Google demotes Chrome in search results over pay-for-post promo

"During the 60 days, the PageRank of www.google.com/chrome will also be lowered to reflect the fact that we also won’t trust outgoing links from that page."<p>That was the strangest part, for me. Google clearly <i>can</i> trust outgoing links from www.google.com/chrome.<p>Its clear they had no intention of gaming their own system with this campaign. But they obviously feel the need to act in a 'beyond reproach' way, to avoid the accusation of conflicts-of-interest.<p>In one way its good that they are being held to high standards; on the other hand, this is resulting in less relevant search responses, for no real benefit to anyone (including those whom antitrust law, which they might be thinking about, is there to protect).<p>Hard to say what what the right thing to do is. Sometimes, it looks like its a tough job to maintain the 'dont be evil' image.

Wowzas. That's a pretty big move for Google to make.<p>Google.com/chrome isn't even the top result for the query "Google Chrome" or "Chrome"<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&#38;sourceid=chrome&#38;ie=UTF-8&#38;q=Google+Chrome" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&#38;sourceid=chrome&#38...</a><p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&#38;sourceid=chrome&#38;ie=UTF-8&#38;q=Chrome" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?ix=heb&#38;sourceid=chrome&#38...</a><p>Good on you, Google.

I'm torn between "That's almost <i>cute</i>" and "This is wrist-slapping ourselves to give the appearance that we administer our guidelines in a manner which is not arbitrary and capricious."

What would happen if an entity started buying links for a competitor product so that it was demoted?

Wow. Points to Google for consistency!

What I see when searching for "Google Chrome" is support.google.com/chrome, with sub-links underneath and the top-left sublink going directly to google.com/chrome. I think the system has been worked a little bit, but it's still interesting that they made this move. It may be enough to make it hard for people who have to search to find the download to get to it.

Can someone explain how they got into this situation? I can't find any backstory.

Doesn't seem to have amounted to much. In my search results for "browser", I get:<p>1. Firefox 2. Wikipedia "browser" 3. Wikipedia "Google chrome" 4. PC Mag "Browser chrome definition" 5. Google's Chrome download page<p>For "chrome":<p>1. Google's Chrome download page 2. Wikipedia "Google Chrome" 3. PC Mag "Browser chrome definition" 4. Chrome messenger bags 5. CNet's Google Chrome download page

Maybe this is a dumb question as no one really asked it so far but, umm, I thought Google couldn't mess with rankings. Like, at <i>all</i>. I've read everywhere, even on Google's own properties that rankings are based on their top secret algorithm and that they not only cannot but will not manually manipulate results ever.<p>I really doubt they'd release a publicity statement that let loose such a big secret so what am I missing or misinterpreting? I really thought there was just no way possible to change results. I get that they can mess with ads but organic results?<p>Edit: Not to be <i>that</i> guy but what's with the downvotes? I'm honestly asking. If there's something dumb about it I'd really appreciate someone telling me. Then downvote all you like. Am I being naive to think they can't change a ranking? Am I misusing terms? What's up?

Regardless of the rationale, Google's willingness to manually manipulate page rank for the sake of PR doesn't make a positive impression on me. There was the appearance that Google was gaming SE results, publicly doing so does not seem like a very convincing argument that Google is above such practices.<p>In other words, I am not inclined to bestow accolades upon them for making real the concerns which were raised.