Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Will Google search favor Google content?

The search giant’s new online encyclopedia raises concerns about conflict of interest.

(Page 2 of 2)



“Let’s say I’m the nefarious type. How long does it take me to see that Knol outranked the original source before I ... grab hundreds of thousands of pieces of content on the Web, upload them to Knol, and add AdSense to it?” says Mr. Wall, author of SEO Book, a search engine optimization guide at seobook.com.

Skip to next paragraph

A Google spokesperson countered that the company has “strong and robust” ways of establishing authorship and discouraging plagiarism. The Knol community of users will have tools to flag abuses, and plagiarized authors can file a take down notice that Google “will then investigate and act upon.”

As for the high ranking of some knols, a Google software engineer named Matt Cutts publicly responded in a blog that these floated to the top because of their placement on the Knol front page, thereby becoming highly visibile. Some knols ranked highly in Yahoo, he added, but “that doesn’t mean that Yahoo is boosting Knol.”

Despite the concerns, there is no conclusive evidence that Google has ever favored its own content.

A company spokesperson said Google is committed to keeping its search operations and content projects separate, and any content it owns will be treated by the search team the same as any other.

Google also points out it would not make sense for it to jeopardize public trust in its searches, which makes up the foundation of their business.

Ensuring search transparency
Discussions in the tech community, however, have been percolating over better search engine transparency. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is experimenting with a transparent search engine. In January, he launched Wikia Search, an engine built on open source algorithms – a radical concept Google won’t be adopting.

“We are, to be honest, quite secretive about what we do. There are two reasons for it: competition and abuse,” writes Udi Manber, a Google vice president of engineering, on a company blog devoted to greater openness. If Google’s search algorithms were known, he argues, people would game the system.

The search engine Spock, meanwhile, found it easiest to simply limit itself to search, says Mr. Bhatti, after partners balked at the possible competition. If Google’s going to do both, he says, it needs to assure users the two are separate.

Sullivan proposes that Google hire an ombudsman – somebody who would have full access to investigate complaints and report back to the public. A variation on that theme, put forward by Jeff Chester at the Center for Digital Democracy, would be a third-party task force that could both vouch for integrity without divulging specifics.

“When you dominate search in such a way, then you need to go the extra mile ... to assure the public,” says Mr. Chester. “At the end of the day, Google’s job is to serve the advertisers with the largest budgets.”

Mr. Wales says he trusts Google at this point. “If someone in Google said link to Knol first, we’d hear about it because it would really cut against the ideology of everyone who works at Google.”

That said, as Google grows stronger, the concerns naturally increase. While Wales wouldn’t want a mandated ombudsman, “I think it would be good business sense for Google to offer.”

Permissions