Google has argued (quite sensibly) that searchers don't want search results that lead to more search results. The person who's searching for "red widgets" or "St. Catherine of Siena" wants to click a result and find information about red widgets or St. Catherine of Siena, not a SERP or a directory page.

Ok but if I was using Googles own argument

if I was searching for washing machines what should come up?

using this logic: sites that sell washing machines but NO sites showing me where I can find the cheapest washing machine or helping me find different washing machines from various suppliers.

if I search for flight from london to new york what should come up?

using this logic: airlines selling flights

but what does come up? loads of price comparison sites allowing me to search for flights.

If I search for Hotel in New York

using this logic: hotels with rooms to rent in new york

tripadvisor should not be anywhere near the top result. It should be demoted to page 4 at least.

The "demotion" thing is the weakest facet of this case, although the NeverGoogle Mafia will obviously be blinded by hatred into agreeing with any anti-Google position.

The EU investigation was pretty in-depth

very significant quantities of real-world data including 5.2 Terabytes of actual search results from Google (around 1.7 billion search queries);

[chrisv1963]

Google has argued (quite sensibly) that searchers don't want search results that lead to more search results.

Really? This doesn't make sense. Why then are we seeing so many Pinterest pages on page one of Google search results, sometimes taking up to 4 positions?

[Shaddows]

That is a lot of data, no question. But it's still a correlation of results, as opposed to analysis of algorithm. Two events over 13 years of data, one of which was a known generic event, seems weak.

Is my maths right, 3 megabytes per search? Seems high. It's not relevant to my point, just a high number.

...

Look, I'm going to be honest here. It seems weak to me, but it's entirely subjective and I'm not going to go out on a limb to defend my opinion. Without knowing what they know, I'm unlikely to change my view, or convince anyone to change theirs.

I guess I'm as EUC-sceptic as I am Google-sceptic and don't trust their projection of meaning to a dataset. Especially two events over 13 years

[seoskunk]

Google is folks an extension of the US government and extremely Capitalist one. The EUC decision is correct but highly politicised as well. Google promote US companies and US Political Agenda as well as data collection. As the US under Trump takes an increasingly critical view of the EU and becomes more insular the EU just thumped their mouthpiece and will again and again.

[EditorialGuy]

All they have to do is remove their own illegally-supplied comparison data, or allow all suppliers (comparison sites) equal access to that pre-Organic slot.

That "pre-Organic slot" is simply a row of ads. Google is an ad-supported search engine, so it stands to reason that it's going to run ads where viewers can see them.

[Shaddows]

@seoskunk, an interesting view, but if there is subtext, I would suggest the EUC just wants cooperation on tax and law enforcement. Political philosophy is too abstract.

@EG
Yes. But being a dominant player, they cannot allow access to that slot on a preferential basis, subject to my usual caveat. Make that slot biddable and equal access, and the problem, if there is one, goes away.

[mosxu]

ok but look at the results after years of panda, penguin and so on,

1 small business and 9 high street stores, amazon, ebay and Wikipedia for most of shopping results:

small businesses made google what it is today, do not forget that

too many dead bodies it started to stink really bad now

[seoskunk]

Here's a European perspective from someone who knows his stuff:

[searchengineland.com...]

Not only is the article inaccurate but bias to a degree not often in independent publishers. Andreas Reiffen, the author makes his living selling a European Automated Tool for..... you guessed it - Google Shopping. Obviously when this goes through his whole business is in jeopardy and that is the bottom line about this article. Just the rantings of someone who's business depended on Google Shopping in Europe.

1 small business and 9 high street stores, amazon, ebay and Wikipedia for most of shopping results:

SShh Google will hear they missed one

[jmccormac]

1 small business and 9 high street stores, amazon, ebay and Wikipedia for most of shopping results:

This is basically what Google search has become -- a shallow swamp. The rise of Wikipedia has been a major problem for Google in that it is something that Google no longer is or is capable of being. Wikipedia is a user supported and driven site. Prior to Wikipedia, Google used to be the go-to site for students and people researching various topics. Wikipedia changed all that. And now there's almost a half a generation of students who have grown up with Wikipedia, not Google as their primary reference site. The Google "knowledge graph" was nothing less than abject plagiarism and an attempt to Yahooicise Google's search engine site. It was intended to deprive Wikipedia of traffic and keep users on the Google site so that more advertising could be shoved at them.

When Wikipedia became a threat, Google management decided to go after it. They came up with Google 'Knol' which would compete with Wikipedia by paying people for their contributions. This was almost sociopathic in nature in that Google's greedy management did not understand why people contribute to Wikipedia. The idea that people would do so for the greater good was obviously lost on them. Like so many of Google's attempts to muscle in on niches, it failed. It wasn't the only failure. Google's management also failed with its Facebook-killer 'Google Plus'. Google failed with its Twitter-killer 'Buzz'. Google's attempts to move in on Local Search, reviews and Shopping Comparison had mixed results. Apart from the $500 million fine for its activities related to drugs, this is the first time that Google as been hit with a major fine. It was a shock to Google management and Google's fans. The Google FUDbuddies in the media, many of whom depend on Google or Google press releases, seem to be even more upset that the EUC would do this to Google. It is certainly fair to say that Google, in the case of what it did with Shopping is evil. Like some kind of blood sucking parasite, it tried to steal the lifeblood of sites that had become successful while Google's own dismal effort, Froogle, had crashed and burned. For a while, it got away with it. But it has been caught and fined. It may try to appeal the decision. However, this could also have piqued the US FTC's interest.

There are other EUC cases underway against Google over Android and Adsense. This latest decision will have other governments thinking about the effect of Google's predatory activities in their jurisdictions and the effects on innovation in those markets.

Regards...jmcc

[MrSavage]

On the topic of Google's shopping links, does anyone care to notice the unnoticeable rollout/semi-rollout/test/partial test/just joking testing of the YouTube shopping ads block? Right. Bet most observers here don't notice, don't care. There is always another point of injection. Not the SERPS? Toss it into YouTube.

So, partnership for YouTubers? Whelp, that shopping banner "block" shows up where on the page? You guess it! It comes right below the video...and? YES above your video description where you might/likely have your own affiliate links! So Google says "thank you for the video content" and if you don't mind, we will just cut ahead of you and bury some of your monetization so we can get our shopping links to people before they get to you. But hey, it's a great partnership. What do friends do? They cut you out, jump the line and take your potential earnings. That's what friends are for. And yes, the video you uploaded does help bolster YouTube and if you have less revenue generating options? Well, just feel good about well, supporting Google shopping ads.

Google has so many options to circumvent any of this, it's quite comical. Get heat for this? Just move it over here. Get heat there? Move it to the other platform. Whack-a-mole.