I spoke on a panel at PICTFOR on Search Neutrality a few days ago, and this comprises most of the reading list that I gathered in preparation for the meeting.
I was told forcefully and at great length by some individuals that somehow I had only discovered one side of the story, so I feel it incumbent upon me to publish exactly what I read so that that can become part of the discussion.
Academic Analysis of Search Neutrality
Network Neutrality, Search Neutrality, and the Never-ending Conflict between Efficiency and Fairness in Markets
- Andrew Michael Odlyzko
- University of Minnesota
- March 2009
NON/PRE-FOUNDEM PAPER MAKING CASE THAT SEARCH NEURTALITY WOULD BE REQUIRED WERE PRICE DISCRIMINATION (ETC) TO ARISE IN GOOGLE, NOT ADVERT PLACEMENT; SEE bit.ly/18bbMA FOR REVIEW
Some Skepticism About Search Neutrality
- James Grimmelman, Associate Professor at New York Law School
- January 2011
USE “ONE-CLICK DOWNLOAD” LINK AT TOP; IN-DEPTH RESPONSE TO CURRENT SEARCH-NEUTRALITY PROPOSITIONS; MUST-READ DOCUMENT
Foundem-sponsored “Search Neutrality” site
- NB: FORMERLY NAMED “THE GOOGLE DELUSION”
- SEE CITATIONS IN LAKE’S POSTINGS Q.V. AND ELSEWHERE
Foundem Company Website
Companies House Search
- Go to Companies House and click Search Company Information ; search for company number 04601308.
- Company Name: INFEDERATION LTD
- Company Previous Name: MINDSCAPE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LTD
Company Financial Search
- Some additional apparent details to be found at CompaniesInTheUK
Communications system and method
- Inventor Adam Raff
The relevant patent for Foundem’s search engine, confirmed by Shivaun
Communications device and method comprising user profiles matching between …
- Inventor Adam Raff
Foundem and the FCC
Foundem hereby submits reply comments in response to the Commission
- Preserving the Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in GN
- Docket No. 09- 191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.
- Foundem – date unknown (2010?)
- and other material on the site
Foundem and the EU
Background to EU Formal Investigation
- and other material on the site
Search for answers to Google’s power leaves UK internet firm baffled
- Richard Wray (Guardian) – 17 Aug 2009
Foundem vs Google: a case study in SEO fail
- Chris Lake (Econsultancy) – 18 Aug 2009
OPINIONATED QUOTE (IN BODY)The last word on this goes to Ciaran Norris, who says: I have to wonder whether the fact that Foundem apparently continues to rank well in Bing and Yahoo isn’t in fact a perfect example of why those sites currently struggle to manage 10% market share between them.
Why Foundem.co.uk doesn’t rank in Google.
- Darren Bond (Coast Digital) – 18 Aug 2009
After net neutrality, will we need “Google neutrality?”
- Nate Anderson (Ars Technica) – October 2009
REFERS TO ODLYZKO PAPER, PROVIDES ALT CONTEXT FOR SEARCH NEUTRALITY
When algorithms attack, does Google hear you scream?
- John Lettice (The Register) – 19 Nov 2009
- www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/19/google_hand_of_god/ et seq
“Search, but You May Not Find”
- Adam Raff (Foundem) self-authored op-ed in the New York Times – 27 Dec 2009
Recognizing Bottlenecks on the Net
- Frank Pasquale () – 28 Dec 2009
OPINIONATED QUOTE (IN COMMENTS) – BY GRIMMELMAN, AUTHOR OF PAPER CITED AT TOPJames Grimmelmann – December 28, 2009 at 7:22 pm I’ll come out and say it: Foundem is a near-worthless site, and the quality of its search results is poor. I can’t imagine any search, other than on foundem itself, on which I would want these jokers coming up at all prominently in my Google results. I want Google to be able to rank them poorly, and any regulation that would interfere with that process would make the Web that much less usable. I’m intellectually sympathetic to the idea that concentrated online power is dangerous and that transparency is crucial. But every time someone actually accuses Google of unfair discrimination, it turns out to be yet another shady competitor that no well-informed searcher would want anything to do with. Some of them are grey-to-black SEOs who ve been caught in the act; others are not-ready-for-prime-time search engines looking for a PR hit. Each such incident counts as evidence against search neutrality regulations, not for it.
‘Search Neutrality’ Regulation?
- Jim Harper (Cato) – 28 Dec 2009
Foundem vs Google redux: it was a penalty! And search neutrality is at stake, dammit!
- Chris Lake (Econsultancy) – 5 Jan 2010
Antitrust incoming? Google hit by EU complaint, FCC filing
- John Lettice (The Register) – 24 Feb 2010
Sure, It s Big. But Is That Bad?
- Brad Stone (NYT) – 22 May 2010
PENALTIES, SELF-PREFERENCING, AND PANDA:
- Why Google’s Behaviour Makes Antitrust Sanctions Inevitable
- Foundem – 31 Aug 2011
Texas inquires on our approach to competition
- Don Harrison (Google) – 3 Sep 2010
A Peek Behind the Curtain of the Texas Antitrust Complaints against Google – Updated 3Xs
- Groklaw – 5 Sep 2010
Regulating Google’s results? Law prof calls “search neutrality” incoherent
- Nate Anderson (Ars Technica) – January 2011
TED 2011: The ‘Panda’ That Hates Farms: A Q&A With Google’s Top Search Engineers
- Steven Levy (Wired) – March 2011
INTERVIEW WITH GOOGLE ENGINEERS WHO IMPLEMENTED THE CODE WHICH DOWNGRADED (IN FOUNDEM TERMS, “PENALISED”) LOW-QUALITY-CONTENT WEBSITES, PROBABLY INCLUDING FOUNDEM; NOTE THE IMPLICIT SUBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY; ALSO NOTE THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE PROJECT.
Google misled senate, Foundem claims
- Gideon Spanner (London Evening Standard) – 22 Sep 2011
Defining and Measuring Search Bias
- Joshua Wright (ICLE) – 3 Nov 2011
Google Panda Update: Say Goodbye to Low-Quality Link Building
- Kristi Hines (Search Engine Watch) – 29 Dec 2011