Thread by @megangrA

Google is controlling the trial w/ its secrecy designations, controlling our searches w/ its greed, and controlling Wired w/ its scare tactics. I wrote an op-ed re Google mucking around w/ organic search to make it more shopping-oriented to gin up ad $. I stand by that. My 🧵

Just Friday, a witness testified about a Google "experiment" where the company deliberately made its search results worse (WORSE!) to see if that would impact its traffic.  The experiment ran for weeks or months without any negative impact for Google, he said.

At trial, we've learned the Google Search Team and Google Ad Team work together to secretly boost commercial queries - that degrades the user experience and triggers more ad auctions and thus revenue. Google isn't really contesting this.

It would be hard for them to refute given the damning evidence.  You don't have to believe me -- read this,  
And for context, so you know the job duties of the folks on that email chain, .justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416…
searchenginejournal.com/google-execs-s…

I have no beef with Google employees themselves, my takeaway from this exhibit is that Google management is manipulating them as much as they are the users.

Google demanded Wired take down my op-ed, pointing to a single page I saw in court for only a few seconds.  Wired sent it to me, and I said I needed to see all the pages shown in open court. Google didn't send. Without speaking with me, Wired deleted my op-ed.

Reading Google's lengthy explanation of that single page, , I agree I may have misunderstood it and I would have revised the op-ed if given a chance to take out the "kids clothes" example.  And I would've attributed Google with more sophisticated...

https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297

manipulation rather than my spicy shorthand of "delete and replace."  But don't be fooled, Google's rebuttal isn't a slam-dunk.  Sometimes I'm wrong and Google is right -- but one thing I've learned over the years is to never, ever take Google at face value.

Maybe Google didn't fiddle with queries via "semantic matching" or delete/replace queries outright, but the trial shows Google is doing something to convert non-commercial queries to commercial queries.

I can't conceive how Google does this without modifying the query -- and that "semantic match" powerpoint (which was more than 1 page) seems to hold the key. It's alchemy. They turn a non-commercial query into $$$.

According to trial testimony, Google did this under the code name Project Mercury.  As stated in court, "A goal of Project Mercury was to increase commercial queries."

And in court, we heard about a 2019 document (which isn't posted, grrr) created by the Search Team (not Ads Team) re "goals for a commercial query growth OKR." That exhibit has "an example of the ways that the Search and Ads teams collaborate to grow commercial queries and

improve the commercial experience."

PS -- journos, push DOJ to post Exhibit DX142. I haven't seen it myself, it was only discussed in court.

Consider this other trial exhibit, recounting the internal discussion about user queries becoming an important input into revenue, forcing the Search team to adopt new goals around monetizable query quotas.  

justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416…

At trial, we heard about how query growth was slowing, causing Google text ad revenue to drop.  And how text ad revenue is the vast majority of Google revenue.  And we heard about how that category of Google revenue -- mysteriously -- later went gangbusters.

Then a quote from that Google deck: "With Mercury, Search and Ads are working together at the onset to accelerate monetization velocity."

(hint, when folks use that kind of corporate mumbo jumbo, they're trying to hide some hanky panky)

How about this Google internal email from the bigwig in charge of the Ads team:  "The Search team is working together with us to accelerate a launch out of a new mobile layout...that will be very revenue positive..., but that still won’t be enough. Our best shot...

at making the quarter is if we get an injection of at least __% ... queries ASAP from Chrome. ....our teams ... live in high cost areas... another $100K in stock price loss will not be great for morale....Are there other ranking tweaks we can push out quickly?"

The email continued, "We are shaking the cushions....but we can't do it alone."

☎️📞RingRing, calling Search Team amiright?

(I posted link to this exhibit earlier, here it is again, )

Aside -- many years ago, we saw other hints of Google manipulating search to push up commercial content -- see co-occurrance games, justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416…

https://twitter.com/lutherlowe/status/1710760864335163792

Let's take a closer look at that semantic matching exhibit -- not posted, grrr, and Google has only selectively shared one page.  But after this dustup, I managed to get it from a diligent journalist and I've posted at docdro.id/t5ZGLNT

In this slide deck, isn't the gist that Google made semantic matching less precise in order to trigger more ad auctions, which ⬆️ Google $. Doesn't loosey-goosey semantic matching for keywords impact organic search results, making them lower quality --

less precise?  The keywords used to algorithmically generate organic results are the same keywords to generate the ads, yes?  I'll be the first to admit (especially now!) that this isn't my area of expertise.

If this semantic matching product change was so innocuous, why was Google tiptoeing around it, pulling in spin doctors to sell this "innovation," and refusing to let anyone opt out of it?"  Why was it discussed in trial that day?

Bottom line, even if semantic matching is a red herring, my op-ed is still solid for its central point. Google Search team and Google Ad team are working together to turn non-commercial queries into commercial queries, which hurts users and advertisers, but makes Google richer.