Should the Government Regulate Search Engine Algorithms?

[Talktime]

Several months ago, I engaged an SEO expert to enhance my website's sales. However, the opposite occurred: the expert employed AI to generate tags, schemas, and content, leading to my website being de-listed.

This experience has starkly highlighted that Google now wields immense arbitrary power, effectively deciding which businesses succeed or fail based on its judgement of a website's integrity.

This situation is reminiscent of the "Foundem" case in 2009, where Google delisted a shopping website that competed with its own Google Shopping service. Similarly, a company maintaining a TV remote app on the Google Play Store faced arbitrary delisting, with Google offering bot-like responses to justify its actions.

Given these instances, it is clear that the government must regulate search algorithms and ensure their transparency. This would not only eliminate the need for gimmicks like Search Console and Analytics but also foster a fair and competitive online environment, allowing businesses to concentrate on producing quality content.

I am contemplating the creation of a Parliamentary briefing paper to advocate for fairness and transparency in online search algorithms.

What are your thoughts?

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Its just trade and commerce /free enterprise

You selected a dodgy company and if you used a company that knew what they were doing you would have seen success
Not a government issue

 

[Talktime]

Regulating SEO is not what I have in mind.

The concept of regulating search engine optimisation (SEO) diverges significantly from regulating SEO. Instead, the focus is on establishing a comprehensive legal framework to govern search engine algorithms, with the primary objectives of ensuring fairness and promoting transparency in their operational mechanisms.

Such a regulatory structure would offer SEO practitioners and companies invaluable insights into the intricate workings of search engines. This enhanced understanding would enable them to more effectively align their strategies with the criteria that search engines employ to determine the relevance and ranking of web pages for specific search queries.

By implementing this regulatory approach, we aim to create a more equitable and transparent digital landscape. This framework would not only benefit SEO professionals but also contribute to a more informed and balanced online ecosystem where the principles guiding search result rankings are clear and accessible to all stakeholders.

 

[fisicx]

Your proposal makes no sense at all.

Good SEO practitioners already know how the algorithms work. There is no need for regulation.

The snake oil salesmen don’t care, they just want your money.

In any case, which government? The search engines are international and don’t come under any single jurisdiction.

 

[Talktime]

Regulation would fall under the jurisdiction of the UK government, given that search engines like Google can tailor their services regionally as needed. Consequently, a legal framework specific to the UK could be established, encompassing defined penalties for any instances of non-compliance.

 

[NickGrogan]

Why are you blaming Google and not the "expert"? Why are you still calling them an "expert" if they ruined your site?

You got scammed because you didn't do enough due diligence on the company, so should the law be changed?

Is that what you're saying?

Google already tells you how search works, basic guide here...

How Search works – How Google Search works

Every time you search, there are thousands, sometimes millions, of web pages or other content that might be a match. Google uses its robust systems to present the most helpful information in response to your query.

www.google.com

They also offer a range of courses and certifications if you want to know more

Online Courses and Digital Marketing Training - Grow with Google- Grow with Google

Explore 70+ online courses and digital training and tools to help you learn new digital skills or help you grow your small business or career.

grow.google

If you're feeling technical, try this

Documentation to Improve SEO | Google Search Central | Google for Developers

Explore SEO documentation to learn how to improve your site's visibility on Google Search.

developers.google.com

Lets assume your law passes and Google is required to show exactly how a site ranks, what will happen?

A fair and equitable world? Unlikely.

People will know how ranking works and will actively game the system to achieve a higher rank for their sites - take a look at the history of PageRank and people buying links. Still goes on today.

So your site will be pushed out of the results by sites that cheat.

 

[Ozzy]

---

The less the government interferes with business the better. We already have too many ministers and civil servants with no knowledge of running business interfering with how to run a business.
Just my view, other may disagree

 

[Mark T Jones]

A broad point on regulation

When people feel cheated or aggrieved, the first reaction is to scream for regulation

The reality of regulation when it happens:

It never really addresses the concerns of individuals

It favours big business over independents

It increases bureaucracy, so pushes up prices.

 

[fisicx]

Regulation would fall under the jurisdiction of the UK government, given that search engines like Google can tailor their services regionally as needed. Consequently, a legal framework specific to the UK could be established, encompassing defined penalties for any instances of non-compliance.

The UK government has zero jurisdiction over Google and the FREE service they offer.

Your problem arose because you didn’t do due diligence not because the search engine algorithm is unregulated.

How about if all businesses offering legal services of any sort (like yours) were fully regulated and fined should those services be shortcoming. How about you have to sit examinations and pay an annual fee to provide your service.

If you want to regulate Google then surely all online services should be regulated.

 

[Porky]

It still annoys me government enforcing all websites to have a pop up asking if you are ok with cookies. Totally pointless, more hassle than it’s worth.

 

[japancool]

Because the government has *such* a good track record with regulating, well... anything.

 

[antropy]

It still annoys me government enforcing all websites to have a pop up asking if you are ok with cookies. Totally pointless, more hassle than it’s worth.

It's beyond stupid. I don't know why people comply

Paul.

What are your thoughts?

In cases where Google has materially damaged a business, purely because it competes, it should be forced to rectify the situation with compensation and taking actions to negate/reverse the damage.

Paul.

 

[Talktime]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

NickGrogan: The intention of this discussion is not to express a personal grievance but to engage in a constructive dialogue about the potential benefits of introducing a regulatory framework for search engine algorithms. Such a framework could indeed provide transparency and assist SEO professionals by allowing them access to the genuine algorithm, thereby enhancing their efficiency. Additionally, addressing concerns about system manipulation is crucial for ensuring fairness in the SEO environment.

Mark T Jones: I appreciate your perspective, and it's important to note that this discussion is not about airing grievances or feeling "cheated." so looking to dwell on past issues isn't the subject of this discussion.

Fixicx: I see your point that Google, while offering what may seem like a free service, indeed charges businesses for search result placements. Furthermore, it’s valid to assert that the UK has jurisdiction over its territory, and any regulatory considerations should respect that. A regulatory framework already governs my business services; introducing an additional one might indeed seem redundant.

Overall, the consensus is that there isn't a strong demand for proposing a regulatory framework for search engine algorithms. I was simply interested in your opinions on whether it would be worth presenting a briefing paper on this matter to Parliament.

It still annoys me government enforcing all websites to have a pop up asking if you are ok with cookies. Totally pointless, more hassle than it’s worth.

I addressed that issue by choosing not to implement cookies on my websites.

In cases where Google has materially damaged a business, purely because it competes, it should be forced to rectify the situation with compensation and taking actions to negate/reverse the damage.

Paul.

Your position advocates for a framework that would offer restitution to businesses harmed by unilateral changes in search engine algorithms.

I need to make enquiries whether there is already a legal framework that allows businesses to seek damages for such losses.

However, I am aware that pursuing such a claim would be highly challenging. Google may invoke commercial confidentiality as a defence, complicating the matter. Additionally, enforcing any claim in the UK would likely require action by the US Justice Department under the Lugano Convention, adding another layer of complexity.

 

[fisicx]

Google does not charge for search engine placements @Talktime

You agreed to the terms when you used Google’s services. These terms include a clause that says Google can change the algorithm and that inclusion and ranking is not guaranteed. These terms also state the legal jurisdiction is Delaware.

Your suggestion isn’t viable..

 

[Talktime]

Upon searching for "cheap flights," Google presented me with a page filled with sponsored listings.

If the UK regulates search algorithms, it is unlikely that Delaware's jurisdiction would be applicable.

 

[fisicx]

Sponsored listings are adverts.

Organic search results are not paid for.

The UK cannot regulate the search algorithms. You need to do your research on how the search engines work.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

NickGrogan: The intention of this discussion is not to express a personal grievance but to engage in a constructive dialogue about the potential benefits of introducing a regulatory framework for search engine algorithms. Such a framework could indeed provide transparency and assist SEO professionals by allowing them access to the genuine algorithm, thereby enhancing their efficiency. Additionally, addressing concerns about system manipulation is crucial for ensuring fairness in the SEO environment.

Hi @Talktime - by their very nature SEO professionals are there to try and optimise their client's SEO. I can't see having transparency and allowing access to the algorithm will make things fair - as an SEO Professional, they will be looking to seek advantages where they can for the benefit of their customer.

 

[ecommerce84]

It's beyond stupid. I don't know why people comply

Paul.

100% agree.

If you don’t like cookies, don’t go on the Internet or to Millie’s.

 

[Paul Carmen]

This is largely ill conceived nonsense, there is no opportunity or reason to regulate search engines or SEO in the way you describe.

You are wasting your time, this is a commercial product/service, the Google algorithm is their "secret sauce" and if it was to be publicly available their competitive edge over other search engines is gone.

In essence, Google as you call it (their search engine) is a website, you visit it or tell your browser to use it as your search engine. If you don't like it then don't use it, you've accepted their T&Cs.

They could legitimately pull all their services from the UK and it could still be available in the UK; what if all servers and services are non UK hosted; e.g. in the EU or USA. Can it be regulated then? Is this China where we completely block services we don't like on the web?

Does this proposed legislation impact other big marketplaces and sites where things are largely searched for, that are algorithm based, e.g. Bing, DuckDuckGo, Amazon, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Argos, your own website (if it has a search facility), app stores etc?

There has already been regulation around financial services and vulnerable customers on the web, but this only applies to paid advertising on search engines. Search engines show results for websites, the website themselves have to comply with that legislation. Essentially, if your website got delisted, that's down to something you or someone employed by you did.

This is a free market country, not Russia or China, the only possible angle here is around monopolistic practices. Google has a huge share of the search engine market (your issue is really around this), that, and their dominance of paid search should potentially be looked into and broken up. However, this is already in train, and the UK is small player now.

The EU is looking at elements of this, as is the USA, which has recently ruled that Google is monopolistic in search and digital ads, it may even lead to the break up of Google, or at least changes to the search journey; e.g. some stupid popup or message about other search engines (cookies anyone, we all know how useful that's been): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9eegg0rdvo

 

[Fagin2021]

This is largely ill conceived nonsense, there is no opportunity or reason to regulate search engines or SEO in the way you describe.

You are wasting your time, this is a commercial product/service, the Google algorithm is their "secret sauce" and if it was to be publicly available their competitive edge over other search engines is gone.

Totally agree - but never underestimate the willingness of politicians to interfere, regulate and devise unworkable legislation for things that neither they nor their civil servants understand, (which is most things).

 

[AlanJ1]

It's beyond stupid. I don't know why people comply

Paul.

Google are imposing suspensions on Google Ads on accounts that don't comply with the cookie policy.

 

[antropy]

Google are imposing suspensions on Google Ads on accounts that don't comply with the cookie policy.

Ours have never been suspended for it.

Paul.

 

[AlanJ1]

Ours have never been suspended for it.

Paul.

It's being phased in from the recent cookie changes a couple of months ago. Have heard of accounts being suspended for not complying. Our second site is still live without it on GA.

 

[DontAsk]

Don't populate your website with unnecessary cookies and you do not need to involve the user at all.

 

[AlanJ1]

Don't populate your website with unnecessary cookies and you do not need to involve the user at all.

Yeah good luck selling / competing in E-Commerce without anything that requires cookies.

 

[DontAsk]

Yeah good luck selling / competing in E-Commerce without anything that requires cookies.

I suggest you re-read what I actually wrote.

If you use only NECESSARY cookies, you do NOT need the user's permission.

 

[AlanJ1]

I suggest you re-read what I actually wrote.

If you use only NECESSARY cookies, you do NOT need the user's permission.

I never disagreed with you, just said selling E-Commerxe would be impossible without these cookies. Happy to be proven wrong.

Also even with necessary cookies you still need to tell the customer what cookies are being taken on site (cookie page or privacy policy).

 

[Talktime]

I will respond as best I can to Paul Carmen's detailed comments.

It is not wise to consider regulating SEO practices. My proposal advocates for a transparent framework to govern search algorithms, ensuring fairness across the board. The intent is not to single out any particular entity but to establish an equitable environment for all businesses. At present, dominant companies such as Google leverage their influence to determine which businesses succeed and which falter. This proposal aimed to create a level playing field for everyone.

The feedback received was largely opposed to the idea of such regulation, with some respondents resorting to personal criticisms, particularly because I had engaged an SEO that employed AI, which inadvertently led to a significant decline in organic sales.

Let me be clear: my proposal does not advocate for extreme measures like those seen in Russia or China, such as banning Google or dismantling the company. Instead, it focuses on transparency in search algorithms to ensure fairness for all businesses.

The proposed regulation would apply to any technology company operating a website that offers an index of the internet for UK businesses, whether as search results or otherwise.

Currently, no such definitive index exists—previously, we had the Yellow Pages. Still, now Google holds the power to arbitrarily make any business virtually disappear, as evidenced by the "Foundem" case in 2009.

 

[japancool]

Instead, it focuses on transparency in search algorithms to ensure fairness for all businesses.

What would you call the link that fisixc posted earlier?

 

[fisicx]

@Talktime, if you feel this is a worthwhile cause to peruse then I wish you good luck. Not sure who responsive the UK government will be to your petition but it might be worth a punt.

Google makes it very clear in their terms that inclusion in their index is not guaranteed. Anyone who relies on a single channel for their business is an unwise because of the vagaries of the technology.

It’s also worth noting the Google has published many documents and patents that explain how their algorithm works. It’s not a secret.

 

[Talktime]

I initiated this enquiry to determine whether there is a need to regulate and increase the transparency of search algorithms. The feedback received indicates that there is no clear consensus supporting such regulation. Consequently, I believe it would not be wise to invest time and resources into preparing a briefing paper for Parliament at this time.

While I understand that Google may publish documents and patents concerning search algorithms, these are typically highly technical and may be beyond the immediate relevance of a local property maintenance business that primarily needs a website to showcase their services.

 

[fisicx]

Google publishes a whole load of non-technical guidance on how to rank a website.

But one would also argue that a property maintenance company should focus on just that and use a third party to look after their marketing (which may not even need SEO). Finding the right agency to do this marketing will require due dilligence. Choosing the cheapest it often the route to failure.

 

[Talktime]

It might appear unrelated to this discussion, but it's essential to recognise the potential dangers tradespeople face when feeling compelled to outsource their marketing and web design. Despite thorough vetting, there is still a risk of falling prey to unethical practices, as testimonials can be manipulated, and the Consumer Rights Act offers limited protection to businesses, focusing primarily on individuals.

During my search for an SEO professional to handle my website, I discovered a need for more transparency across the industry. None of the firms disclosed their pricing upfront, and the quotes I received ranged from high to exorbitant, often coupled with ongoing monthly costs. This lack of clarity, combined with relentless upselling, was concerning.

I didn't realise then that SEO experts use AI, which can harm site rankings. It's concerning that many now treat AI as a revolutionary tool despite the risks to website performance.
What’s even more disappointing is that SEO providers often fail to offer any guarantees regarding the quality of their work, particularly when it comes to measuring the website's sales performance before and after their interventions. This lack of accountability should serve as a warning, but like many, I proceeded and, unfortunately, learned the hard way.

 

[fisicx]

That has nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is government regulation of the search engines algorithms.

You said yourself that you are not seeking regulation of SEO. Even if the algorithms were regulated it wouldn't stop the snake oil SEO practitioners ripping people off. In the the same way millions are ripped of every year by dodgy trademen.

And a good marketing company or SEO expert would not be using AI in the way it happened to you. Those offering cheap SEO on freelancer sites should be avoided at all costs. As any fule kno (as Molesworth once said).

 

[japancool]

but it's essential to recognise the potential dangers tradespeople face when feeling compelled to outsource their marketing and web design.

Do you do your own accounts? Represent yourself in court? Write your own web browser? Do your own surgery?

Or do you feel compelled to outsource it?

 

[Talktime]

Your questions should directly address the core issue under discussion.

If I intended to initiate a debate about my business practices, or whether I choose to represent myself at court and manage my accounts, that would be an entirely different matter.

However, it is essential to understand that this discussion is not centred on my personal decisions but rather on the important issue of whether search algorithms should be regulated.

If you believe that the topic of self-representation in court warrants discussion, I suggest starting a separate conversation rather than diverting the current discussion into subjective matters.

 

[japancool]

This whole thread is because YOU hired someone who screwed up your website.

Do you know if they even read the Google guidelines? Do you know if they followed it?

Now you're moaning that AI can harm site rankings. Frankly, what a ridiculous argument to make. If an AI told you to ingest cocaine, would you just do it? Probably not, because you can judge that that would be harmful. Professionals who use AI effectively need to be able to judge whether or not the response is fit for purpose. AI is a tool, and you know the saying about a bad workman and tools.

Many people on this forum can recognise AI generated content when it's posted here. If we can do it, Google can too. Your SEO experts appear to have slavishly applied whatever the AI generated verbatim. YOU made the choice to hire them.

There is only one person who's at fault here. It's not Google. It's not even really the so-called SEO experts. It's whomever fell for their bull and decided to use them in the first place. And who was that then?

 

[Talktime]

This discussion focuses on the potential regulation of search algorithms. It appears, however, that the conversation is veering towards my personal experiences, which are not relevant to the matter at hand.

 

[japancool]

Your questions should directly address the core issue under discussion.

If I intended to initiate a debate about my business practices, or whether I choose to represent myself at court and manage my accounts, that would be an entirely different matter.

However, it is essential to understand that this discussion is not centred on my personal decisions but rather on the important issue of whether search algorithms should be regulated.

If you believe that the topic of self-representation in court warrants discussion, I suggest starting a separate conversation rather than diverting the current discussion into subjective matters.

You're either missing the point or deliberately choosing to ignore it. In that case, I'll spell it out for you, and I'll try to do it like I'm talking to an idiot, which I am in no way implying that you are.

You don't do those things because you don't have the skills to do them. THAT is why you "outsource" to someone else. Why should SEO be any different? Do you think it's an unskilled job?

This discussion focuses on the potential regulation of search algorithms. It appears, however, that the conversation is veering towards my personal experiences, which are not relevant to the matter at hand.

Of course they are. It's why you started this thread in the first place, and why you've got it stuck in your head that somehow, Google must be responsible.

 

[Talktime]

I firmly believe that it is essential for us to keep our discussions both positive and constructive.

Recently, however, the focus seems to have shifted towards personal matters, which detracts from our shared objective of advancing the conversation productively.

The question of whether SEO is an unskilled profession is not pertinent to this discussion.

While no one is suggesting that Google is "responsible," my intention is to open a discussion on the potential regulation of search algorithms. Unfortunately, this has turned into a critique and questioning of my business practices, which are not subjects for debate.