If Google really did return biased results, these shitty Lacy article wouldn't show up so often, above the fold.

[...] clearly doesn’t care what I think, but it should pay attention to Sullivan. He’s probably the savviest blogger on Google and [...]

At least as early as July 2011, the ranking of results from a Google search while logged into a Google Account depended on how often a result had been clicked on by that user, leading to different rankings for different users. So Search Plus Your World is not the first step away from an unbiased experience on Google Search.

[...] Google is introducing what it calls, “Google + Your World” to its search results, which it claims will make search results more personalized. What it will really do is incorporate (only) Google+ posts into its search results, forcing people to use/switch to Google+. In the past, Google’s search results have been sacred. Even with the introduction of AdWords and AdSense (Google’s pay-per-click advertising arms) it was not simply a “buy the top spot” system; Google evaluated your bid price, how relevant your site was, how you used certain keywords, etc. to determine where you would appear in the sponsored results. Now Google is showing that it is willing to sell the integrity of its search in an attempt to gain more traction with Google+. In other words, Google sold out. [...]

[...] I Guess We Have Google’s Answer: Search Results Are No Longer Sacred | PandoDaily [...]

Please point me to a search where the actual search results are different than they used to be. The Google+ box doesn't count. Including links to G+ profiles also doesn't count, if the actual search results are the same.

Google has always said that other things (like ads) could appear on their search result pages but they will be clearly marked as something outside of search. Sure the SPYW results follow these rules and are clearly marked as outside the normal search! I don't blame you for continuing your rants against Google though. Link baiting is now considered a legit method of building traffic and you need to do so! Hey its working for Apple Fanboy,Anti-Google MG so why not try to build a site based on it! ;-) JMTC Molly

Stop this nonsense and start using Bing or go find yourself another earth. I have no problem with google's efforts to give me more relevant information. Don't you think that info posted on some google's property by someone (a google+ page for example) was created by that someone with one purpose: to let you find it. If this info on Google+ is relevant to your query, fine, google will show it. What's your problem? I'd better see you writing about actual startups, rather be one more scandal tech blog with some yellow odour. You can do better, Sarah! Stop this crusade, please.

Change is hard.

There wasn't a "no comment" because the question wasn't asked. This is a poor article and better off forgotten. It's typical of a lot of tech news where the only goal is to create controversy, not to inform the reader.

Uh oh. Moby Dick analogy coming... Page is Ahab; Facebook is his white whale. I think we know how this turns out.

Reblogged this on quickgamer88.

summary: "Our new product is great. All the bad parts of it, hey, it's only two weeks old. So if you like it, that's because it's great. If you don't like it, it's because it's new." Nice cop-out. I also like how he thinks there's no massive outcry from "real users". That's probably because "real users" have absolutely no idea how Google is screwing up results. Real users couldn't even begin to explain how search engines work. All they know is they type in stuff and results magically appear. Best part though: "when I search for my personal friend..." HUH?! How many times do you go to Google and try searching for your friend's names? Yeah, like 0. I can't even remember the last time I searched for the name of a friend. Why on earh would I do that? Now on Facebook I search for friends names often -- that's because I specifically want to jump to their profile page. Google, get a grip! We're not on there to socialize in your fake circle world. We're there to research important information and questions. You are way too obsessed with beating Facebook.

"...people are judging a product and an overall direction that we have in the first two weeks of a launch, where we are producing a product for the long term." ~ Precisely.

Has PandoDaily gotten any hard evidence for the so-called internal leaks they've been posting over the last few days, otherwise, do you agree the site has no journalistic integrity? I will take no comment as an answer in the affirmative.

Since when is "no comment" an answer in the affirmative? It could also mean that they don't feel a response is warranted or that the answer is the same as it ever was.

Google is not longer unbiased--officially. Their search favors content that makes most money for Google. As long as they obey the law we can't force them. But Google purposefully tries to confuse ads with content for $$. That's fraud and you Sara should write about it and ask FTC to intervene. Ben Edelman has written a lot on that subject. Google manipulates results to favor major Adwords advertisers (brands) and to force others to advertise. No doubt Amit Chikoo will deny this as well. That's illegal and FTC should investigate them. Google makes more money after each update Amit announces. (If results, especially e-commerce ones, were best clicks on ads would plummet.)