Why Google Shouldn’t Open Up Its Hood
An article in the New York Times has suggested that Google should give the government access to its algorithms. Bad idea, says Clint Boulton
Can you imagine the reaction Google’s leadership had behind closed doors to the New York Times‘ editorial that suggested the company let the US government take a peek under its hood? It really is a “when hell freezes over proposition.”
The venerable Times suggested, among other things, Google let the government check to see whether the search engine algorithm tweaks are benefiting Google’s other businesses:
Still, the potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses.
What is Google’s secret?
Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks.
In other words, the Times wants the world to see what the wizard is doing behind the curtain. Many of my peers and colleagues feel the Times is out of line here, but I commend the publication’s curiosity. They, just like me and every other high-tech journalist, simply want to know what’s in Google’s secret search sauce.
It’s not unlike sampling an exquisite barbecue sauce and wondering what that ingredient is that makes it taste so darn good. Chefs rarely like to share.
But here is what the Times failed to consider (or didn’t care to mention) in its appraisal: If the government were to get under Google’s search hood, it could be big trouble because the government can’t be trusted when it concerns Google.
The government is listening to Microsoft and other rivals gunning for Google and is leading a witch hunt not seen since, well, the one that burned Microsoft a decade ago. More on this later, but first some background.
Is Google objective?
Here’s the rub: Google is notoriously and infamously secretive about the hundreds of changes it makes each year to its search algorithm.
The company has expanded its search and web services offerings to several other areas – Maps, Buzz, YouTube – and surfaces those items as part of its universal search experience for its general web search engine.
Smaller companies such as Foundem feel betrayed by Google, as the reigning search champion with 66 percent market share in the United States and more worldwide.
Foundem and others argue Google is downplaying their product results and promoting its own.
The claim is that Google’s search engine is no longer objective and that Google would rather push users to Google Product Search or other Google properties than Foundem, Microsoft Ciao for Bing or anything else.
Another great example: Google just bid to buy ITA Software, which would provide it with flight info that fuels most of the online travel industry’s (and Microsoft Bing Travel’s) listings.
Google is, in effect, cutting out the middleman by becoming the middleman on its own search engine.
