Google is not presenting their own competing services in a biased way over others. They are presenting search results in context sensitive ways. Searching for sushi in a geographic location indicates you want to find sushi places in that area. A google map is the best possible way for google to present the information you want. Does a crowdsourced site completely dedicated to this tiny niche do a better job than google's algorithm? of course it does, but there is no way for google's algorithm to judge that for every query.<p>Search instead for "sushi review stockholm" and the cited website is the first result and there is no google map at the top, because the search does not indicate to google that the first priority is to simply find sushi places and nothing else.<p>Now if google was artificially placing gmail, or google docs, or any of their other service products that are not themselves presenting search results, above the competition for generic search terms; that would be a problem. The behaviour cited in the post is simply the best way for google to provide search results. Google maps is a core search technology, just like google image search, books, video etc. You can't use anti-monopoly rules to handicap the dominant product itself. Especially when all the competition (search providers) considers the same behaviour to be part of their core search service as well.
Now, what happens when I search for "sushi Baltimore"? I get Google's helpful map, and the websites for several sushi restaurants in Baltimore, but no single site that lists them all and does detailed reviews. In this case, Google's map was much more helpful than any of the actual listings. If Google didn't know about Ted's site, how are they supposed to put it above theirs? Mea culpa, you can't really claim Google is pushing their content above similar content <i>if they don't know it exists.</i><p>Perhaps, as the submitter mentions in another comment here, Google could form a partnership, but that would require massive organization to set up. Even if they just wanted to form a partnership with all sushi listing websites in major cities, that would still require a lot more effort on Google's part for a benefit of...what? Better listings for sushi, yes, but would it be worth the trouble for them to index it all?
I prefer Google's results nearly 100% of the time. Quite often, it's more trustworthy. Not only that, most people are familiar with the Google maps interface, so that's what they would prefer. How do I know that his web site is going to be littered with custom maps and great information? I don't. He could be using yahoo maps or something I don't want to use, or could have his own opinions which I don't want to hear. Google Maps is going to be unbiased, easier to use, and better integrated into my phone.<p>Not only that, I EXPECT Google Maps results to be at the top of the mobile search view, if only because I don't want to have to find a suitable web site for which better data <i>might</i> be found. What if the top web site on Google's results was bunk (this happens more often than not), and then it was SushiKartan? I'd have to look at the top result, learn it was horrible, then click the second in hopes of it being relevant (it probably is not).<p>Basically, while this guy actually DOES have the best information, Google doesn't necessarily know that, and neither does its users. I don't want to waste my time looking for quality results ALL the time.
What should Google do here? Clearly, in this case users would be better served by the third party service. But overall, Google Maps results for these queries are probably a good thing. Is the answer that Google should index and present the information from Sushikartan in Google Maps? I don't know.
"Increasingly /.../ Google presents links to its own services, like maps, Youtube videos, local business results and product search listings. Executives argue that providing these easily accessible results clearly benefits users. Rivals claim that this is self-serving, and that Google promotes its content even though there may be better material elsewhere."<p>I am not sure whether this argument holds, since the Google Search itself defines, what is a "good material" and rank it.