[dekhn]

Dunno about you, but if I search "SFO to NYC", the entire first page (after the Google Flights "onebox") is relevant results and they're not ads- but they effectively are- they're search results that include prices. scrolling down further I see 'sponsored results' (IIUC those are ads inline with the search results).

[amadeuspagel]

This google flights "onebox" is what I'm talking about here, and what I assume the parent comment refered to.

[dekhn]

Yes. Google's Flights product. I'm saying they give it preferential ranking treatment so more people use it (regardless of whether it's a superior product) and I would love it if the government could actually prove that).

[jeffbee]

How would you draft the rule? Is it just that Google is forbidden to offer services of any kind that other people also offer? Speaking as an informed consumer I strenuously prefer Google Flights over all others. I'd feel harmed if the DOJ just outlawed the 1 offering that wasn't a giant scam.

[dekhn]

I wouldn't know how to draft a rule (I don't even know if what they are doing is illegal). I think the Flights interface is superior to the competitors as well. However, it's unclear to what extent Google is using their control of ranking to ensure that their onebox shows up on top, and how much that prevents people from seeing competitor's sites.

[jeffbee]

I guess I find the question to be off point because when I search for flights from SFO to JFK I am looking for the ticket itself, not a fourth party that can resell the tickets to me. So all the links to Kayak etc are bad results anyway, although direct links to airlines' own sites would be good results. But that's essentially what Google Flights is: a vertical that cuts out middlemen.

If I search "sites that resell airline tickets" then Google Flights does not appear anywhere in the results.

[mrWiz]

How about forbidding Google from giving it preferential ranking treatment?