Sweet, it's like google's version of mfa!

This is really bad. What about that famous personalization, geolocation, localization, and stuff? Google should know me enough to see I usually don't click on ads, I'm not interested in new movies generally, and anyway it probably doesn't come to Croatia any time soon.

I guess geolocation is only applied when Google Books forbids me from viewing some stuff 1500 years old because "it might still be under copyright". [:-P] Promotions are one thing, but _irrelevant_ promotion in SERPs is much worse. Ok, it's better than Da Vinci code, which they showed me without any action on my part. Now at least I have to enter [bourne ultimatum] in the search box. But still, I might be interested in what people say about it. Not necessarily I want to see a site that BTW fails Google's webmaster guidelines in so many ways. :-/

> This is really bad. What about that famous
> personalization, geolocation, localization, and stuff?

Well, it does show in the US and UK but not on Google.com when accessed from Germany, so there seems to be some geolocation going on...

Heather, what's the MFA story?

I think it's the story as the Google tips: invite users to discover other Google products. TV channels will call this a "promo", but Google set some high standards and has to respect them if they still want to be perceived as objective and trustworthy.

If you asked me if Google would "promote" one of their products in 2003 this way (did it even had "products" that time?) I had said no, but nowadays? While Google may not have become evil yet, they're definitely not absolutely good anymore. Hopefully there will be some comparable search engine in the future in terms of result quality so Google can't simply buy anyone and continue its path to the "dark side".

Why do "Comments elsewhere" refer to an aggregator site which just has another copy of Philipp's post?

se-news.aggregator.ws/google-says-
its-a-promotion-not-an-ad/

[Unlinked link. -Philipp]

George, this should be fixed now, at least for certain dupes... thanks...

Whatever, it's Google's product on Google's website. They can do whatever they want. If someone is looking for Bourne Ultimatum, they could very well be interested in that.

> Whatever, it's Google's product on Google's
> website. They can do whatever they want.

Yes, unless laws prohibit certain actions, then it's their choice whether or not to keep promises of the past, like this one:

"[O]ur ads are created and managed under the exact same guidelines, principles, practices and algorithms as the ads of any other advertiser. Likewise, we use the very same tools and account interface."

And equally, it's our choice to criticize them when they don't keep to such claims.

> If someone is looking for Bourne Ultimatum, they
> could very well be interested in that.

Quite possible, even though Google's self-proclaimed "link democracy" has determined a non-biased site is more relevant to users than SearchForBourne.com: IMDb.com (which may also contain negative reviews on Bourne Ultimatum). But if it's an ad, then that's of course OK, as ads happen to be above organic results... though if it's an ad, it's conflicting with Google's previous claim above.

Maybe break the law in USA. It is common in china. Two winners help each other to keep win.

So it depands.

But it is still advertisement I think. Google and Universal just lost two contracts.

It is not new, and it have law risk. Anyway, not matter it break the law or not. It looks evil.

We did not steal books. We just took the books.
http://cn.hongxiaowan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/1_eeumjs0fsf3x.jpg

This is the verso, I want to see the recto =)

What's that Xiaowan?

> Maybe break the law in USA.

Regading US laws of search ad disclosure – this is in relation to when the blue box was still undisclosed, and also in relation to what Yahoo is doing http://searchengineland.com/070720-133220.php – I pinged Danny Sullivan, who points me to this explanation:

<<The US Federal Trade Commission has made a landmark recommendation to the search engine industry that it should improve disclosure of paid content within search results.>>
http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2164891

More on the FTC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission

:Cough:

Here's what Y! says about "shortcuts":

<< A Yahoo! Shortcut is a quick way to get to the information you want. A Yahoo! Shortcut automatically appears when it is relevant to your search and can contain links to useful content from Yahoo!, its partners, or across the web. Some of the content may come from partners who pay to be included in Yahoo! or have another financial relationship with Yahoo! >>

But they forgot to mention if those partners actually pay for the "shortcuts".

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/

> A Yahoo! Shortcut is a quick way to get to
> the information you want.

Either it's the best thing for users – "get the information you want" – or it's paid (at least in theory). Can't be both. Because if it's the best thing for users, no one would need to pay for it to have it on top of the search results, it should be there out of Yahoo's own interest to serve the best results (unless that isn't Yahoo's proclaimed interest!). If someone must pay for it to because otherwise it won't be on top, then it means it's not determined to be "the best" thing by Yahoo's algorithms (or editors).

Of course, in practice sometimes there's overlaps – a company who doesn't even realize they're mostly ranking top anyway, who waste ad budget by putting an ad on top of an already perfect organic result. A company like Google Inc...

http://blogoscoped.com/files/google-reader-organic-and-ad.png

On the advertising note I saw a srtange ad on Blogoscoped which had nothing to do with it's title. The third one on this: http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/23889/2001980255415200785_rs.jpg It links to http://www.spacefetti.com/?&sub=L9607809LG599605GA749AE2EC40C which includes MyWebSearch: something which has infected my pc beforeand also Smiley central. Am I wrong in thinking these are Ask companies?

I think Google advertises for any query that contains google reader:
http://www.google.com/search?q=google+reader+hjjghjghjgjh
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hjjghjghjgjh+google+reader

> What's that Xiaowan?

Four girls steal book. It is a joke pic.

In china, stealing books is not stealer, if someone is poor and take the books to learn not for selling. And, the book should not be entertainment books.

Just like the promotion is not advertisement

>the search engine industry that it should improve disclosure of paid content within search results

I know. The promotion content is a kind of paid content. Google should add "Sponsored Link", it is unfair for us. Anyone can compete this position.

Can you introduce how the left blue adword running?

ALso just noticed the ask.com ad on my above pic. lol!

James Xuan

Does Yahoo also in this way?