1. Alternatives to Google
Dirk Lewandowski
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Department of Information, Germany
dirk.lewandowski@haw-hamburg.de
http://www.searchstudies.org/dirk
@Dirk_Lew
Lund University, March 18, 2014

2. Outline
1. Web search today
2. Results presentation and selection
3. Alternative search engines
4. Conclusion

3. 1. Web search today

4. Web Search today
• Everyone uses search engines (Purcell, Brenner & Raine, 2012; van Eimeren &
Frees, 2012)
• Search is huge à More than 175 billion queries in a single month (ComScore
data, December 2012)
• Search is everywhere: News, video, maps, e-commerce, mobile, apps, etc.
• Web search market is dominated by Google (especially in Europe)
(ComScore data)
• Users rely on
– Google’s method of ordering results
– Google’s method of collecting data
à Using the internet – Using search engines – using Google
à If Google hasn’t seen it — and indexed it — or kept it up to date, it
can’t be found with a search query.

6. Search engines’ business model
• Ads, ads, ads
• Approx. 83% of
Google‘s revenues
come from ads
(Q4/2013)
Google Quarterly Earnings Summary Q3/2013, http://investor.google.com/pdf/2013Q4_google_earnings_slides.pdf

7. What about the alternatives to Google?
• Many “seems to be” search engines
– Accessing the data of another search engine
– Representing nothing more than an alternative user interface to one of the more
well-known engines
– In many cases, that turns out to be Google
– E.g., in Germany, we can see that the major internet portals T-Online, GMX,
AOL, and web.de all display results obtained from Google

8. Partner model
• “Real” search engine providers such as Google and Bing operate their own
search engines but also provide their search results to partners
• All the major web portals have now embraced this model.
• Income through ads; revenue-sharing
• Attractiveness of the model
– The search engine provider encounters only minimal costs
– The operator of the portal no longer needs to go to the great expense of running
its own search engine.
– The partner index model has served to thin out the competition in the search
industry.

9. 2. Results presentation and selection

10. Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs)
• Four main areas:
– Organic results
– Navigational elements, drill-down
menus, etc.
– Advertisements
– Knowledge Graph
• Perception of SERPs
– Above the fold
– Below the fold

11. Changes in the results presentation
1. List-based results presentation
– Well-established reading behaviour, from top to bottom
2. Universal Search
– Still list-based, but additional elements
– Results are not presented in the same way anymore; graphical elements
influence users results perception and their selection behaviour
3. Direct answers, factual information
– List-based presentation has less influence
– Results are not necessarily links to documents, but also direct answers (no need
to leave the search engine to get a result)

12. xxxx
• xxxx

13. (Granka et al. 2004)

14. xxxx
• xxxx

16. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
• The aim of search engine optimization is to increase the visibility of
certain documents in the Web search engines
• SEO has a positive and negative effect, as well
• Focus of SEO changes from purely commercial to relevant
informational content:
– SEO for news
– SEO for NGOs, public relations, and government institutions
– Academic SEO

17. Case study: Vertical search
• Google Shopping
– Index based on data feeds from merchants
– Since 2013, pay-for-inclusion model
• Results from a study on Google’s proposal in the E.U. competition
investigation (2013)
– Representative, click-based study in four countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain)
– 1,000 respondents per country

18. Google Shopping results
Google Ads
Information icon
with hover text
Information icon
with hover text
Organic results
Clickable areas
Rival links
20
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: Representative online study to evaluate the commitments proposed by Google as part of EU
competition investigation AT.39740-Google - Report for Germany
http://www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lewandowski/google-reports/Google_Online_Survey_DE.pdf

19. Total number of clicks:
1000
Number of clicks on
shopping results and links
to rival offerings: 642
Most of the clicks were on
organic results and Google
Shopping results (93%).
593 clicks (59.3%)
0 clicks (0%)
358 clicks (35.8%)
49 clicks (4.9%)
Logged clicks
23
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: Representative online study to evaluate the commitments proposed by Google as part of EU
competition investigation AT.39740-Google - Report for Germany
http://www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lewandowski/google-reports/Google_Online_Survey_DE.pdf

20. Task 1: DSLR camera (desktop layout)
1
Germany France Spain Italy
Distribution of clicks
(n = 1000 for each
country)
Google Shopping
Results
593 (59.3%) 667 (66.7%) 587 (58.7%) 632 (63.2%)
Organic Results 358 (35.8%) 279 (27.9%) 410 (41%) 289 (28.9%)
Rival Links 49 (4.9%) 54 (5.4%) 3 (0.3%) 79 (7.9%)
Lewandowski, D.; Sünkler, S.: Representative online study to evaluate the commitments proposed by Google as part of EU
competition investigation AT.39740-Google - Report for Germany
http://www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lewandowski/google-reports/Google_Online_Survey_DE.pdf

21. Total number of clicks:
1000
Number of clicks on
shopping results and links
to rival offerings: 620
Most of the clicks were on
organic results and Google
Shopping results (79.8%).
Google’s second proposal (version a)
418 clicks (41.8%)
380 clicks (38%)
202 clicks (20.2%)
0 clicks (0%)

22. Google’s second proposal (version b)

23. Total number of clicks:
1000
Number of clicks on
shopping results and links
to rival offerings: 589
Most of the clicks were on
organic results and Google
Shopping results (83.4%).
Google’s second proposal (version b)
423 clicks (42.3%)
411 clicks (41.1%)
166 clicks (16.6%)
0 clicks (0%)

24. http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2014/03/google-shopping-panel-nest1.jpg

25. Interplay between search engines and their users
• Problems arising from
– Users not being aware of the possibilities search engines offer
– Users not knowing how search engines work
– Users not knowing about search engines’ business models
• Problems arising from the market dominance of one search engine
– Influence of the results presentation
– Influence of search engine optimization
– Collection and tracking of user data
à On the one hand, we have to increase users’ information literacy. On the
other hand, we need to increase diversity on the search market

26. 3. Alternative search engines

27. The simple answer: There is no perfect search engine
• Web Indexing
– New, changed, deleted document
– “Holy grail” of keeping the index complete and current
Risvik, K. M., & Michelsen, R. (2002). Search engines and web dynamics. Computer Networks, 39(3), 289–302.

28. Freshness of Web search engines
(see Lewandowski, Wahlig & Meyer-Bautor, 2006; Lewandowski, 2008)

29. Why is one search engine not enough?
• No one search engine covers the whole of the Web
– Index size and index freshness
– Integration of Facebook content in Bing; Google+ content in Google
• We need more than one search engine to ensure that a broad range of
opinions are represented in the search market.
• Users should have the choice between different worldviews which originate
as a product of algorithm-based search result generation
• Ideology-free search algorithms are simply not possible

30. Alternative Search Engines
• What constitutes an “alternative search engine”?
– All search engines that are not Google (e.g., Bing)
– Meta-search engines (e.g., Dogpile, Metager)
– Search engines which explicitly position themselves as an alternative to Google
through a regional approach (e.g., Seekport)
– New approaches to search / “Real alternatives”: Alternative approaches to
gathering and representing web content
à Only a few noteworthy alternatives: mainly Bing, but some to watch
à Yandex
à Duck Duck Go

31. Economic perspective
• Only the largest internet companies are able to afford large indexes.
• Microsoft is the only company besides Google to possess a comprehensive
search engine index.
• Yahoo gave up on its own index several years ago
• It appears as though operating a dedicated index is attractive to practically
no one — and there are hardly any candidates with the necessary financial
resources in any case

32. Vision
• “An index of the web that can be accessed at fair conditions for
everyone”
– “Everyone” means that anyone who is interested can access the index.
– “Fair conditions” does not mean that access to the index must be free of
charge for everyone. A certain number of document requests per day
should be available at no cost in order to promote non-profit projects.
– “Access” to the index can be defined as the ability to automatically
query the index with ease.
– The concept “index of the web” is intended to cover as much of the web
as possible

33. 4. Conclusion

34. #1
The current market dominance of Google
leads to only one of many possible views on
the Web’s information.

35. #2 The market failed in establishing
alternatives to Google.

36. #3
Results presentation heavily influences
users’ perception of the results, and their
selection behaviour, as well.

37. #4
An independent index of the Web would
motivate companies, institutions, and
developers to create their own search
applications.

38. #5
An independent index of the Web would
enable applications we are not yet capable
of even imagining.

39. Thank you
Prof. Dr. Dirk Lewandowski
Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften
Hamburg
dirk.lewandowski@haw-hamburg,de
Twitter: Dirk_Lew
http://www.searchstudies.org/dirk