// Home / News / Interviews

Q&A: Why we're taking on Google over competition

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 at 14:51

With Universal Search, Google's services like Product Search often have the first listing. As research shows that 50% of surfers click on the first result, that means Google is syphoning off an enormous amount of traffic from competitors to its own services.

Between October 2007 and 2009, visitors to the UK’s leading product price comparison services fell by an average of 41%, while UK visitors to Google Product Search grew by 125%.

Q. Google portrayed you as a Microsoft lacky – what is your relationship there?

A. Since February, when we filed the complaint in Europe, Google has been trying to paint our membership of ICOMP [the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace, which is sponsored by Microsoft] as showing that we are some kind of Microsoft proxy. But this is just a smokescreen.

Foundem’s case dates back to June 2006, and Foundem only joined ICOMP in the summer of 2009. Contrary to Google’s claim, Foundem is not “backed by ICOMP” in any shape or form. Any suggestion that Microsoft or ICOMP initiated or in any way controlled Foundem’s European complaint or any of Foundem’s other initiatives is simply untrue.

Q. What do you ultimately hope to achieve with the complaints in both the EU and US?

A. Foundem’s complaint argues for the principles of search neutrality, which we defined as the principle that a search engine’s results should be comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance.

Clearly, no two search engines will produce the same search results, nor should they. But any genuine pursuit of the most relevant results must, by definition, preclude any form of arbitrary discrimination.

The principles of search neutrality are both reasonable and straightforward to implement

The principles of search neutrality are both reasonable and straightforward to implement. Foundem’s EU Complaint proposes that a search engine should not be allowed to discriminate in favour of its own services, and that where it does insert its own services, these should be clearly differentiated from real search results just as sponsored links are.

The complaint also addresses Google’s increasing use of arbitrary and discriminatory penalties, which, through error or design, exclude legitimate sites from search results, irrespective of their relevance.

Foundem proposes that search engines should be transparent about the rationale behind these penalties and that affected sites should have access to a timely and transparent appeals process, so that penalties applied in error can be quickly rectified.

1 2

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

Basically?

They want to stop Google doing its job and make all the searches turn up them near the top? I would have thought if I paid people to make a search engine and other software I would want mine at the top as it is my company?

By Deathtaker27 on 6 Sep 2010

Rules...

Google's algorith for ranking sites is fairly well known and there is a whole industry built up around it.

The exact rules and the exact algorithm are still secret, but enough information is out there to allow you to get your site a higher ranking, or to know when you are going to get yourself blacklisted.

If your pages have no original content or just link out to other sites, which is what a lot of shopping comparison sites do, Google rates the page low, because it doesn't provide any information, it just links to other pages with the information.

To be honest, I hate having comparison sites, or even e-shops appearing in my search results. 99% of the time, I want technical information, manuals, new drivers etc. for a product, a price comparison site or an e-shop are the last things I need.

I am happy that comparison sites get marked lower, it means my results are more relevant. If I want prices, I search specifically for a search comparison site.

Sounds like Google works like it should, to me.

By big_D on 7 Sep 2010

@big_D

In principle I agree with you. However, it does look as if Google may have a case to answer. When I search for products I will frequently get Google Product Search results near the top (typically third), then often Pricerunner and Dealtime, sometimes Ciao and others. I'd never even heard of Foundem until this case and yet, having had a quick look at it, it seems to be quite a good comparison site - certainly much better laid out than Google Product Search. I've no idea if they cover the breadth of products that others do, and perhaps that is where the problem is arising, but it still smacks a little of anti-competitive practice to me.

John

By jgwilliams on 7 Sep 2010

Considering that these days you have to wade to page 30 or 40 to find vaguely relevant sites, so swamped is Google with "price comparison" nonsense that it almost seems as if they want to put themselves out of business.

I can appreciate that they sell advertising. That's fine, but as soon as advertising becomes the focus what's the point of searching?

By bubbles16 on 7 Sep 2010

@jgwilliams

Are you paid by Foundem. I looked at the site and it's near utterly useless. The fact is there are hundreds, if not thousands of price comparison sites, few of which add much value. Most of the majors spend a serious amount of money in advertising, link purchasing or other forms of promotion. Foundem just thinks that Google should promote them for free.

By milliganp on 7 Sep 2010

@big_D

I agree about non-price searches always resulting in hits for price comparison sites. Now obviously they pay for links -which is a part of the Google algorithm. But when you're looking for technical information on a device it is now almost impossible to find it via Google.

By milliganp on 7 Sep 2010

Why are you parrotting this rubish?

I am astonished at PCPro trotting out this rubbish without checking it. See Groklaw (www.groklaw.net) for a detailed analysis of the poor quality of the sites making the complaints, and their lawyers close connections with Microsoft.

By modonel on 7 Sep 2010