Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog

Consumer Law

: CL&P Blog

A Disappointing Development at Google

By Paul Levy

by Paul Alan Levy

Last month, Google announced a change in the way search results would be displayed:  multiple search results will now be displayed from the single domain receiving the most clicks from search engine users.  In the example given on Google's blog, the search string "exhibitions at amnh" now produces seven results from the official web site of the American Museum of Natural History; in the past, there would have been only two hits from that page.  Consequently, the official web site of the entity owning the name can now receive so many entries on the first page of results that other web site owners are forced off the crucial first page of results.  Or, to take another example offered by one of my clients, a seller of Avery compatible labels who has had to fend off threats of trademark litigation in which Avery complains about his use of its name to identify the characteristics of the labels he sells, Avery itself now dominates the first page of search, reducing his opportunity to capture the attention of buyers with his lower-priced labels.

 
Much of the commentary has focused on the impact on commercial web site creators, such as competitors and resellers (like our client).  Cynics have speculated that Google has made this change deliberately to force competitors and resellers who hope to attract traffic from persons interested in a given item to buy keyword advertising to ensure that their pages appear near the top of the first page of results, instead to simply relying on effective search engine optimization techniques that produce no revenue for Google.   They point out that the change wasn't needed to enable search engine users to see more pages from the brand name owner's official web site, because Google had a specialized tool, the "more results from" link provided with search results from sites with multiple relevant links.
 *
But that concern is even more serious for those who want their commentary about brand name owners to appear on the first page of search results, because Google does not allow critics to place a brand name in the text of keyword advertisements, and in any event consumer critics generally can't afford keyword advertising to promote their web sites.  By ramping up the search results from brand name owners, Google may have more impact suppressing information about criticism than all of the frivolous litigation brought against critics.  That is unfortunate.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on September 29, 2010 (boomark / email).