Does Google Need An Ombudsman? Options

[bwelford]

Michael Gray has occasional beefs with Google, as many do. In a recent post he finds that Google’s Two Tiered Internet World Sinks to a New Low.

The problem is that Google by now has an almost monopolistic hold on the search market. It seems unlikely that Yahoo or even more MSN/Live will break that hold. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) is a government body that acts to prevent the excesses that such a dominance might allow. However it probably would catch only flagrant cases.

Undoubtedly there are a lot of good people working for Google. Even if the Do No Evil motto seems a little hollow, in general their hearts are in the right place. However they are Google employees and must accept whatever is Google policy. If not they must resign or presumably would be let go.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. That sometimes is a subconscious process and works independently of the individual's goodwill. Google is now highly vulnerable to this possibility. Given that Google has sometimes a crushing effect on website owners whose livelihood depends on the Internet, it could be something they wish to guard against.

On the Michael Gray post, I left a comment that perhaps Google might consider appointing an ombudsman. This is someone who can act impartially to try to ensure equity. Michael seemed to like the thought. Do you think something needs to be done? Would an ombudsman help?

[joedolson]

ombudsman A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.

We are certainly all consumers of Google's products, so it's entirely reasonable to have an ombudsman to take on the responsibility of resolving complaints. (Or, given the scope, an entire department...)

However, I have serious doubts that it would work. First of all, the whole concept of "fair" as applied to the internet and search is extremely difficult to ascertain. Is it "fair" for your life's work to be crushed when a wealthier competitor with an inferior product finally improves their website? No, not really. But if they created a kick-donkey website and leveraged their business contacts to get it where they wanted it to be, then they've done exactly what they were supposed to: conducted business.

The capitalist system is not based on "fair."

Second, I have to question whether at least the US populace would accept the judgements of an impartial ombudsman. The US is filled with active litigators looking for a case --- I think having an extra-judicial decision making process simply wouldn't be accepted. Many people, I'm confident, would accuse the ombudsman of lacking impartiality and take the case to court regardless.

I can't help but think that it would be largely a symbolic gesture.

[swainzy]

At that above link, Hawaii SEO says, regarding G's release of your keywords:

I assume the goal is to motivate people to purchase more ads because they can now see how close the competition is and what geographic markets they are focusing on.
“Ah-ha! – All their business is coming from Texas! – We should geo-target Texas with more ads”
Or…
“Oh-Crap! Now our competition knows that we have been focusing on Texas! – So much for staying under the radar.”

Basically that is spot on. Because people, G is about larger profits.

Having an ombudsman might not do it as G needs to manipulate their SEO rules by continually coming up with new paths to lead webmasters down so they can ultimately increase their bottom line. I'm on the outside, not being a web dev but it looks to me like G jerks webmasters all over the place.

[iamlost]

Unlike, apparently, the various complainants I have read the various Google ToS, privacy, et al policies. I have even had my law-type-person explain their scope and likely legal constrainsts. I have thought about possible data mining possibilities and even discussed them with a few like minded individuals. And on the rare occassion one of us raised a concern the silence was deafening.

This latest 'service' has been seen coming for well over a year by some and for even longer by a few. Which is why I use few Google services, and those in a careful circumscribed manner, and certainly never G-Analytics. Usage of each services grants Google specific usage rights of that data. This is not a surprise. Or should not.

It was and is your - all you who use such services - choice.
If you did not read or failed to understand the consequences, look in a mirror, and do better next time.

RTFM.
Think about what you read.
Understand that to which you agree.

Google doesn't need an ombudsman, webdevs need to grow up.

[SEOigloo]

Interesting topic, Barry

In the Local Search world, the need for Google to be accessible and accountable is especially apparent. Mike Blumenthal blogs about this a lot. Google has employed a couple of people to be Maps Guides, but frankly, they are not nearly enough to deal with the vast ocean of problems local business owners face because of bugs and spam in Maps. Google needs an entire, 24 hour staff devoted just to handling all of the trouble local business owners are having with this entity to which Google has given such top billing in recent times with their highly visible 10-pack results.

Just imagine having your business listed with a completely irrelevant phone number, with someone else's address. Imagine all of your user reviews disappearing over night, with no explanation. And imagine having no way to contact Google to demand that they stop misrepresenting your business in their hugely visible entity.

It's a mess.

An ombudsman is a good idea, but I think a full time customer service department is really the only solution to a situation like this.
Miriam

[bwelford]

Oh really, iamlost. Being big doesn't give you a licence to do anything you please. There can be a thing called public pressure. That's the beauty of the Internet. If enough of us get together, nothing can stop us.

[swainzy]

Very good points on local maps, Miriam.

Just imagine having your business listed with a completely irrelevant phone number, with someone else's address. Imagine all of your user reviews disappearing over night, with no explanation. And imagine having no way to contact Google to demand that they stop misrepresenting your business in their hugely visible entity.
It's a mess.

It's more than a mess, it's a nightmare for some. Being "out of control" feels awful.
I came to Cre8 because I was in the #1 position for my search terms and overnight was gone from sight. That cost me a lot of money but worse yet was the feeling of helplessness and no immediate recourse. Believe me, I did nothing to cause that dissappearance. No breaking any rules, no black hat, just G changing algos.

[bragadocchio]

The traffic estimates that Google shows in this new layer to google trends sound like the traffic estimates described in a patent application that I wrote about previously:

Google at the Crime Scene: Profiling Websites, Estimating Traffic, and Combating Click Fraud
http://www.seobythesea.com/?p=574

I'm not sure that the "trends" show are all that accurate measures unless you give away a lot of data to Google through Google Analytics, Google Optimizer, Adsense, etc.

Using those sources of information for a site enables Google to create a profile based upon actual data. Not using those services means that Google makes a lot of guesses based upon a profile built by looking at sites that they think are similar to yours. How accurate are they? I'm not sure that they are very accurate at all.

[iamlost]

Being big doesn't give you a licence to do anything you please.

That is not what I said. What I said was that Google is using information that they have been given the right to use. That this usage is such a widespread surprise shows a shocking lack of professional business behaviour: not reading or understanding what usage rights one is providing in return for a 'free' service is, at the very least, foolish.

That some of us have, in the past, mentioned similar possibilities and been ridiculed as 'Google haters' or 'fear mongerers' or 'you must have something to hide' has, quite frankly, made this current contretemps a bit of a quilty pleasure. You know, that childish, 'nah, nah, I was right and you all were wrong' sort of gratification.

I have a simple question: what is Google doing that is contrary to their agreements (ToS, privacy, etc.) for use of their products, applications, and services?

There can be a thing called public pressure. That's the beauty of the Internet. If enough of us get together, nothing can stop us.

Maybe.
In this instance you need (1) more people that are agrieved than see value in the service, (2) some proof of wrongdoing rather than a legal behaviour, and (3) sufficient media coverage to exhibit pressure.

While there is fury it is limited to a vocal minority, who have provided no proof of illicit activity or contravention of agreements, and without a smoking gun insufficient media attention to pressure anything beyond the SEO blogosphere where many are actually happy with the new data.

[iamlost]

And imagine having no way to contact Google to demand that they stop misrepresenting your business in their hugely visible entity.

One of the fun bits of Web2.0 is this throw out an alpha application, call it beta, and correct while, hopefully, you grow.

Google has always behaved this way but the results are more noticeable in Local/Maps because the algo problems are so blatently obvious. An address is either right, or not, for instance. The same problems exist in general search and in image search but are more obscured. Very few returns actually have the 'best' results (probably to allow more viable AdWords solutions), as most people will tolerate some minimal reply. This is not true with Local.

Google can not do the editorial oversite of the old YellowPages - which did make mistakes, which lasted for a year - they simply do not have either the number or the type of staff necessary. Add in their algo-centric business model and things are likely to continue to muddle along.

There are potential methods of accuracy redress - others have various solutions - so likely things will improve over time. It is surprising that no one is shooting at this vulnerability - and G is quite vulnerable in local. Unfortunately the other players are all big and even slower than G.

An ombudsman is unlikely because:
* it would publicise problems in a manner more likely to picked up by MSM.
* it would aggregate problems in a more visible fashion.
* there would need to be one for each Google service (or be overwhelmed) and given powers that Google seems to hold close.
* it would portray the great algo as less capable than myth would like.
* it (if it were effective) be contrary to that which is Google.

[projectphp]

Being big doesn't give you a licence to do anything you please. There can be a thing called public pressure. That's the beauty of the Internet. If enough of us get together, nothing can stop us.

With all due respect, Barry, I think you got the sentiment right, but the execution wrong.

Sentiment: we need to limit big companies abilitiy to manipulate XYZ..
Good Execution: Write blogs, complain, b***h, moan, cause negative PR, make the company respond and fix the issue.
Bad execution: Make a public service position (that the public we pay for) that takes away rights from a single business in isolation.

Anything that is applied in one direction is bad. With Google, everyone applies rules to them that they'd be horrified to find in reverse. Imagine an ombudsmen for your bsuiness, that had rules that applied to no one other buisiness. Is that right? Why do we even need that? Why are existing laws inadequate? Monopoly laws exist, why aren't they applied? My guess is because everyuthign Googtel do is above board, and I am with iamlost, except I would goa step further and say people power to EDUCATE on teh topic is vital.

Starting a campaign to STOP people using Google's various "evil" offerrings, or ones that are dicey or not perhaps in the best interst of all is possibly a very GOOD idea. That is a movement, if well thought out and reasonned, that I would support.

"Google's ToS reviewed by a lawyer: What it means to you".
"Why Google Analytics is a bad deal - even at the price of air".

But the whole concept of adding bureaucracy is something I don't agree with at all.

People power to affect change through Public Relations: YES. People power to add a layer of bureaucracy: NO.

<edit>Seriously? B i t c h is swear filtered? We are tough here!</edit>

[bwelford]

Perhaps I didn't make my suggestion clear, Michael. This Ombudsman would be someone that Google funded to act as a corporate conscience, someone or some department as Joe suggested, that would take up the cause of those who felt that Google, perhaps inadvertently was mistreating them. I didn't ever think the Government should get in on this.

Why would they do that? Iamlost has clearly spelled out the reasons why they might be inclined to not do this. However that's the old style PR way of handling adverse publicity events. Keep your head down. Pretend it's not happening. The opposition doesn't have the funds to make much news. So wait it out. That used to be a credible plan before the Internet. Although even then, the more successful companies realized that it was better to be proactive and make positive news about your actions rather than just be ostrich-like.

The thing is that big companies automatically have many strikes against them. We know that they can credibly use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to intimidate the opposition. They can use all the powers of the law right up to the Supreme Court if they wish. They have a great deal of power, if they choose to use it. However using that power does not make you many friends. It may take a little more effort to figure out how to conduct your affairs in such a way that most people are happy. But it's worth it.

Google at the moment is using the algorithm defense. Do not blame us. It's just the way the algorithm works out today: we'll probably make it better some time soon. Read the small print, which you have accepted. We have done nothing illegal. That was OK when it was just two guys running their business out of the garage. For a major corporation it just does not build trust.

In some ways it's similar to the problems online banking is suffering at the moment. If you read the small print, you will find you are on the hook if your bank card is used fraudently in some surprising situations. However if the banks practiced what their small print allows, the public uproar would be devastating. Banks cannot afford to lose the public trust.

The Local Search problems are one way in which dissatisfactions with Google can begin to reverberate. Slapping Beta on everything and pointing to the small print is not going to get them very far.

[projectphp]

... Joe suggested, that would take up the cause of those who felt that Google, perhaps inadvertently was mistreating them

At a cost to whom? The complainant? Everyone?

However that's the old style PR way of handling adverse publicity events. Keep your head down. Pretend it's not happening.

Don't they already do a good job of new skool PR with Google Groups, a blog on practically every topic and, ultimately, by engaging with the web on the web's terms, in blogs, conferences and other places?

or a major corporation it just does not build trust.

And yet, consistently, Google are voted one of, if not the, most trusted brands. Something doesn't fit between the perception, and the perception of the perception (metaperception if you will ).

Also, are we trying to help Google solve their problems, or are we trying to solve our own?

I read Michael Gray's article, and it is full of demands (stop this... stop that...) but not very full of reasons why]. Why should Google stop? Because we care about their business? Because we care about our business? Because we care about freedom, transparency and privacy? Why? What is the core perspective on this? Surely it isn't "just because"?

Choose a perspective, and then we can discuss, but these unstated perspective, unfocussed arguments are easy to pick apart, and ultimately unconvincing to any one, specific entity, be that me, you, Google or a government.

Most importantly, the arguments offer no compelling reason to Google to change. That is what is missing here. One can't change others by arguing what is best for oneself. One has to convince someone from their perspective.

How is that done? By offerring sticks or carrots. Don't X or we will have to Y. If you do A we will reward you with B. That sort of thing.

Blogging without a call to action, or call to arms as it is colloquially known, is pointless, If anyone wants change, find a way to organise and force change, don't just yell!

[bwelford]

Also, are we trying to help Google solve their problems, or are we trying to solve our own?

You have hit the nail on the head, Michael. If Google is product-driven, like Microsoft, then it does not have any problems. They make the best products they can (well Beta versions) and most of them come free. How rude of all you guys out there to look gift horses in the mouth.

On the other hand if they are customer-centric, then they will want to be sure that all the customers are really satisfied. They will learn from those who are less than satisfied. Slowly, oh so very slowly, they are now accepting more inputs. They may even allow comments on blogs sometime or other. They will know that they are getting there when people like Miriam do not have to write the kind of post that appears earlier in this thread.

[projectphp]

ALL the customers Barry

I am not entirely sure that your post matches with the general sentiment Barry, for a few reasons.

Firstly, there is the gap between incompetence / short of brilliance and evil intent. I am happy to discuss mistakes within a context of best of intentions and good faith, but I doubt some commenter's sincerity when it comes to that, and if not their sincerity, at the very least their approach.

A statement, like that from the linked blog: "Google sees itself as the absolute ruler of the internet and there’s nothing you can do to stop it" is not helping, it is accussing, and accussing in a way that is impossible to eiother prove or disprove.

I'd rather start with an issue, address it in a context of good faith, and resort to emotive language last. I'd also rather push for a change in people, than a change in a faceleess business entity. People need to apply presssure to Google, by countering their biggest asset: their reputation.

Ultimately, Google doesn't matter to me, and my real concern with any iniative is that it improves what I can acheive, not that it helps Google.

[bwelford]

ALL the customers Barry

Yes, Michael. That's what I said and that's what I meant.

This thread was not started to discuss Michael Gray's post but to discuss whether Google needed to actively seek better feedback from its customers. I agree about trying to get people to change rather than some 'faceless organization'. So what practical steps can we take to try to get the Google Local Search group to address the concerns of Miriam's local business people who are being hurt by Google's performance.

[Andrew.Williams]

Ok, shall I try and get this discussion back to topic.

Google is sharing everyone's precious secretive data, but their own.

If they think that sharing web stats is a good idea, why don't they share their own stats. That is Evil, that is corruption of power and that is double standards.

Google is based on secrecy, what makes them think that others would love to give away their secrets.

It is appalling, it would have not been if they shared their data as they shared everyone else's.

[projectphp]

It is only apalling if no one else can do this. If any/everyone can opt out, it is OK, no?

[A.N.Onym]

I think Michael's spot on here. Introducing another layer of corporate legalease won't do anything. You can always start being more vocal about the problems, do something about it (support Gevil.org, for example) and maybe even discuss things with Matt Cutts (he's a bit responsive).

What G needs is to get back in touch with the people. That's where the movement could go, instead of creating barriers in front of one of the most powerful businesses in the world.

Moreover, Google is just a search engine. As long as you are a visitor, you are fine. If you are a webmaster, you can live without it by building websites as if the search engines didn't exist: that is, create awesome content for the people, get published on other sites, build conversations, etc.

I didn't find an "Opt out" button in the Tools. Anyone?

This post has been edited by A.N.Onym: Jun 24 2008, 10:48 PM

[iamlost]

If any/everyone can opt out, it is OK, no?

I didn't find an "Opt out" button in the Tools. Anyone?

The basic webdev opt-out is the ability to allow/disallow spidering, indexing, cacheing of one's sites to varying granularity.

One also has the choice of which, if any, extended services one decides to use - they are opt-in, personal choice - after all. Thus an opt-out button in Tools is redundent - one has already explicitly opted in.

Further, one controls how and to what extent one uses those services.

Thus there is opt-out by explicit opting out of site or pages, plus implicit opting out by never opting in of services/applications/products, and finally masking one's opt-in extent by various shell/proxy usages.

One's Google involvement is one's personal choice.