It looks like the ex-DDG employee got the details wrong, and read the slides backwards.

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My interpretation, based on a comment on orange Reddit, is that they read this slide and interpreted it the wrong way around.

    The claim was that Google was taking a query for “kids clothing” and turning it into “$brandName kids clothing” to get more ad revenue from $brandName, but the slide shows the exact opposite: “$brandName kids clothing” is turned into “kids clothing”. I can’t find much about ads, I’m not sure if the ads were ever affected by this keyword transformation, but if they are then the ads you see will be more generic (and worth less, and less profitable).

    • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The slide shows neither. It shows that they use synonyms to get more results. They take a search for “kids clothing” and add results for “children’s clothing” and “kidswear”

    • stifle867@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My interpretation was this + in terms of the actual “sponsored” results work by matching “kids clothing” with advertisers who match for that term, and Google “changing” it into “$brand_name kids clothing” which seems entirely obvious when spelling it out.

      I haven’t used Google as my primary search engine for many years but occasionally I do run a search on it. While the quality of results is extremely low, I never noticed anything obvious like a generic search term only returning results for a specific brand + that search term like the original article implied.

      It seemed like a giant misunderstanding of how it all works from the start but made for a great headline.