[MR4D]

That’s not the issue.

The problem is that Google owns both sides of the internet - the browser on your computer and the search engine to find everything.

As a result, they control your perception of the internet.

If a site doesn’t work, you as the user thinks the site doesn’t work. You don’t think oh, my browser is broken. Also, if you don’t find a site on Google the. To you, it doesn’t exist.

As a result, you have to bend your website to satisfy both Google search and Google chrome.

That’s why this is an issue. Because of those two things, Google effectively controls the internet, and you as a user or you as a website owner have essentially zero recourse when Google does something that harms you.

[buu700]

That framing of the issue makes a lot of sense. It might still be a reasonable middle ground if Google doesn't own Chrome itself, or control the proprietary bits or any related backend services, but still maintains leadership of Chromium development.

As a Firefox user, I also don't love the implications of forcing Google to end its default search engine deal with Firefox. If they changed course on that, then a similar deal with the hypothetical non-Google Chrome could be a viable way to maintain something like Chrome's current financial model without giving Google too much control over the web.

On the other hand, one might argue that Google's search business and that sector as a whole are already at a high enough risk right now without the courts throwing another wildcard into the mix. I'm not staking out a position on this one way or another, but I hope whatever decisions they land on are very carefully considered.

[chairhairair]

Zero recourse other than using another browser or and/or another search engine.

Why bother having a discussion when you use “zero recourse” here. It comes off as totally absurd.

[exodust]

> if you don’t find a site on Google, to you, it doesn’t exist

What do you mean "find a site"? Are you saying the user has a website in mind they've visited before? Or are you saying the user doesn't have a website in mind, and is looking for "any website about XYZ?"

I don't think your claim is valid. At what point does the user conclude something "doesn't exist"? Users never reach such a conclusion, in part because Google results tell us "bro, your search returned 480 million results."

[sweeter]

How many people get past the first page? I'd wager a guess its under 3%. It could be 20 results or an infinite amount, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It is a fact that google gets to control who and what shows up in a search, and they put paying entries at the top. There are many problems with this. They have also de-listed websites from google search, and are at a high risk of complying with any government request to censor topics. Which, again, is not good for humanity.

[exodust]

That's an answer to a different question. Italian restaurants might use the first page of their menu for pizza. Do customers who want pasta conclude pasta "doesn't exist" because it's not listed on first page?

[sweeter]

This analogy disregards everything we know and understand about the internet and how corporations operate

[exodust]

> everything we know

Please demonstrate what you know before making representations about what we know.

The restaurant sells more pizza than pasta, so they put pizza on the first page of menu. The strategy works, people come back for more pizza.

Google facilitates conversions by presenting paid results relevant to search intent. If nobody ever clicked paid results and converted, businesses wouldn't buy those paid spots. Admittedly, Google makes tracking success of paid ad spending a confusing nightmare, but not impossible to work out with some effort.

If there's only 10 organic spots on the highly sought after page 1, paid search is a way to fight it out in the market. Fair enough?

It's a balance of:

  * Running a search engine business.
  * Providing quality paid results that match search intent
  * Surfacing quality organic results that match search intent
  * Allowing various ways to filter and access results according to refined search intent, for example advanced search tools or other channels such as image, shopping search, maps etc.

[paulddraper]

It might exist, but if you can’t find it on Google via keywords, it might as well not exist.

Does that make sense?

[exodust]

> can’t find it on Google via keywords

Can't find what? Are you saying people are using Google to search for things they've misplaced? At what point is the user thinking "I can't find what I'm looking for?"

[paulddraper]

No, I'm saying they use Google to navigate.

If they want a lasagna recipe, they use Google. If (for whatever reason), a particular lasagna recipe is not findable via this method, it for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.

I hope I'm making myself clear.

[exodust]

So the user has something in mind. Your example is a recipe.

Just to clarify my point. Google isn't meddling with your Lasagna recipes.

The parent poster claimed website owners need to "bend your website to satisfy both Google search and Google chrome". This isn't accurate, and the claim should have been called out by more than me.

You might never use Chrome other than 30 seconds of quick testing your website build. I build sites that obtain high search ranking and I barely open Chrome. I conform to HTML standards and other good practices regarding content and structure. There's nothing "Google" about a good website other than the alarmist misinformation such as expressed by the person's comment in this thread about needing to "bend to Chrome".

The irony is I'm not friends with Google. So many things they do I object to. Even their "super-thanks" how they take 30% cut, it's criminal. People were using super-thanks to donate to fire victims on youtube, and Google was grabbing 30% of every donation for itself. I can't forgive that. BUT... I don't think they should be made to stop doing deals to be default search engine, that is overreach. Forced to sell Chrome?... don't care. I don't use Chrome.

I hope I'm making myself clear.

[wruza]

These result counts are known to be fake.