[daveman692]

Really like the transparency and applying the same rules, but at the same time when I search for "Google Chrome" the single ad in a yellow box above all of the results is for http://www.google.com/chrome. I guess I wonder if this page rank demotion will really make a difference since Google still controls that ad spot.

[psychotik]

AdWords trumps PageRank, but understand that Google is (or rather, should be) technically outbidding the market to show that ad.

Though in many ways for them it's like taking money from their left pocket and putting it into their right pocket, so I suspect they will be able to outbid others until infinity.

[Flenser]

Though in many ways for them it's like taking money from their left pocket and putting it into their right pocket

But that means they're not taking money from anyone else for that ad spot and putting it in their pocket.

[bmelton]

True, but the question isn't whether or not they can afford it, as there's obviously very little that they can't afford, but one of whether it makes sense.

I'm assuming their bean counters have decided on an acceptable user acquisition cost, and likely won't bid above that. If, for example, they're willing to spend $1 on that spot, and somebody else is willing to give them $20 for it, I'm pretty certain they'd sell it out in a flat second.

[gregable]

I believe the ad was there already. Prior to this event, the first two links were to google.com/chrome if you counted ads, now one.

[jules]

As the vast majority of people think that the yellow boxes are to indicate the best result (including my parents who consistently click them as if they're the top result even though I've previously told them that they are ads), I'm guessing the impact won't be large.

[eli]

You're right, but what's the answer? Should Google not be allowed to use AdWords for its own products?

[protomyth]

Would Google of closed the AdWord account of a third-party over this?

[edit: for the down voter, if they would for a 3rd party, they should for themselves and remove the Ad. If they wouldn't take it away for a 3rd party, they should leave the Ad. Simple consistency]

[MatthewCampbell]

I'm not the downvoter, but perhaps they were annoyed with "Would Google of" rather than "Would Google have." That particular error really gets on people's nerves.

[protomyth]

If people are down voting others based on grammar, then English-as-a-second-language folks are going to have problems.

[Terretta]

60% of my interactions are with ESL or ETL engineers. Would of, could of, should of, on accident, and the like, are hallmarks of a generation holding the less well read attitude that grammar doesn't matter. The ESLs I work with thank one for a correction, incorporate it, and move on. Bad grammar is a bug. We all make them, reading clean code reduces them, and peer review helps too.

[protomyth]

Peer review doesn't work if the person reviewing only puts a -1 at the top of the source code.

// I am sorry for any grammar errors in the above sentence. don't worry, I won't do it again.

[samfoo]

"Would of", "could of", "should of" are certainly errors when conjugating , but "on accident"? Either preposition "by" or "on" seems correct to me and the correct choice seems arbitrary -- though I find myself preferring "on".

From what I could find doing some (brief) research, this is a case in which the difference breaks down nearly perfectly along generational lines. Those ages thirty-five and under overwhelmingly prefer "on" and those younger prefer "by"[1]. Prepositional choice has always seemed a bit arbitrary to me, and the fact that there are dialectical differences reenforces that belief[2].

To suggest that this contributes to a "generation holding the less weel read attitude that grammar doesn't matter" strikes me as a bit misguided.

[1] http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_4/barratt16.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_di...

[Dylan16807]

Is this a common ESL problem? It's based on audible similarity but I would expect non-native speakers to be exposed to comparatively more text than audio.

[msg]

When people say this, I usually hear "Would Google've". It looks horrible that way, but captures the intention. I might use it orally (or in fiction dialogue), but not in writing.

[robryan]

As far as I understand they usually state that the webspam team works in isolation from the Adwords team so no.