If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Nice retail website ya got there. It'd be a shame if, you know, customers suddenly couldn't find you on Google   (nytimes.com) divider line 28
    More: Scary, Unseat Amazon, Amazon, Google, Google Product Search, Google Sites, New York Edition, Forrester Research  
•       •       •

8042 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 Sep 2012 at 4:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



28 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-12 12:54:22 AM  
Right at the bottom of shopping.google.com "Google is compensated by some of these merchants. Payment is one of several factors used to rank these results. Tax and shipping costs are estimates."

Hooray!
 
2012-09-12 01:38:19 AM  
Well gosh I guess that explains why shopping.google.com is worthless. You would think they would know better. Less links means less hits which means less links etc.....
 
2012-09-12 04:38:12 AM  
img821.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-12 04:52:04 AM  
Snapper Carr: farm4.static.flickr.com

I am pining for the fjords.
 
2012-09-12 04:54:36 AM  
It reminds me of trying to find stuff on ebay these days. So much junk and worthless items i didn't want to pop up in my search. ( searching for oem car parts)What part of OEM do you not understand?!
 
2012-09-12 05:06:17 AM  
"...Couldn't find you on Google SHOPPING"

That's a big difference there subby, they aren't affecting Google search just the shopping tab.
 
2012-09-12 05:30:45 AM  
Don't know how google shopping works in the US, but outside of it it is completely worthless.
 
2012-09-12 05:32:54 AM  
Also, shopping for "free sex" on google tells me that some search tools are temporarily unavailable, and that I should maybe try later. Trying to get "free candy", on the other hand, results in a number of interesting offers.
 
2012-09-12 05:40:38 AM  

pup.socket: Don't know how google shopping works in the US, but outside of it it is completely worthless.


I'd say it works the same.
 
2012-09-12 06:21:27 AM  
Isn`t there some sort of law against one company doing stuff to stop competition, some sort of law that is anti to the concept?

Maybe monopolies should be illegal too?
 
2012-09-12 06:27:08 AM  

dready zim: Isn`t there some sort of law against one company doing stuff to stop competition, some sort of law that is anti to the concept?

Maybe monopolies should be illegal too?


Oh, corporations have had an answer for that for a while. Cartels. For example, there's no monopoly on oil in America. You can go to one of FIVE different companies. Want coal? There are basically five again. Not a monopoly, but not much competition, either. Media? Again, there are five major media companies (at the top of the food chain). Some industries have more major players, some have fewer, but all major industries follow this trend.
 
2012-09-12 06:31:22 AM  
From the article the headline should actually be:

Nice retail website ya got there. It'd be a shame if, you know, customers suddenly couldn't find you on Google/shopping

Which I had never noticed existed - although from the sounds of it, it also embeds items from there on the right hand side of normal searches (I assumed that had always been a paid for feature rather than a free service)
 
2012-09-12 06:40:47 AM  
This is exactly why we need net neutrality.
 
2012-09-12 07:56:29 AM  

untaken_name: dready zim: Isn`t there some sort of law against one company doing stuff to stop competition, some sort of law that is anti to the concept?

Maybe monopolies should be illegal too?

Oh, corporations have had an answer for that for a while. Cartels. For example, there's no monopoly on oil in America. You can go to one of FIVE different companies. Want coal? There are basically five again. Not a monopoly, but not much competition, either. Media? Again, there are five major media companies (at the top of the food chain). Some industries have more major players, some have fewer, but all major industries follow this trend.


Cartels make agreements with each other (like OPEC) to stifle competition and rig prices and supply, which would be illegal for companies in the US to do. What you're describing are oligopolies.
 
2012-09-12 08:52:43 AM  

Free Radical: This is exactly why we need net neutrality.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.

Also, being outraged at this is like being outraged that businesses have to pay to appear in the Yellow Pages. As long as this pay-to-play policy only applies to Google Shopping and not the main engine, I don't see a problem with it. To wit:

Google Search = White Pages
Google Shopping = Yellow Pages
 
2012-09-12 09:14:41 AM  

untaken_name: pup.socket: Don't know how google shopping works in the US, but outside of it it is completely worthless.
I'd say it works the same.


Hmmm, never heard of this Google shopping before. Oh, but how will I shop without it? How will I access the entirety of consumer goods available to me without all the tools of the internet. It is possible that I will miss some consumer good that I didn't even know existed, but that I will then decide I need, based on a picture on some website. It is essential that I amass every single thing I ever thought I wanted, plus thousands of things that I didn't really want at all, and I demand equal access to ALL shopping sites on the internet. There is no telling how many things I never wanted, that I'm now missing.
 
2012-09-12 09:18:20 AM  
I will probably ignite a flame here, but bing shopping is better. PLEASE NOTE I SAID SHOPPING! I am not saying the entire search engine, though I also like their video search better.
 
2012-09-12 09:28:57 AM  

Happy Hours: untaken_name: dready zim: Isn`t there some sort of law against one company doing stuff to stop competition, some sort of law that is anti to the concept?

Maybe monopolies should be illegal too?

Oh, corporations have had an answer for that for a while. Cartels. For example, there's no monopoly on oil in America. You can go to one of FIVE different companies. Want coal? There are basically five again. Not a monopoly, but not much competition, either. Media? Again, there are five major media companies (at the top of the food chain). Some industries have more major players, some have fewer, but all major industries follow this trend.

Cartels make agreements with each other (like OPEC) to stifle competition and rig prices and supply, which would be illegal for companies in the US to do. What you're describing are oligopolies.


Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. There's no collusion. There's no collusion. There's no collusion. Don't forget to tap those ruby slippers together, Dorothy.
 
2012-09-12 09:32:22 AM  
Earlier in the year, the panda and penguin updates "inadvertently" lowered the search rankings of small but established specialty businesses while rankings for megasites like ebay, amazon and etsy rose for those search terms. Small businesses who complained were giving small credits for adwords and told to try google shopping. Not surprisingly, google shopping now costs money.

/I'm not sayin' it was aliens... but, it was aliens.
 
2012-09-12 09:38:02 AM  
Just bought a bunch of stuff on amazon. Google shopping is pretty worthless.

I have a hard time believing they are seriously trying to compete.
 
2012-09-12 10:06:32 AM  
Some in this thread really seem to suck at searching if Google Shopping is worthless.

/use several pricing sources, depending on the product
 
2012-09-12 10:15:22 AM  
On Google Shopping. Not the main search engine.

big deal - if you were using Google Shopping you get what you deserve.
 
2012-09-12 10:48:16 AM  
That explains why some retailers who used to show up on Google Shopping no longer do so. I didn't bother to read the fine print at the bottom of the page, but I did wonder what had happened.

/FARK provides a public service?? Who knew that this day would ever come?
 
2012-09-12 11:31:05 AM  

Happy Hours: untaken_name: dready zim: Isn`t there some sort of law against one company doing stuff to stop competition, some sort of law that is anti to the concept?

Maybe monopolies should be illegal too?

Oh, corporations have had an answer for that for a while. Cartels. For example, there's no monopoly on oil in America. You can go to one of FIVE different companies. Want coal? There are basically five again. Not a monopoly, but not much competition, either. Media? Again, there are five major media companies (at the top of the food chain). Some industries have more major players, some have fewer, but all major industries follow this trend.

Cartels make agreements with each other (like OPEC) to stifle competition and rig prices and supply, which would be illegal for companies in the US to do. What you're describing are oligopolies.


It's only illegal if they are called on it. For example, the movie studios are working together to make sure that an iTunes does not spring up for movies. They are carefully balancing offerings between streaming services to prevent the "one stop shopping experience" that most consumers want. But they are the ones who buy legislation, rather than be affected by it.

\there is an entertainment cartel but its days are numbered
\\they pissed off the wrong guy, and he went nuclear
\\\once their quiet lawsuits fail, look for a push to a British regulatory system for US broadcasting
 
2012-09-12 11:59:54 AM  

BolloxReader: It's only illegal if they are called on it. For example, the movie studios are working together to make sure that an iTunes does not spring up for movies. They are carefully balancing offerings between streaming services to prevent the "one stop shopping experience" that most consumers want. But they are the ones who buy legislation, rather than be affected by it.

\there is an entertainment cartel but its days are numbered
\\they pissed off the wrong guy, and he went nuclear
\\\once their quiet lawsuits fail, look for a push to a British regulatory system for US broadcasting


That's not a cartel either. There's no law that says companies have to provide their product in a way that "most consumers want". Obviously, it's usually beneficial for companies to do what the consumer wants because that's usually the best way to make money. But the movie and television industries believe--whether accurate or not--that streaming (especially on-stop streaming) is not a viable business model for them yet. And if you look at the music industries revenues over the last decade, it's tough to blame them.

That's not cartel behavior. That's companies looking out for their own best interests, which is kind of a company's job.
 
2012-09-12 02:59:52 PM  
The problem: Google Shopping results have always been spotty and incomplete, going all the way back to the days when they were calling it "Froogle".

The reason: Merchants have to explicitly categorize and provide feeds of their product offerings to Google, unlike most other Google search services where the data is automatically crawled.

The solution(?): Charge merchants to be listed! That'll convince more of them to provide good data!
 
2012-09-12 03:19:18 PM  
came 4 Python references, leave satisfied
 
2012-09-12 07:06:19 PM  

poot_rootbeer: The problem: Google Shopping results have always been spotty and incomplete, going all the way back to the days when they were calling it "Froogle".

The reason: Merchants have to explicitly categorize and provide feeds of their product offerings to Google, unlike most other Google search services where the data is automatically crawled.

The solution(?): Charge merchants to be listed! That'll convince more of them to provide good data!


Merchants springing for a Google Shopping listing are most likely not offering the best deals..because they're tacking on the Google Shopping fee onto the price. I only use Google shopping as a benchmark price point, and then see where I can find it cheaper.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report