Hacker News Reader

Comment by joaodlf | Hacker News Reader

This being allowed shows the sad state Google is in - you search for a brand, get ads for a competitor? Search engine, my ass. You now effectively need to pay Google to keep your product relevant through ads, even when the user is specifically looking for you.

View on HN

If I search "Kleenex", am I specifically looking for the Kimberly Clark product or should Procter & Gamble be allowed to bid on ads for that search?

Certain types of product have become directly linked to a product name, yes. Google is smart enough to know this, though. If I google for my non VC funded product name, which is unique, why should the first result be for a direct competitor with deep pockets in advertising?

This would be fine if Google embraced their dependance on ads, but Google still labels itself as a “search engine”.

Isn't this more of a protection for established players? ie if your product is a GitHub alternative, should you be allowed to buy ads targeting ppl who search for Github to build awareness?

If I search "Kleenex" on Google, I'm asking Google to find me Kleenex, not some ads. If Google is going to start listing things in highest-to-lowest bid, then it stops being a search engine and starts becoming an auction house of links.

It already is an auction house of links. I think you have to go down at least 6 or 7 links nowadays for actual search results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com