Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgtweak | Hacker News Reader

It's not being stupid it's designed that way. "Gee that'd suck if somebody else bought ads for all your organic keywords. Sorry we don't have a better way to prevent that, you should bid on those."

Even if Google did provide a provision for blocking ads for certain keywords (and they do have one), who controls that system? Amazon is also a bad example since many 3rd parties affiliated with - and driving traffic to - Amazon buy those keywords.

View on HN

Each individual advertiser on Google can provide "negative keywords," which are keywords that the advertiser would like to make sure they never show for.

Yes, you're right that buying one's own brand keywords is a defensive move. The idea that Google would show a relevant ad for a competing e-commerce site when a user is searching for "Amazon" isn't scandalous, it's the business model.

I think that's entering an area of ad ethics. Yet, its an ethical violation that companies like Google make today. If I search for "Wealthfront", I get an ad for Wealthfront, Betterment, and TDAmeritrade, in that order, before an organic result for Wealthfront. If Wealthfront didn't pay up, even though it is _obvious_ what I am looking for, the result I am looking would be buried. That's a protection racket.

Rank-based advertising, like in search results, is fundamentally unethical. To do it ethically would require perfect comprehension of what the searcher is seeking, so that you can prioritize organic, helpful results. Google never prioritizes organic results.

What? It's not a protection racket. Google is a private enterprise who is free to show whatever content they like on their page. Not showing your site is not illegal, nor is it unethical. A protection racket involves some illegal compulsion to pay for the protection. That's what makes it illegal.

It's not a protection racket but it is close to becoming a monopoly, which is also illegal in some circumstances.

This sort of anti-competitive coercion through overwhelming market power is why monopoly laws exist in the first place.

I don't think you understand what a monopoly entails. Having a large marketshare is simply not the only qualifier. It's also not remotely anti-competitive. That's just not what that word means.

If I search for "Wealthfront", how likely is it that I don't know they exist and need help finding their homepage, and how likely is it that I want to read about the type of service they offer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com