441:(FTC) voted unanimously to end the antitrust portion of its investigation without filing a formal complaint against Google. The FTC concluded that Google's “practice of favoring its own content in the presentation of search results” did not violate U.S. antitrust laws. The FTC further determined that even though competitors might be negatively impacted by Google's changing algorithms, Google did not change its algorithms to hurt competitors, but as a product improvement to benefit consumers.
236:". In this paper, Odlykzo predicts that if net neutrality were to be accepted as a legal or regulatory principle, then the questions surrounding search neutrality would be the next controversies. Indeed, in December 2009 the New York Times published an opinion letter by Foundem co-founder and lead complainant in an anti-trust complaint against Google, Adam Raff, which likely brought the term to the broader public. According to Raff in his opinion letter, search neutrality ought to be "the
322:
others, offered this alternative explanation, stating that “Two of the major issues that
Foundem had in summer was content in iFrames and content requiring javascript to load – both of which I looked at in August, and they were definitely in place. Both are huge barriers to search visibility in my book. They have been fixed somewhere between then and the lifting of the supposed ‘penalty’. I don't think that's a coincidence.”
499:(search engine results page) one month, and then tenth the next month search neutrality advocates cry "foul play," but in reality it is often the page's loss in popularity, relevance, or quality content that has caused the move. The case against Google brought forth by the owners of Foundem extoll this phenomenon and regulation could limit the search engine's ability to adjust ranking based on their own metrics.
261:
relevant (ranking). "Relevance" is a form of bias used to favor some results and rank those favored results. Relevance is defined in the search engine so that a user is satisfied with the results and is therefore subject to the user's preferences. And because relevance is so subjective, putting search neutrality into practice has been so contentious.
204:. This means that when a user types in a search engine query, the engine should return the most relevant results found in the provider's domain (those sites which the engine has knowledge of), without manipulating the order of the results (except to rank them by relevance), excluding results, or in any other way manipulating the results to a certain
252:". On October 11, 2009, Adam and his wife Shivaun launched SearchNeutrality.org, an initiative dedicated to promoting investigations against Google's search engine practices. There, the Raffs note that they chose to frame their issue with Google as "search neutrality" in order to benefit from the focus and interest on net neutrality.
506:
and should not be forced into the open. This would be similar to forcing a soda manufacturer to publish their recipes. The second concern is that opening the algorithm would allow spammers to exploit and target how the algorithm functions directly. This would permit spammers to circumvent the metrics
540:
experienced a massive decline in web traffic. This decline has been attributed to Google linking to its own services rather than the services offered at external websites. Despite these claims, Microsoft's Bing displays
Microsoft content in first place more than twice as often as Google shows Google
255:
In contrast to net neutrality, answers to such questions, as "what is search neutrality?" or "what are appropriate legislative or regulatory principles to protect search neutrality?", appear to have less consensus. The idea that neutrality means equal treatment, regardless of the content, comes from
491:
Forcing search engines to treat all websites equally would lead to the removal of their biased look at the
Internet. A biased view of the Internet is exactly what search users are seeking. By performing a search the user is seeking what that search engine perceives as the "best" result to their
321:
tags to embed the content from other websites. At the time at which
Foundem claims the penalties were imposed, it was unclear whether web crawlers crawled beyond the main page of a website using iframe tags without some extra modifications. The former SEO director OMD UK, Jaamit Durrani, among
260:
applications are designed to collect and store information (indexing), receive a query from a user, search for and filter relevant information based on that query (searching/filtering), and then present the user with only a subset of those results, which are ranked from most relevant to least
219:
results (results returned because of their relevance to the search terms, as opposed to results sponsored by advertising) of a search engine free from any manipulation, while network neutrality aims to keep those who provide and govern access to the
Internet from limiting the availability of
317:. Beginning in 2006 and for three and a half years following, Foundem's traffic and business dropped significantly due to what they assert to be a penalty deliberately applied by Google. It is unclear, however, whether their claim of a penalty was self-imposed via their use of iframe
429:. In February 2010, Google released an article on the Google Public Policy blog expressing their concern for fair competition, when other companies at the UK joined Foundem's cause (eJustice.fr, and Microsoft's Ciao! from Bing) also claiming being unfairly penalized by Google.
325:
Most of
Foundem’s accusations claim that Google deliberately applies penalties to other vertical search engines because they represent competition. Foundem is backed by a Microsoft proxy group, the 'Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplace'.
514:
techniques to improve their rankings. Any site who finds a way to circumvent the algorithm would benefit from a search engine's inability to manually decrease their ranking causing a spam site to gain high ranking for extended periods of
1094:
Since Dec. 4, 2009, Google has been personalized for everyone. So when I had two friends this spring Google "BP," one of them got a set of links that was about investment opportunities in BP. The other one got information about the oil
276:
by other companies. Competitors and companies claim search engines systematically favor some sites (and some kind of sites) over others in their lists of results, disrupting the objective results users believe they are getting.
288:
are also accused of skewing results. Amazon's search results are influenced by companies that pay to rank higher in their search results while
Facebook filters their newsfeed lists to conduct social experiments.
256:
debates on net neutrality. Neutrality in search is complicated by the fact that search engines, by design and in implementation, are not intended to be neutral or impartial. Rather, search engines and other
492:
query. Enforced search neutrality would, essentially, remove this bias. Users continually return to a specific search engine because they find the "biased" or "subjective" results to fit their needs.
852:
502:
Proponents of search neutrality desire transparency in a search engine's ranking algorithm. Requiring transparent algorithms leads to two concerns. These algorithms are the companies private
470:
Allows for organized, logical manipulation of search results by an objective, automatic algorithm. At the same time, disallowing underhanded ranking of results on an individual basis.
437:
After two years of looking into claims that Google “manipulated its search algorithms to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing vertical properties,” the
975:"Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search"
525:
458:
Those who advocate search neutrality argue that the results would not be biased towards sites with more advertising, but towards sites most relevant to the user.
215:
in that they both aim to keep any one organization from limiting or altering a user's access to services on the
Internet. Search neutrality aims to keep the
646:
856:
305:, index it and show a list of results ordered by relevance. The use of search engines to access information through the web has become a key factor for
96:
467:
Search engines would allow traffic to sites that depend on visitors, keeping their results comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance.
780:
974:
807:
392:
228:
The term "search neutrality" in context of the internet appears as early as March 2009 in an academic paper by the Polish-American mathematician
755:
126:
1003:
536:" system uses by far the least neutral search engine practices, and following the implementation of Universal Search, websites such as
510:
Removing a search engine's ability to directly manipulate rankings limits their ability to penalize dishonest websites that practice
689:
141:
169:
833:
541:
content in first place. This indicates that as far as there is any 'bias', Google is less biased than its principal competitor.
411:
Foundem is "whitelisted" for Google natural search (i.e. Google manually grants
Foundem immunity from its search penalty).
1059:
904:
1225:
403:
Teleconference with Google Search
Quality Team representative, beginning a detailed dialogue between Foundem and Google.
137:
313:" service to compare products available on online markets for the U.K. Many people see these "vertical search" sites as
121:
881:
1078:
620:
1156:
930:
461:
Search neutrality encourages sites to have more quality content rather than pay to rank higher on organic results.
589:"Network Neutrality, Search Neutrality, and the Never-ending Conflict between Efficiency and Fairness in Markets"
309:, which depend on the flow of users visiting their pages. One of these companies is Foundem. Foundem provides a "
234:
Network Neutrality, Search Neutrality, and the Never-ending Conflict between Efficiency and Fairness in Markets
111:
375:
Foundem is "whitelisted" for AdWords (i.e. Google manually grants Foundem immunity from its AdWords penalty).
1134:
495:
Search neutrality has the possibility of causing search engines to become stagnant. If site A is first on a
162:
383:
Foundem starts "public" campaign to raise awareness of this new breed of penalty and manual whitelisting.
131:
784:
496:
351:
Foundem's Google search penalty begins. Foundem starts an arduous campaign to have the penalty lifted.
1108:
1179:
726:
438:
101:
1215:
155:
116:
106:
80:
359:
Foundem's AdWord penalty begins. Foundem starts an arduous campaign to have the penalty lifted.
50:
1025:
669:
1210:
503:
257:
55:
40:
8:
1220:
700:
561:
425:'s large market share (85%) has made them a target for search neutrality litigation via
853:"Foundem vs Google redux: it was a penalty! And search neutrality is at stake, dammit!"
837:
273:
212:
70:
334:
The following table details Foundem's chronology of events as found on their website:
665:
640:
511:
60:
473:
Personalized search results might suppress information that disagrees with users'
280:
The call for search neutrality goes beyond traditional search engines. Sites like
244:
should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive,
196:
should have no editorial policies other than that their results be comprehensive,
660:
Grimmelmann, James (17 January 2011). "Some Skepticism about Search Neutrality".
588:
310:
306:
426:
298:
265:
241:
229:
216:
24:
1204:
533:
478:
193:
432:
182:
Principle that search engines' results should be based solely on relevance
302:
507:
in place that prevent spammed websites from being at the top of a SERP.
281:
474:
464:
Restrains search engines from only supporting their best advertisers.
249:
245:
237:
201:
197:
189:
952:
537:
449:
There are a number of arguments for and against search neutrality.
314:
285:
65:
45:
367:
Teleconference with Google AdWords Quality Team representative.
297:
In order to find information on the Web, most users make use of
1180:"Defining and Measuring Search Bias: Some Preliminary Evidence"
697:
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Occasional Paper Series
529:
422:
269:
1064:
The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet
662:
The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet
292:
318:
205:
756:"Are Google and Amazon the next threat to net neutrality?"
477:, isolating them in their own cultural or ideological "
433:
The FTC’s Investigation into Allegations of Search Bias
998:
996:
683:
681:
679:
993:
808:"Antitrust nemesis accuses Google of 'WMD program'"
690:""Neutral" Search As A Basis for Antitrust Action?"
676:
1202:
1177:
836:. www.searchneutrality.org. 2009. Archived from
645:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (
329:
1157:"Google Maps Gaining On Market Leader Mapquest"
725:Herman, Tavani (2014). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).
1106:
1053:
1051:
1049:
1047:
1045:
1043:
1004:"Search Neutrality as Disclosure and Auditing"
905:"Texas Conducting Antitrust Review of Google"
902:
876:
874:
627:. Archived from the original on 4 August 2016
163:
1185:. International Center for Law and Economics
749:
747:
1057:
1040:
659:
871:
850:
653:
170:
156:
1076:
1060:"Some Skepticism About Search Neutrality"
805:
744:
556:
554:
264:Search neutrality became a concern after
1135:"Google Begins Move to Universal Search"
1006:. Concurring Opinions. February 19, 2011
981:. Federal Trade Commission. July 3, 2013
953:"Background to EU Formal Investigation"
783:. Marketing Today. 2005. Archived from
731:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
615:
613:
586:
220:resources to access any given content.
1203:
1159:. Search Engine Land. January 10, 2008
1070:
724:
580:
551:
1109:"Google 2.0: Google Universal Search"
1178:Joshua D. Wright (3 November 2011).
1077:Parramore, Lynn (October 10, 2010).
610:
687:
13:
903:Nancy Gohring (4 September 2010).
753:
14:
1237:
1028:. Bucknell.edu. December 27, 2009
519:
933:. www.searchneutrality.org. 2010
293:"Vertical search" spam penalties
211:Search neutrality is related to
1171:
1149:
1127:
1100:
1018:
967:
945:
923:
896:
882:"Committed to competing fairly"
844:
826:
1107:Danny Sullivan (16 May 2007).
1026:"Search, but You May Not Find"
806:Cade Metz (1 September 2011).
799:
773:
718:
587:Odlyzko, Andrew (March 2009).
562:"Search, but You May Not Find"
417:
1:
851:Chris Lake (5 January 2010).
544:
330:The Foundem’s case chronology
223:
955:. foundem. November 30, 2010
621:"About SearchNeutrality.org"
444:
7:
1058:Grimmelmann, James (2010).
727:"Search Engines and Ethics"
596:Review of Network Economics
10:
1242:
1226:Search engine optimization
781:"Search Engine Marketing"
688:Lao, Marina (July 2013).
834:"Foundem's Google Story"
526:Net Neutrality Institute
439:Federal Trade Commission
1115:. Third Door Media, Inc
485:
452:
911:. IDG Consumer and SMB
699:: 1–12. Archived from
61:Internet Protocol (IP)
51:Deep packet inspection
19:Part of a series about
504:intellectual property
258:information retrieval
787:on February 25, 2011
625:searchneutrality.org
248:and based solely on
200:and based solely on
89:By country or region
56:End-to-end principle
41:Bandwidth throttling
1079:"The Filter Bubble"
840:on 27 January 2010.
706:on 5 September 2015
391:First meeting with
1113:Search Engine Land
566:The New York Times
272:, were accused of
213:network neutrality
71:Net neutrality law
524:According to the
415:
414:
307:online businesses
186:Search neutrality
180:
179:
76:Search neutrality
33:Topics and issues
1233:
1195:
1194:
1192:
1190:
1184:
1175:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1164:
1153:
1147:
1146:
1144:
1142:
1131:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1120:
1104:
1098:
1097:
1091:
1089:
1074:
1068:
1067:
1055:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1033:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1011:
1000:
991:
990:
988:
986:
971:
965:
964:
962:
960:
949:
943:
942:
940:
938:
931:"The Chronology"
927:
921:
920:
918:
916:
900:
894:
893:
891:
889:
878:
869:
868:
866:
864:
855:. Archived from
848:
842:
841:
830:
824:
823:
821:
819:
803:
797:
796:
794:
792:
777:
771:
770:
768:
766:
751:
742:
741:
739:
737:
722:
716:
715:
713:
711:
705:
694:
685:
674:
673:
657:
651:
650:
644:
636:
634:
632:
617:
608:
607:
605:
603:
593:
584:
578:
577:
575:
573:
558:
534:Universal Search
337:
336:
172:
165:
158:
145:
27:
16:
15:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1176:
1172:
1162:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1140:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1118:
1116:
1105:
1101:
1087:
1085:
1075:
1071:
1056:
1041:
1031:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1009:
1007:
1002:
1001:
994:
984:
982:
973:
972:
968:
958:
956:
951:
950:
946:
936:
934:
929:
928:
924:
914:
912:
901:
897:
887:
885:
880:
879:
872:
862:
860:
859:on 31 July 2017
849:
845:
832:
831:
827:
817:
815:
804:
800:
790:
788:
779:
778:
774:
764:
762:
754:Shavin, Naomi.
752:
745:
735:
733:
723:
719:
709:
707:
703:
692:
686:
677:
658:
654:
638:
637:
630:
628:
619:
618:
611:
601:
599:
591:
585:
581:
571:
569:
560:
559:
552:
547:
522:
488:
455:
447:
435:
420:
332:
311:vertical search
295:
268:, most notably
226:
183:
176:
136:
81:Tiered Internet
25:
12:
11:
5:
1239:
1229:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1216:Net neutrality
1213:
1197:
1196:
1170:
1148:
1137:. May 17, 2007
1126:
1099:
1069:
1066:. TechFreedom.
1039:
1017:
992:
966:
944:
922:
895:
870:
843:
825:
814:. The Register
798:
772:
743:
717:
675:
652:
609:
579:
549:
548:
546:
543:
528:, as of 2018,
521:
520:Related issues
518:
517:
516:
508:
500:
493:
487:
484:
483:
482:
479:filter bubbles
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
454:
451:
446:
443:
434:
431:
427:antitrust laws
419:
416:
413:
412:
409:
405:
404:
401:
397:
396:
389:
385:
384:
381:
377:
376:
373:
372:September 2007
369:
368:
365:
361:
360:
357:
353:
352:
349:
345:
344:
341:
331:
328:
299:search engines
294:
291:
266:search engines
242:search engines
230:Andrew Odlyzko
225:
222:
217:organic search
194:search engines
181:
178:
177:
175:
174:
167:
160:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
134:
129:
124:
119:
114:
112:European Union
109:
104:
99:
91:
90:
86:
85:
84:
83:
78:
73:
68:
63:
58:
53:
48:
43:
35:
34:
30:
29:
26:Net neutrality
21:
20:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1238:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1206:
1181:
1174:
1158:
1152:
1136:
1130:
1114:
1110:
1103:
1096:
1084:
1080:
1073:
1065:
1061:
1054:
1052:
1050:
1048:
1046:
1044:
1027:
1021:
1005:
999:
997:
980:
976:
970:
954:
948:
932:
926:
910:
906:
899:
883:
877:
875:
858:
854:
847:
839:
835:
829:
813:
809:
802:
786:
782:
776:
761:
757:
750:
748:
732:
728:
721:
702:
698:
691:
684:
682:
680:
671:
667:
663:
656:
648:
642:
626:
622:
616:
614:
597:
590:
583:
567:
563:
557:
555:
550:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
494:
490:
489:
480:
476:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
456:
450:
442:
440:
430:
428:
424:
410:
408:December 2009
407:
406:
402:
399:
398:
394:
390:
387:
386:
382:
379:
378:
374:
371:
370:
366:
363:
362:
358:
355:
354:
350:
347:
346:
342:
339:
338:
335:
327:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:crawl the web
300:
290:
287:
283:
278:
275:
271:
267:
262:
259:
253:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
221:
218:
214:
209:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
173:
168:
166:
161:
159:
154:
153:
151:
150:
143:
139:
138:United States
135:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
94:
93:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
57:
54:
52:
49:
47:
44:
42:
39:
38:
37:
36:
32:
31:
28:
23:
22:
18:
17:
1211:Computer law
1187:. Retrieved
1173:
1163:February 13,
1161:. Retrieved
1151:
1141:February 13,
1139:. Retrieved
1129:
1117:. Retrieved
1112:
1102:
1093:
1086:. Retrieved
1083:The Atlantic
1082:
1072:
1063:
1032:February 13,
1030:. Retrieved
1020:
1008:. Retrieved
983:. Retrieved
978:
969:
959:February 13,
957:. Retrieved
947:
935:. Retrieved
925:
913:. Retrieved
908:
898:
886:. Retrieved
861:. Retrieved
857:the original
846:
838:the original
828:
816:. Retrieved
812:The Register
811:
801:
789:. Retrieved
785:the original
775:
763:. Retrieved
759:
734:. Retrieved
730:
720:
708:. Retrieved
701:the original
696:
661:
655:
629:. Retrieved
624:
600:. Retrieved
595:
582:
570:. Retrieved
565:
523:
448:
436:
421:
400:October 2009
380:January 2009
333:
324:
296:
279:
263:
254:
233:
227:
210:
185:
184:
75:
985:20 November
765:19 November
736:20 November
710:19 November
664:: 435–461.
418:Other cases
364:August 2007
356:August 2006
274:search bias
127:Philippines
122:Netherlands
1221:Principles
1205:Categories
760:Forbes.com
545:References
475:worldviews
388:April 2009
282:Amazon.com
224:Background
1095:spill....
1088:April 20,
512:black hat
445:Arguments
348:June 2006
250:relevance
246:impartial
238:principle
232:titled, "
202:relevance
198:impartial
190:principle
132:Singapore
1189:2 August
1119:2 August
1010:March 3,
937:March 3,
915:2 August
909:PC World
888:March 2,
818:2 August
791:March 2,
641:cite web
572:March 3,
538:MapQuest
301:, which
286:Facebook
66:Net bias
46:Data cap
979:FTC.gov
863:July 3,
670:1742444
598:: 40–60
884:. 2010
668:
631:4 July
602:4 July
568:. 2009
530:Google
423:Google
343:Event
270:Google
102:Canada
97:Brazil
1183:(PDF)
704:(PDF)
693:(PDF)
592:(PDF)
515:time.
393:ICOMP
240:that
192:that
188:is a
117:India
107:Chile
1191:2012
1165:2011
1143:2011
1121:2012
1090:2011
1034:2010
1012:2011
987:2014
961:2011
939:2011
917:2012
890:2011
865:2017
820:2012
793:2011
767:2014
738:2014
712:2014
666:SSRN
647:link
633:2017
604:2017
574:2011
532:’s "
497:SERP
486:Cons
453:Pros
340:Date
319:HTML
315:spam
284:and
206:bias
208:.
142:FCC
1207::
1111:.
1092:.
1081:.
1062:.
1042:^
995:^
977:.
907:.
873:^
810:.
758:.
746:^
729:.
695:.
678:^
643:}}
639:{{
623:.
612:^
594:.
564:.
553:^
481:".
395:.
1193:.
1167:.
1145:.
1123:.
1036:.
1014:.
989:.
963:.
941:.
919:.
892:.
867:.
822:.
795:.
769:.
740:.
714:.
672:.
649:)
635:.
606:.
576:.
171:e
164:t
157:v
144:)
140:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.