This doesn't mean the article is not correct, but I just can't believe Google would do this kind of grey-hat SEO... mostly, companies do this to outsmart Google. Why would Google be trying to outsmart its own search engine?
Note: I care little about SEO, and I can't tell you if Google is trying to outsmart their own search engine, or, if they are, whether I should care about it.
There is potential legal trouble for them if they were to tweak search results to favour their own properties - that's a pretty solid reason for using SEO tactics to outsmart their own search engine.
Are you a lawyer? would you explain how is it exactly that "tweaking search results" is illegal? because I've noticed that meme going around and I don't think it makes much sense, I'm not saying that they any "tweaking", but if they were to rank whatever they like however they like on their own free website how is that illegal?
They are the dominant player in a large market (online advertising). If they exploit the dominance of their product specifically to stifle competition, we have a Microsoft-esque situation where the question might have been "how exactly is integrating an additional piece of freely available software with our market-dominant operating system illegal?" Well, it was, and this might very well be as well.
I'm not talking about ads I'm talking about ranking, and not even that, as ranking links doesn't really strike me as the way of the future, I'm referring to when Google shows a map for a location query and flight prices and schedules for a flight query as these are also search results and they are more useful (and prettier) so not only do I find nothing wrong with it but I find it to be the right way to go.
Also regarding that antitrust meme the Microsoft comparison keep getting mention, I'm not really familiar with that case but as I see it, Windows you buy and you are stuck with, Google on the other hand is free to use or not as you please.
> flight prices and schedules for a flight query as these are also search results and they are more useful (and prettier) so not only do I find nothing wrong with it but I find it to be the right way to go.
Certainly you might not find anything wrong with it; but if Google were to show ITA flight information in search results, with a link to Google Travel (hypothetical) to purchase the ticket, Expedia, Kayak, and Travelocity might be a little unhappy.
> Windows you buy and you are stuck with, Google on the other hand is free to use or not as you please.
The consumer being "stuck" with Windows was never an issue in the Microsoft case, but rather that they used their dominance in one field (the OS) to gain a significant advantage over a competitor in another field (the browser). If Facebook were to ban the sharing of Google+ links on their network, they might be in similar trouble.
The "stickiness" of Microsoft's products had nothing to do with the anti-trust case, They were leveraging their dominance in one market to exploit another; the permanence of the product has nothing to do with the illegality of their actions.
Isn't that what Google exactly did whilst promoting Google Chrome? Any search for the string "browser" turns up a Chrome ad. Some would argue that this is relatively an anti-competitive stance.
No I don't have a complete understanding of the law in this area, but in simple terms it is because Google's search engine is designed to give users the most relevant results, and by giving their own brands preferential ranking (without an advertisement notification) they are misleading users and giving their brands an unfair advantage over their competitors.
I'm sure someone else here can go into a more detailed answer.
Side note: the only "meme" I've noticed is the idea that anyone would be presumed a lawyer unless they say "IANAL".
But who's to say what is "relevant"? and if the user doesn't think this is relevant to her, she can search elsewhere.
I'm not even talking about links, there was this thing about the Google Flights result appearing for flight queries and some flight search sites (kayak and such) are up in arms about it, so here comes the question of how do they figure that they are entitled to any placement or traffic, and as for relevancy and usefulness surly showing flight details for flight searches is much more useful than nested links.
And the bundling deals Chrome had with Skype and has with Adobe seem "Googley" to you?
I really doubt Google would be doing the grey-hat SEO thing myself, but mostly because they have more effective (if more expensive) ways to push Chrome that they've been using already, not because I think Google is incapable of behaving in a completely scummy way. The fact that installing Skype for a while (until Microsoft bought it) defaulted to installing Chrome and making it your default browser pretty much sums up what you can expect out of "Googley" nowadays.
Update: The search team's response to this shows that thinking of "Google" as a monolithic entity with a monolithic "Googley" attitude or a monolithic "evil" attitude is just wrong, unsurprisingly. Kudos to the search folks; I remain of the opinion that the Chrome marketing folks are fully capable of scummy behavior as desired.
All right, that's true. Google Toolbar for IE was also "bundled" similarilly to some software as long as I remember, and the behaviour of Google Updater on Windows is also almost like crapware. You are probably right.
It's not that Google is trying to outsmart its own search engine, but verifying something that SEOs already know. Paid links still work. Google has not mastered sniffing them out yet. That all assumes that Google is paying for these links in hopes for SEO benefit.
This doesn't mean the article is not correct, but I just can't believe Google would do this kind of grey-hat SEO... mostly, companies do this to outsmart Google. Why would Google be trying to outsmart its own search engine?