Always click the first Google result? You might want to stop doing that.

Always click the first Google result? You might want to stop doing that.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Pinterest Share via Email More Options

Resize Text Print Article Comments 63
By Caitlin Dewey June 30

(Francois Lenoir/Reuters)
When you go to Google for anything, be it a weather report or a phone number or an explanation of string theory, you assume that the top results will always be the very best. Those are, at least, the only ones you click: Studies suggest it’s a rare, rare Googler who bothers scrolling past search result number five.

But according to a highly critical new paper out from legal scholar Tim Wu, Harvard Business School professor Michael Luca and data scientists at Yelp, many of us are totally missing out on the information that’s most relevant, and critical, to our lives.

[What you don’t know about Internet algorithms is hurting you]

They claim, essentially, that Google manipulates local search results to favor Google products: meaning that, whenever you search a restaurant, doctor or local business, Google will show you results from its empire of sites … even if there are demonstrably better options out there.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Yelp vice president of public policy Luther Lowe uses this example: If a parent searches “pediatrician NYC,” he or she will, in a prominent first-page listing, see the names of seven pediatricians who happen to have Google+ or Google+ Local pages. The parent will not, however, see the names of Melissa Varma, Rebecca Farber or Julissa Baez — three New York pediatricians whom Google otherwise ranks highly and who have really killer patient ratings … but on the sites of Google’s competitors.

“The Google organic ranking algorithm does a great job at identifying helpful content on the Web,” Lowe said. “But it’s sadly not being deployed in the most common user behavior on Google: local search.”

According to Yelp, from one-third to one-half of all Google searches are local.
The Google “OneBox” in action. You’ve seen these guys. (Google)
They primarily involve something called the “Local OneBox” — the special, extra-prominent list of seven links that Google displays at the top of local search results.

Local OneBox takes up a big chunk of first-page real estate, frequently at the very top of the page, which means people are disproportionately more likely to click into it than they are into regular links. Local OneBox also pulls exclusively from Google’s versions of specialized search sites, such as Google+ Local.
When data scientists from Yelp asked more than 2,500 people to review the OneBox results, however, they found that users overwhelmingly clicked pages from other review sites (i.e. TripAdvisor, ZocDoc, Yelp itself) over the ones from Google+ Local.

Moreover, Google’s own algorithmic system for rating and ranking the quality of Web pages — called, appropriately, PageRank — usually places Google+ Local results well below those from competitors, Yelp says.

“The fact that Google’s own algorithm would provide better results suggests that Google is making a strategic choice to display their own content, rather than choosing results that consumers would prefer,” the paper claims.

You can actually see this for yourself with a little bit of intermediate Googling. Try searching a term like “dermatologist” or “mechanic” or “pancake house” on Google, and check the results. Then open another tab and search the same thing, but put this parenthetical at the end: (site:zocdoc.com OR site:yelp.com OR site:healthgrades.com OR site:tripadvisor.com OR site:plus.google.com).

Essentially, the first search shows you Google’s standard results, with its own reviews given top billing; the second search shows you how Google’s algorithm actually ranks the quality and relevance of available reviews within that specific set of sites.

What people click on Google
The majority of Google searchers don’t look past the first five results. This chart illustrates click rates, by page position, according to the analytics firm Moz.
051015202530Result #131.24%214.04%39.85%46.97%55.5%6-103.73%
Source: Moz
THE WASHINGTON POST
There is, as always, a lot of salt to be had with these findings: chief among them, the fact that Yelp is competing fiercely against Google for real estate in the local reviews space and has actually joined with other reviews sites to lobby E.U. antitrust officials investigating Google’s search practices. (The majority of the white paper is actually about regulatory issues, like monopoly and consumer harm — though that’s a little above our pay grade over here.)

On top of that, the Google search algorithm is complicated: It orders search results according to a wide and ever-changing array of signals, some or many of which this research may have failed to capture. Google has, predictably, called the research flawed.
“This isn’t new — Yelp’s been making these arguments to regulators, and demanding higher placement in search results, for the past five years,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “This latest study is based on a flawed methodology that focuses on results for just a handful of cherry-picked queries.”

Even if that’s the case, however — which Yelp, of course, disputes — it’s worth taking these types of corporate motivations into account when you conduct your next Google search. The majority of Internet users will click the first or second or third link that Google serves up, whatever it is; but when people are making decisions about their health or their money or even their next meal, that type of uncritical clicking could have consequences.

Our advice? Consider scrolling past that Local OneBox, or affixing some kind of parameters like the above parenthetical to your next important search. And remember that not even Google — or Yelp, or TripAdvisor, or ZocDoc, for the matter — is necessarily looking out 100 percent for you.

Liked that? Try these!

What you don’t know about Internet algorithms is hurting you
If you use Facebook to get your news, please read this first
Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true

Caitlin Dewey is The Post’s digital culture critic. Follow her on Twitter @caitlindewey or subscribe to her daily newsletter on all things Internet. (tinyletter.com/cdewey)
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
63 Comments
The Post Recommends
Mindy Kaling shares the Hollywood secret no one will tell you about filming sex scenes
The actress’s new book sets the record straight about what it’s like during intimate scenes on camera.

Here’s just how impressive Hillary Clinton’s $45 million haul is
Clinton has one of the advantages of incumbency: almost no competition.
What is actually annoying about restaurants, according to someone who has been a waiter for 25 years
The things restaurant goers are right—and wrong—to complain about.

Most Read Lifestyle
1
Always click the first Google result? You might want to stop doing that.
2
Miss Manners: Engagement ring is for future bride, not her friends
3
More than 26 million people have changed their Facebook picture to a rainbow flag. Here’s why that matters.
4
Mark Zuckerberg says the future of communication is telepathy. Here’s how that would actually work.
5
Carolyn Hax: Readers’ turn to offer wisdom while the columnist’s away
Unlimited Access to The Post. Just 99¢
The Most Popular All Over

Fast Company
Inside Obama’s Stealth Startup

The Denver Post
Francois Beauchemin, Blake Comeau ink deals with Colorado Avalanche

WNYC – New York Public Radio
Opiates in America, How Migrant Laborers Fare Today
The Most Popular stories around the web

Get the The Intersect Newsletter
Free weekly updates delivered just for you.
Our Online Games

Play right from this page
Mahjongg Dimensions
Genre(s): Strategy
It’s 3D Mahjongg- you don’t even need to wear 3D glasses!
Sudoku
Genre(s): Strategy
Put on your Sudoku hat and get ready for a challenging Sudoku puzzle!
Daily Crossword
Genre(s): Word
Same fun of crosswords but online!
The Sunday Crossword
Genre(s): Word
It’s all the fun of crosswords without needing a pen and eraser!

washingtonpost.com