News Source: http://www.seroundtable.com
Published: Oct 31, 2008 - 06:16 pm
Story Found By: roymitchell75 1302 Days ago
Category: SEM
54 Comments
Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.
News Source: http://www.seroundtable.com
Published: Oct 31, 2008 - 06:16 pm
Story Found By: roymitchell75 1302 Days ago
Category: SEM
54 Comments
Upcoming Conferences
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
- SMX Advanced Seattle - June 5-6, 2012
- SMX Paris - June 7-8 2012
- SMX Melbourne - Sept. 5-6, 2012
- SMX East - Oct. 2-4, 2012
- SMX Stockholm - Oct. 15-16, 2012
- SMX Social Media Marketing - Dec. 5-6, 2012
- SMX Munich - Apr. 9-10, 2013
- SMX West - March 2013
- SMX Toronto - April 2013
- SMX Sydney - May 2013
Latest News From Marketing Land
- Yahoo Shutters Livestand iPad “Living Magazine”
- Marketing Day: May 25, 2012
- Marketing Biz: Tracking Google’s Dune Strategy
- How Performance Marketing Is Influencing The Next Generation Of Internet Startups
- New Google+ Android App Adds Vivid Imagery & Additional Functionality
- - See more news at Marketing Land -
Upcoming Webcasts
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
- Search, Social and Mobile: What Travel Marketers Must Know - June 26, 2012
Latest News From Search Engine Land
- Microsoft: Yes, We Do Send Takedown Requests To Bing, Too
- SearchCap: The Day In Search, May 25, 2012
- Search In Pics: SEO LEGO, Facebook Cooler & A Happy SEO
- Google Disapproved 134M Ads And Disabled More Than 800K AdWords Accounts In 2011
- Microsoft Integrates More Nokia “Infrastructure” (Traffic, Geocoding) Into Bing Maps
- - See more news at Search Engine Land -
Comments
Google should stay the hell out of politics. Imagine if they decided to use their PSA ads to run a political message for one candidate or the other. They have way too big of an influence over how information is distributed to be involved in party politics.
is there any evidence that this "bias" is influencing search results? Does choosing a presidential candidate make Google somehow less trustworthy or technologically innovative? it might not be the wisest choice he’s ever made, but I don’t see any problem with an american citizen supporting a presidential candidate publicly. the problem is the atmosphere of antagonism and "them vs us" that is prevailing in American politics today. I suspect that the writer of this article may be influenced by bias himself.
The article reads like a pre-election day attempt to influence the vote via scare mongering... the article references the Obama 30 minute infomercial for it’s content, but doesn’t link to it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtREqAmLsoA). It suggests Google is all powerful,and that now Google likes Democrats, and then says:"Further, did we not forget that Google has a huge digital footprint on us -- that Google knows our emails, searches, and we are entrusting the search engine with a lot of private information that we would not give to just anyone?"Seems like fear mongering to me. If Barry Schwartz suggests that an all-knowing Google getting friendly with the government is a problem, than what does that suggest if the incumbent republican party gets re-elected? Would you rather have Google sharing data with Dick Cheney (which happens now, as we know Google works with NASA and NASA does the data crunching for Homeland Security and the NSA...)? Google is one of the "Big Corporations" but it has a history of not getting along with the other big corporations like Wall Street. Liking OBama is a sign that things are probably worse than we know on the inside of our political-corporate machine.If you’re going to use your web site as a political tool, at last have the guts to state your feelings as your own, instead of this:"Over at Search Engine Watch forum member Discovery has a problem with one of the recent "infomercial" endorsements that Barack Obama created to further his presidential campaign."
I don’t see what the big deal is. Yeah Googlers lean left: most of their political contributions went to Obama not McCain. And yeah Eric endorsed Obama. Who cares? He’s entitled to express his opinion or should Eric be burned at the stake now that he chose pepsi over coke?
The thought that an endorsement from Google’s CEO would mean any more than that...an endorsement...really shows so much lack of respect for Google that it’s scary.While Google may not be completely "un-evil" these days, of course they’re not going to skew their search results this way. Please. I can’t even believe it’s being suggested.
I don’t think it matters which candidate he endorsed, the point is whether or not Google needs to be getting comfy with the government. We’ve already seen their willingness to share their data with the likes of China, I’d prefer if that type of thing didn’t become a common occurance here in the US.@DarkMatter, you asked whether there is any evidence that it’s affecting the SERPs or anything else... there will never be any proof because Google’s about as secretive as can be. It’s tough to figure out what is influencing rankings in the first place, not to mention detect some sort of bias.I just think it’s a slippery slope that they’ve started down.
There is a good point behind this post. It matters what allegiance national newspapers hold, why not Google? We can find plenty of examples where the political leaning, often led from the top down has an effect on the output from an organisation. Traditional media, newspapers and TV are the obvious examples though. Online media is equally effective at changing opinion and Google market share makes it particularly powerful. To many it has become the gateway to the internet. The real question here is the extent that Google has editorial control on their pages. One obvious place of concern is in their selection of news sources. People are right to be watching this aspect of Google’s influence and questioning their ability to introduce bias.
John, please be kind.<div></div><div>(1) I didn’t personally write the article, but I approved it.</div><div>(2) If you know the mission behind the Search Engine Roundtable, you would understand that we cover search topics as they are represented in the search forums. We often don’t agree or even care to take sides on these issues. This has nothing to do with if I like candidate A over B. The concern, we felt was valid and decided to express that concern through the viewpoint of the discussion at Search Engine Watch.</div>
Inferring that Eric Schmidt can’t have political opinion because he is the CEO of Google seems absurd to me.
Chris1, no one is saying he can’t have an opinion.
Does anyone realize, first and foremost, that *I* wrote this piece? Stop saying Barry wrote it and direct your concerns to me, even though all I really did was summarize a concern of a Search Engine Watch Forums member (in case you didn’t know, that’s what SER does).Further, I don’t give a damn who is elected. I’m apathetic. The problem expressed is that Google’s CEO has aligned itself with a political candidate. That was all. Scare tactics and fear mongering? Please. I don’t care about politics.
"no one is saying he can’t have an opinion."<div></div><div></div><div>Endorsing Obama is just expressing an opinion. I see no crime in that. Do you? Google leans left whether it makes that fact transparent or not. So making the truth known makes no difference.</div><div></div><div></div><div>It’s funny, Rnad gets grilled for being dishonest while Google gets grilled for being honest. Would Tamar prefer if Google chose to put a tape over its mouth?</div><div></div><div></div><div>Not expressing your views = no fricken backbone.</div>
@rustybrick:so you think that his public endorsement of obama makes google more likely to be skewing search results and using user data for malicious purposes? you think he should be able to have an opinion, but if his opinion is made public, that makes the company less trustworthy? i don’t follow the logic.this just sounds like more sour grapes from the right because obama has another high profile endorsement.
Is anyone actually reading? @rustybrick didn’t make an opinionated stance in this post. Neither did I. The forum discussion is RIGHT HERE in case you wanted to know the source of the article.And further, @chris1, nobody said that @rustybrick is aligned with McCain. But then again, your commentary indicates that you never actually read the post or at least bothered to understand the details.
@Chris1 (1) no, they won’t be more likely to skew search results. (2) no, it doesn’t make the company less trustworthy.<div></div><div>The point is perception. Some may perceive Google’s endorsement of a candidate as leading to either one or two. I know Google well, I know the people fairly well, and I know it won’t come to that. But ordinary Joe (not the plumber - sorry had to), who is not in our industry, might perceive it as such. That is why we cover forum topics, to get a view point that you and I wouldn’t always get, since you and I are so close to the topic.</div>
@chris1 by publicly endorsing one candidate or the other Schmidt is trying to influence other people to vote the same way he is. That’s what endorsements are. I don’t see it being that big a leap to assume that it might influence the company’s actions.I mean if the CEO of your company publicly endorses a candidate, aren’t you going to be hesitant to do anything that might go against that endorsement?And first it’s an endorsement, then it’s fundraising, and before long it could be providing search data to one campaign or party to help them better identify and target undecided voters. Google may never get to that point in the road but why even start down it in the first place?
"While Google may not be completely "un-evil" these days, of course they’re not going to skew their search results this way. Please. I can’t even believe it’s being suggested."Jill, where did you get the idea that their search results would be skewed? The article hardly suggests that. Even the subject clearly makes Google out to be as "unbiased."
I don’t see it being that big a leap to assume that it might influence the company’s actions.Yes, it is a HUGE leap.You are basically putting Google’s integrity into question by even suggesting such a thing, imo.
...This discussion is only worth blowing my time on because I’m drunk and its Friday. Bottom line is its a non-issue. I don’t give a fuck who anyone endorses. If you think Eric should keep mum re-read the first amendment. If a guy decides to vote for Obama because Eric endorses him the guy should be stripped of his right to vote.
@tamar said:Jill, where did you get the idea that their search results would be skewed? Well if that wasn’t what was being intimated, then I guess I’m confused as to why his endorsement even an issue.
This is a completely valid discussion rusty. I feel like a totally impartial Google is an immpossibility. As in all business (or govt), there are so many factors (most of them having to do with money) that will always persuade leaders or boards of directors, or whoever. We must constantly be reminded that Google is run by a bunch of humans. Humans that have feelings, dreams, desires, and biases. Keeping this in our minds eye will help us to better interpret search results we recieve, as well as so many other things in media and in our lives. Thanks for bringing this to our consideration.
@Jill, how is it an integrity issue to assume that a CEO’s believes or opinions would shape the company’s actions? That’s just business, at least in my experience.Having said that, I don’t see it as a big deal to question the big G’s integrity. Their two tiered system of justice, their willingness to compromise their beliefs to be allowed in China, the fact that they continue to use fear and intimidation tactics on the paidlinks/nofollow issue... I’d say all of that has called their integrity into question long before @roymitchell’s comment (if that was even his attention).
If this discussion proves anything is that some people feel that Schmidt’s endorsement may influence Google’s products and services, possibly including search. Look at the discussion above and you will see that. Do I personally think that would ever happen? No. I honestly feel Google would never do that. <div></div><div>But I feel it is important for Google to be perceived as an unbiased company, not just be an unbiased company.</div>
"Well if that wasn’t what was being intimated, then I guess I’m confused as to why his endorsement even an issue." Discovery writes his concern pretty clearly in the post that was summarized by me on SER. Maybe that should have been submitted to Sphinn to clear up the confusion.My takeaways: 1. Google knows too much about us.2. CEO of Google (rather than any celebrity who doesn’t have access to everything about us) aligning with a candidate is problematic.Honestly, I don’t really care either way, but Discovery makes some interesting points.
I can’t believe there are so many conspiracy theorists here. This story is ridiculous.
@ rustybrickIf you want to make the argument that Google could create a credibility issue with its users by having its CEO endorse Obama, I disagree, but i could see how it could be a valid concern for the company. Even if you overlook the fact that its clearly just one person at Google’s opinion, if it was the official Google endorsement, that would be business decision. What this article says is that Eric Schmidt’s endorsement makes Google "completely unethical" and then goes on to question the integrity of their business. Then it takes it one step further by insinuating improper abuse of its users’ personal information.I just don’t see how a public endorsement from one individual could possibly have this effect.
It’d be *really* nice if the people who Desphunn the article actually read it. I mostly direct this message to the latter 2 individuals who Desphunn (yes, that’d be Chris and SEOH).
Barry’s right. It is important for Google to be perceived as an unbiased company, not just be an unbiased company. This week Google’s just been kicked out of a deal with Begun.ru in Russia by the antimonopoly board. This decision maybe a result of mis-filed papers or a deeper concern about a US company beginning to take a dominant position in the Russian market. If Google can express political views about the next US President, it follows they could have political views on the next one in Russia. It’s essential to their global expansion plans that they are perceived to be apolitical. So no, I don’t think it was "completely unethical" for Schmidt to say this but it was not to the advantage of Google.
@rustybrick stop playing innocent. Your tweet "getting heated at sphinn (link)" reveal your interest in hyping this up. I also believe it proves my suspicion that it’s just a weak political ploy to add fear to Obama supporters. And as for not knowing Tamar wrote it, if I read the page and scan around and get no impression at all that there’s a byline credit, then no, Tamar doesn’t get credit for writing it.My read of the above discussion is that peole don’t think this was newsworthy, Sphinn worthy, and that’s the majority opinion. How you can summarize "if thais duscussion proves anything.." as you did is a mystery.As for Google’s CEO endorsing Barack Obama prior to the election, he can because that is how society works. Just as Rustybrick might publish framing articles on SearchEngineRoundtable in an attempt to influence his audience, Google could endorse a candidate. But they are smart enough to know that if they hid the fact that they were secretly trying to influence their audience, the fallout would be more negative than the potential benefits.
"I just don’t see how a public endorsement from one individual could possibly have this effect."Is he famous because he’s Eric Schmidt? Or is he famous becasue he’s Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google?
"Tamar doesn’t get credit for writing it."Really, John? Look at the bottom of the post. It says "TAMAR WEINBERG in Other Google Topics" which implies that I wrote it.
These threads make me happy that I mainly make jokes. LOL
At this point, all the naysayers who say that I didn’t write it or that we’re starting a political ploy (outrageous) are really not doing due diligence when reading and then commenting.Neither of us say who we are voting for. If we voted for Obama, what would you say then? That we’re still fear mongering? I respectfully request that people read before making offbeat statements that have no relevance to the article and are completely off-base.
@ tamar, I have read the article (in fact i read it well before i saw it on sphinn)tell me this one thing tamar (or anyone else)... if eric is allowed to have an opinion, how could making that opinion public become "completely unethical*"? *note that these words were taken directly from the article (which again i have read)
@john, it is a fun convo, your enjoying it and I rarely get to enjoy a discussion here at Sphinn these days. So let me have fun.<div></div><div>Regarding Tamar, it is there, the byline reads, "Tamar Weinberg in Other Google Topics at October 31, 2008 10:30 AM" right under the Sphinn button, like all her articles.</div><div><div></div></div><div>Let me prove from the discussion above shows that people may "perceive" the CEO’s endorsement as making the company bias. Here are quotes above that show people are perceiving this endorsement as possibly impacting Google’s product or services.</div><div><div></div><div>"Imagine if they decided to use their PSA ads to run a political message for one candidate or the other. They have way too big of an influence over how information is distributed to be involved in party politics."</div><div></div><div>"is any evidence that it’s affecting the SERPs or anything else... there will never be any proof because Google’s about as secretive as can be."</div><div></div><div>"We must constantly be reminded that Google is run by a bunch of humans. Humans that have feelings, dreams, desires, and biases. Keeping this in our minds eye will help us to better interpret search results we recieve, as well as so many other things in media and in our lives."</div><div></div><div>I don’t think this is anything to worry about in terms of really happening, but I think Google as a company should worry about public perception.</div><div></div><div>As far as me influencing my readers. Don’t you think I have proved over the years (many years) and thousands of articles I wrote in this industry, that I earned some respect in terms of being honest and as unbiased as a human can be? I try hard to help this industry.</div></div>
@chris1, take that statement in context."some feel that it’s completely unethical...."You’d have to ask those "some". Again, for the third time, I point you to the post the summary came from: http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=24370
"Don’t you think I have proved over the years (many years) and thousands of articles I wrote in this industry, that I earned some respect in terms of being honest and as unbiased as a human can be?"Yes Barry, in terms of SER you do. Anyone who’s kept up with SER knows you cover the industry...the good, the bad, the silly, the right and the wrong. I’m sure just like the rest of us you have bias but you do a great job of not letting that skew what’s published on SER.
okay, I guess I had more to say because I wrote a post response :)http://www.arteworks.biz/phamilton/2008/10/reality-has-well-known-liberal-bias.html
This is far too heated of a debate. Interesting points, but who he endorses is a non-issue for me. It doesn’t make me nervous about Google skewing results or sharing data. It is Eric Schmidt’s endorsement, not Google the corporation.
Nice post, @peterryan.
5 desphinns on this? Are you serious? @Tamar, it was a good post and covered an interesting discussion. Apparently there are some that are wound a bit too tight with election stuff right now.
I’m not wound up with election stuff. I’m not very interested in it, in fact. Kinda like Tamar...apathetic. I just think this was a tinfoil hat type post and thus, desphunn.
I usually don’t miss the Friday discussion threads on Threadwatch, but on very rare occasions I do. :)<div></div><div>Just to be clear, I think preserving the quality and accuracy of our search results at Google is the best way that we can help our users. A personal endorsement by a Google employee (even the CEO) doesn’t change that philosophy.</div>
Simply put a CEO helms a company. They are the captain. When the captain goes out, in this case, aligns with a governing party, it goes without saying that the alignment they have made goes along with how they "feel". This then goes to how they "govern" IE run the business. It says that their ideals are aligned with that of the "governing" party for which they have aligned themselves.When a CEO comes out and says "I back Obama" or "I backMcCain" it is safe to assume that the ideals they carry in the "outside world" are carried over in their business life as well. I’ve never once seen an instance such as this where they back one person in their personal life, but back the ideals of another in their corporate life.Essentially when a CEO comes out and says "I back so and so", whether you choose to believe it or not, they are saying that their company is backing them as well. This brings along with it the ramifications of that administration and their policies.I will say Google is based in Mountain View, California did anyone really expect anyone to come out of their praising McCain? lol We’re talking about the most left leaning area in the entire country. Makes most of the new england area pale in comparison.What does that mean for Google? Not much like I just mentioned probably just business as usual. Should a CEO have come out and endorse a candidate? I don’t think so. Not with Googles public policies especially. Do I think that swayed any independents? No.He is also entitled to his opinion, but when it draws the line is when he comes out in public to make that opinion public. If he wasnt the CEO of Google, he wouldnt have even been given air time to begin with... and that is why he should not have endorsed a candidate.
The article was wrritten in the wrong way, Tamar. Instead of providing us that framework, you wrote a piece that says too much, and assummes too much. Instead of making comments like "What makes this different" and TELLING us, asking what we should think about it, and framing the topic with some question satreters would have been better. IMHO, this is too new a concept to have any certainty about, and it needs discussion in the wider context of media bias. I have no answers to any of this, and I am a bit surprised that you seeemed to have a firm view, because, well, you surely didn’t put significant time into forming one, and a step inbetween, where the debate was about bias and its possible affects would have been, IMHO, better.So, step back, what are the issues here:1. What companies can and can’t have CEOs with opinions?2. Are Google a media company like a newspaper, that have a responsibility to some form of bias ethics?As I said, I have no answers, but debate about the meta issues surrounding bias is the first step.
@ Mike: Ah, but you just prove the point when you say: "you wrote a piece that says too much, and assummes too much." That was the point, when someone says or does something then people will assume things... often too much.@NickWilsdon: While I don’t think this statement by said CEO will have any effect on the Google product I do believe that when you have that much power you should always be seen to be neutral. Agreed that by making any kind of statement he may have hurt the Google brand.Freedom of speech also means you have the right to remain silent.
Here’s what I don’t understand: if you are squarely in the public eye and rely on the good graces of all types of people to support you or your business with their money or time (e.g. actors, musicians, and corporations), why would you risk potentially alienating half of your audience by making a political endorsement in such a divisive race? Just from a business standpoint, it doesn’t make any sense to me. Personally, I hope there isn’t someone so unable to think for themselves that a simple endorsement from someone is going to sway their opinion, but I know for a fact that some people are offended when "celebrities" make political endorsements. You know there’s probably already a "boycott Google" petition going around the conservative e-mail circles.Freedom of expression is an inherent right of all people in the U.S., but common sense should dictate when it’s a good idea to speak out and when to keep your opinions to yourself. In this election, when I’m seeing more vitriol and venom being flung across the political spectrum than ever before, I think businesses should stick to the latter of the two choices. ... But that’s just my opinion.
It doesn’t surprise me that Google is cavorting with and endorsing folks that are as good as being terrorists. Thankfully, I understand the CIA has a sleeper planted within the higher echelons of Google. The sleeper is just awaiting to hear the keyphrase to activate. (The key phrase is BACON POLENTA). Seriously, execs of large publicly traded companies shouldn’t aughta be endorsing politicians publicly. It’s pretty much impossible to differentiate between their views and those of the company. It’s also just a plain stupid idea because no matter which side you come out on, about half the population completely disagree with you - and are likely to take out their disagreement on the company. I’m surprised the Google legal beagles haven’t told the execs to keep their mouths shuttered when it comes to politics.
DarkMatter:You asked if there was any evidence of Google censorship of anti-Obama views. the answer is yes.Go to www.atlasshrugs.com. She is censored.
reads like a political scare tactic, 4 days before election.
Reads more like tin-foil hat conspiracy theory than anything sphinn-worthy, imo
google is not skewing serps for obama. even if they were, how does endorsing one candidate or another effect their "bias"
This story is ridiculous. People assume way too much sometimes.
Google never claimed to be an ubliased company we all have opinions deal with it or do you want Google to run like USSR