BP buys better search results on google...is that ok?

[RandomAnthony]

Interesting article today on BP purchasing better search results from google when people search for oil spill news.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37574169/...

What do you think? I guess I'm bothered that information flow can be purchased; on the other hand, I bet people can come up with other examples. I also notice that this is one of the lead stories on the news page of one of google's competitors.

What do you think?

(Also, in full disclosure, my brother in law works for google, but he and I barely talk so that doesn't impact my perspective on them much.)

[janine]

i thought the thread title said pb, for peanut butter, that would have been ok by me.

[Kevin]

well, remember that google is a business. they could not provide the service we all use daily without revenue and remember that the internet can be manipulated. we we click the top search results for topics we have to remember that all of them did not organically get there.

[Kevin]

put it this way, and this is a miserable way to live your life, nothing on the internet could be true. imagine that i could put up a math blog explaining why 2+2 does not equal 4 and if i did the right SEO and did pay-per-click with google and other search engines i could get to the top of some math query and if someone did the right keyword search i could be the first entry and someone may believe it because they read it on the internet

[Sarah]

But those top spots that BP and the lawyers purchased the ones that very prominently say "sponsored link" - they're even in a different color than the actual search results.
Try searching "BP disaster" and the sponsored link is BP's (and they had to pay for my click! ha!) but all the rest are actual news result.

[RandomAnthony]

Ok, so the links people pay for say "sponsored link"? Sort of like when a fake news story says "this is an advertisement" below it? I can live with that.

[janine]

i always skip the sponsored links, but maybe i should click on them, just to make them pay.

[Jaimie]

I'm with Janine. I'm off to click away! :-)

[Kevin]

good point. i just meant you can find conflicting info on most things if you look hard enough or use keywords that lead you to something. the same as books really. i agree that you just cannot use one source only in making an educated decision.

[Kevin]

and i love that you also use the word hinky

i googled that and it said:

hinky [hink ee:] to be hinkified or with hink

[Lobstergirl, el principe]

Interesting article on how J.C. Penney gamed Google's search for months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/bus...

[Heidi]

In one of my research courses, we were discussing APA and MLA style writing and references. One of the first things we discussed were credible sources and the credibility of sources as reference material. Scientific journals were, of course, high on the list as they're considered primary sources. Internet sources are typically considered 2nd sources, and naturally not as credible. We, of course, were encouraged to stick with primary sources, with occasional if-at-all use of secondary sources, to maintain the credibility and integrity of our writing. I think most of us know this on some level. It makes sense - turn to the experts for source information and use discernment, fact checking if necessary, when deciding what's true and what's not worth sharing.