Is it just me or is this some stupid s***? Just heard about this on JJJ; it was the lead story.

Aren't all links returned in Google search results that are "sponsored links" labeled as, uh, "Sponsored links"?

I have drawn a diagram to explain what I mean:

http://trog.qgl.org/up/retards.jpg

I'm sure there's more to this than at first meets the eye; I'll have a look for the ACCC report a bit later when I have some more time, but SRSLY.

I'm sure there's more to this than at first meets the eye

you're right, the face's eyes actually encircle the words "sponsored links" that is one clever f***en mspaint job.

hmmm... what is the mouth pointing out? I don't get it

Google > ACCC

My brief reading of the article led me to believe that the key issue is that Google was running sponsored links which were advertised under one company name while linking to another company name. The fact that the links were sponsored rather than search results is more a "fact of the case" than anything else, if it was a search result then Google is infinitely less liable. Seeing as I assume google's ad system is automated I think it's going to be hard to prove though.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 52
Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

Note that the whole case will turn on whether google's system is "engaging in conduct". Let the hilarity ensue while 60 year old judges try to understand the interwebs. While I have no doubt the ACCC would like them

the key issue is that Google was running sponsored links which were advertised under one company name while linking to another company name.

I assumed this was the main issue, judging by other news reports like:

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22061736-462,00.html

That's fair enough, very deceptive. Not sure what the other fuss about the "organic" results is, so trog's picture is fully justified.

they probably have some generic name like "driveaway holden" or something.

i doubt it'd be a deliberate linking, just reading a news article online about steve irwin dying and there being a context ad for life insurance.

last edited by nF at 17:55:26 12/Jul/07

the key issue is that Google was running sponsored links which were advertised under one company name while linking to another company name.

So the case scenario here is if I search for iiNet and get a sponsored link for BigPond, that's bad?

So the case scenario here is if I search for iiNet and get a sponsored link for BigPond, that's bad?

Only if there's an ad/link labelled "iiNet" that really redirects to BigPond:

The ACCC said that in 2005, sponsored links titled “Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota” allegedly appeared on Google, but the links allegedly directed users to the Trading Post website.

I'm sure there's more to this than at first meets the eye

you missed the apostrophe in "It's"

The ACCC said that in 2005, sponsored links titled “Kloster Ford” and “Charlestown Toyota” allegedly appeared on Google, but the links allegedly directed users to the Trading Post website.

but the trading post assumedly sells those cars. If you google "Kloster Ford" you're not going to GET one of those things. It's expected behaviour that your browser is not going to deliver to you a "Kloster Ford". Google aren't saying you're going to get one, even if the ad says "click here to get a kloster ford". It's a sponsored link that someone who does stuff with whatever they are paid for to try to make it easy for you to find products and services relating to "kloster fords".

Maybe I'm just expecting people to be smrter than they are

you missed the apostrophe in "It's"

??

so the analogy would be if there was a business called "Broadband Providers" and you searched for "Broadband Providers" and an ad for Bigpond came up describing them as "Broadband Providers".

but it seems like kloster ford is a company that sells fords, like zupps holden. so if you googled "kloster ford" you were expecting to get the kloster group which sells fords, not the trading post which is effectively their rival because they also sell fords.

or am i getting it wrong?

but the trading post assumedly sells those cars. If you google "Kloster Ford" you're not going to GET one of those things. It's expected behaviour that your browser is not going to deliver to you a "Kloster Ford". Google aren't saying you're going to get one, even if the ad says "click here to get a kloster ford". It's a sponsored link that someone who does stuff with whatever they are paid for to try to make it easy for you to find products and services relating to "kloster fords".

But kloster ford is a company, not a product, and trading post is in direct competition with the company. If you searched Kloster Ford and clicked a link saying Kloster Ford, and then ended up at Trading post, what do you think Kloster Ford would think of that?

EDIT: Beaten by taggs :/

Well I don't know what Kloster is, but for the Charlestown one... the trading post probably does allow you to buy a Toyota in Charlestown, so why shouldn't they be allowed to buy those keywords?

But kloster ford is a company, not a product

Oh, I thought it was a car.

heh

In summary, arguing about stuffs on the interwebs is stupid. Whether on forums or in the court-room :)

Not as stupid as complaining that google's organic links and sponsored links are confusing, which according to the radio is what the issue actually is

Maybe I'm just expecting people to be smrter than they are

come on matey, how long have you been on the internets now?!

pls dont sue teh googs

they might leave australia >:-(

Hey do they have the SMS service in Australia yet?

hmmm... what is the mouth pointing out? I don't get it

Looks like it's pointing out the ADSL from $9.95 per month .. I think this is some advertising scam by Trog trying to get us to sign up to cyberone's internet.

This is a better article about the suit.

The core complaint is that Google allowed companies to create sponsored links that have text advertising one company, and a link going to another one altogether.

The ACCC is also saying that there isn't enough distinction between paid ads and organic links that are normal results for the search. This is probably true for idiots who don't know much internets.

If one more person says "organic" links ...

What would you prefer non-sponsored Google search results to be called parabol?

its like a link saying www.mpu.com.au but redirecting to www.sgl.org or whatever

or www.optus.com.au but redirecting to bigpond

the its in the ms paint, u gotta edit it to please gramma nazi / super crazy whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop

whoop whoop whopp whoop whop whopp