Hacker News Reader

The implication is that you’re being unwittingly directly channeled to certain sellers sites, instead of to sites that link to various sellers, I guess.

So the path to a potential sale is shorter and you’re more likely to buy (less time to get decision fatigue), and certain vendors might be prioritized.

I think that’s what she is implying

View on HN

That sounds like an accurate summary of what she's implying, but her implication makes no sense. Levi's doesn't pay Google for directing people to their site (unless it's through an ad, of course).

I am positive Levi's pays for ads on google and google has incentives to show increased sales for Levi's as a result of that advertising

(1) Why? Ads are charged per click/impression, not per sale.

(2) How would you feasibly create a link between every brand who advertises with you and every brand whose site you're trying to uprank? What happens when two different brands who advertise with you appear in the same results?

(3) Most importantly, is there any proof at all that Google is upranking organic links on behalf of brands who advertise with them? (I don't think there is.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com