Communications - November 2010

engines. In this context, Pasquale20 drew an interesting analogy with cred-it-reporting agencies providing reasons for adverse credit information to consumers. 20 It would favor the interests of users and especially Webmasters, because it would support Website optimization for search engines. Search-engine optimizers would probably be divided between the less influential that gain and top performers that lose from greater transparency. Building on the credit-agency analogy, Pasquale20 argued that the cost to search engines and risk of algorithmic reverse engineering would be low. 20 However, as the number of potential queries on rank demotion is arguably much higher than the number on adverse credit ratings, cost to the search engines would likely be significant. Moreover, search engines would likely oppose any obligation to provide precise reasons for each rank demotion, as it would increase the risk of lawsuits.

Installation of ombudsmen and process of appeal. Taking the previous proposal a step further, some have called for an appeal process against rank demotion. 24 For example, Forsyth10 emphasized if search engines were public entities with ensuing accountability, a process of appeal would probably already have been established. 10 While Google offers a way to submit pages for “ reconsideration,” 8 such appeals are judged internally without transparency, and, while successful in some cases, a Webmaster’s only option might be to attract enough publicity to get a search-engine representative to take up the case internally. 9

Installing a formal, transparent appeals process would clearly be in the interest of both users and Webmasters, while assisting some search engine optimizers but diminishing the value of top optimizer contacts. On the other hand, search engines would arguably incur somewhat higher costs for installing such a process. Moreover, a formal process with a clear chance of success would facilitate appeals, thereby increasing numbers of requests and probably encouraging “appeal gaming.”

Clearer guidelines for search engine
optimization. Current guidelines be-
tween black-hat and white-hat search
engine optimizers are gray, often
forcing Webmasters and optimizers
to speculate as to which techniques
would be punished through ranking
degradation. In a personal interview
on search engine optimization, one
search-engine consultant said the
key to differentiating between black-
hat and white-hat optimization tech-
niques in unclear cases is “implica-
tion of intent.” However, in the 2008
case of Hewlett-Packard mentioned
earlier, comments by search-engine
optimizers indicate the existence of
at least some bias distinguishing be-
tween permitted and illicit optimiza-
tion methods.

table 1. stakeholder interests in the regulation of search bias.

interests
users ˲ ˲ high-quality content, particularly quick query
response and inclusion of new pages; clear,
well-structured results; transparent construction
of results
˲ ˲ Pleasant search experience, easy usability
search engines ˲ ˲ Protection of trade secrets, particularly
algorithms