Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsnell | Hacker News Reader

The screenshot text does not say at all what the author of the tweet claims it does (and what's in the HN title). Nowhere in the text does it actually talk about "above" and "sidebar", that is just an interpretation that the author made up about what "buying a better position in the search results" would mean. Given the context of the times, it was clearly not a statement about layout but about actually reordering the "organic" search results based on payments and without marking those boosted results as ads.

View on HN

What an apologia!

I just typed "new car" in Google. Literally the only results I can see are ads. Ads where the presentation and content is identical to the organic search results, save for the tiny word "Ad" in the title. Ads where the link reliably navigates to the page that has the content summarized by Google in their search result ad. Moreover, the UI for me clicking a foo.com link from a Google ad is identical to me clicking an organic foo.com link. Finally, the UX is improved if I click an ad because I don't have to scroll.

So it's not even a "above" vs. "sidebar" situation. The ads are the only results that show up without scrolling. Arguing that this isn't "buying a better position in the search results" is the extreme-skiing of pedantry.

Like many other comments here, I think this is continuing to miss the point.

Google certainly does sell ads above search today. And it certainly is irritating and it definitely is reflective of Google's following their financial interests at the cost of user experience. Google's expressed ethos in the statement certainly does seem at variance with their design choices and ad placement in the present day.

We can talk all day about their pivot away from don't be evil.

But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said.

Google is in many important respects a bad actor that needs to be criticized, but that truth shouldn't be a blank check to misinterpret them and dismiss corrections as pedantry.

> But tweet, the title, the framing, and the thing everybody are talking about, ads placed above search, has nothing to do with anything. The statement doesn't mention that, and these gotcha charges premised on something that was never said.

I'm just not grokking what you mean.

Let's construct an example of an evil Google who decided to start "selling better positions in search results." Let's say they decided to do it using the following method:

1. Sell the first three positions in the organic search results in an automated auction

2. So as to avoid accusations of trickery, they put a little "Ad" indicator by the top three positions in the three top search results.

3. They put a little "news" display below the first three results to separate them from the rest of the search results. This means the user typically has to scroll to see the rest of the results, adding value to those first three positions.

Would what I just described count as a relevant example of hypocritical behavior for the company quoted in that Tweet? If so, then the search results I got were the same as what I just described-- only the history of how Google got there is different.

If it's not a relevant example, then I still don't understand the point of OP or your comment.

Edit: clarification. Also, could you perhaps give me an example of how you think a company could hypothetically act in a way that contradicts the quote from the tweet? If it's not what I laid out here, what would it be?

This is basically an extended exercise in equivocation. It's pretty cut and dry that the statement does say one thing (keep ads out of search), and doesn't say another thing (don't place ads above search).

And as I've said in numerous comments, there's a thematic level at which the statement is clearly at odds with Google's ethos in 2022, but that point can be made without equivocating between unlike things for the purpose of misrepresenting the statement.

Edit: in response to your question: Google's statement critiques the placement of ads into search results. So one example of them acting in a hypocritical manner would be to place ads directly into search results.

They did just that (at the top) and then changed the layout over time to what it is today. Of course the top spots are far more valuable than spots further down, in fact if your search result is not on page one it might as well not exist.

From the expecation of the user, the page that you see after punching the 'google search' box, _is_ the google search results page. Ads in the top position of this page are clearly in a better position than organic search results. So advertisers have bought a better position in search results, against the claim of this google doc.

If you equivocate on the meaning of "search results", then sure.

Looking at the definition of equivocate, I see "use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself". I don't see that I have done that.

Perhaps "broadened" would be better. I have in fact broadened the definition of "search results" to capture the common usage and expectation of a user that punches a query string into google, taps "search", and is brought to a page of results.

I would say equivocate.

Calling google's inline ads "not part of the search results" is the equivocation that's going on here. They absolutely sell top positions in results.

Not even the person who posted the original tweet believes that.

Did the link change? Half the posts in this thread seem like they're about a whole different thing.

[EDIT] All I have to go on is the current link with a tweet with an image with highlighted text about how Google doesn't sell result positioning (they 100% do) and a small bit of text from the person who posted it. That person does not appear to post any more in the ensuing thread. Others do, one pathetically defending Google as not selling result placement (they obviously do) and others pointing out how that's BS, and some people posting screenshots of current and old Google results demonstrating this. What am I supposed to take away from that?

I'm very sorry that you think intellectual honesty is "pathetic."

Adrian Krebs, who wrote the tweet, is not claiming ads and search results are the same thing, contrary to the insistence of many here who think they are speaking for him. Instead, he is treating ads and search as truly distinguishable things but makes a point about the placement of ads relative to search. But he misattributes a claim to Google, claiming their statement is, amont other things a critique ads placed above search results.

Some people just don't want to hear this criticism, they just want to hear "Google bad." So they want to argue the point, misinterpreting the nuance as apologetics on behalf of Google.

This is creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, so there's a lot of effort to equivocate, insisting that the wrong thing (ads above search) is the same as the right thing (ads are separate from search).

So every next comment attempting to square this circle by introducing a new term of art to put the two different things under a common umbrella, totally inconsistent with the original statements, in an attempt to achieve the desired equivocation. For you the new term of art is "result positioning", a term which shows up nowhere in either Krebs or Google, and which helpfully throws away the nuance.

At this point this has transformed from a convo about google into a study of the predictable steps of congitive dissonance that people go through. Personal attacks have come in right on schedule.

Edit: since I can't reply anymore (and probably should just move on with my day): I'm just going to note I'm failing to detect anything in the reply below that substantively engages with anything I've said, although I am seeing a lot of performative incredulity.

"Pathetic" is saying that my handing one guy money then some other guy down the block handing me crack was two totally unrelated events.

I'm quite frankly astonished that you're being serious. Google sells top result placement. Calling it another thing is just lying. Taking their lies seriously is... incredible. I literally can't believe anyone would do that. [EDIT] Without a financial stake in it, anyway. Obviously people peddle blatant lies in exchange for money all the time. (I am not accusing you of that, that's just the one circumstance in which I find that entirely unsurprising, and I assume it's what's going on with the guy in the Twitter thread).

[EDIT EDIT] Actually, looking back over this... your posts read more bizarre to me with each re-read. WTF is happening in this thread.

[EDIT ONE MORE TIME, I JUST REALLY HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON]

To reiterate my understanding here:

1) The post is pointing out that Google says allowing people to pay to go to the top of search results is bad, so they don't do it. That's... just what it says, straight up. I have to assume (from the rest of the context of the post and following thread) this is being pointed out because it's funny and/or hypocritical, since (see below).

2) Google in fact places ads that are very obviously designed to trick people into thinking they're search results, above "natural" search results. To rephrase: you can buy ads that put your hard-to-distinguish-from-a-search-result link at the top of search results. The evidence that this is on purpose include that Google used to make it far more obvious explicitly because they didn't want to trick people, and stopped doing that, and just watching any non-geek use Google then asking them what they think just happened.

3) Some company saying something does not affect reality, whatsoever.

4) "I'm not touching you" (while waving hands as close as possible without touching) isn't even valid or convincing when kids use it as a defense, let alone adults. Everyone involved knows exactly what's going on, and that it's wrong.

5) Any equivocation happening here is in trying to draw a fine line between selling ads designed to trick people into thinking they're the top search results, and simply selling top search result placement. Same damn thing, to the point that I find it hard to take anyone serious who's trying to treat the distinction as in any way important.

Where are we diverging, here?

We're diverging at point #1, because it doesn't say what you are claiming it says.

Now the latest version of the equivocation is "top of search results" which throws away the distinction between ads and search, a distinction that exists in Google's original statement, in order to falsely attribute to Google a statement professing they would not place ads on top of search results.

This is a repeat in the exercise of equivocation that I described above. The next step in the cycle is to engaging personal attacks, and then it's to reboot back to the beginning with a new equivocation, and on and on. At this point I feel that this thread has exhausted itself and all further comments are just continuing in this predictable pattern.

This exact thing right here is why I keep wondering if we're looking at totally different things. I assure you zero of my incredulity is "performative". I guess I'll just quote what I see when I click the link. Brackets to indicate highlighting by Krebs. Paragraphs numbered for reference.

>>> Title: Why we sell advertising, not search results.

(1)[In a world where everything seems to be for sale, why can't advertisers buy better position in our search results?]

(2)The answer is simple. We believe you should be able to trust what you find using Google. [From the beginning, our approach to search has been to provide the most relevant answers and results to our users.]

(3)(I think I can omit the paragraph that's just google describing how they arrive at search results and their claim that they're not tainted by money changing hands, right?)

(4)[And while we believe relevant ads can be as useful as actual search results, we don't want anyone to be confused about which is which.]

(5)Every ad on Google is clearly marked and set apart from the actual search results. While advertisers can pay more to be displayed higher in the advertising area, [no one can buy better placement in the search results themselves]. Moreover, ads are only displayed if they're relevant to the search terms you entered. That means you only see ads that are actually useful.

(6)Some online services don't believe the distinction between search results and advertising is all that important.

(7)We do.

>>>

1. Google says you cannot buy better search result positioning from them. (well, you can, but more on that later)

2. Because users trusting results is important. (OK)

3. (sure, OK)

4. They absofuckinglutely do want you to be confused. This is not true. They behaved differently in the past when, maybe, it was true, including in the early days of inline ads with results. It is not true now. This is probably highlighted because it's hilariously false, right?

5. They are not clearly marked (now). The distinction between buying a top-placed ad that a huge percentage of users will think is a search result, and buying better search result placement, is grade A bullshit. This is the equivocation.

6. Yeah, like Google.

7. They do not.

[EDIT] I was wrong that Krebs doesn't post in the responses. He does, writing this: "And this is how it looked like in the past (taken from HN). Ads were markedly distinct, both visually and in placement." The screenshot highlights both sidebar ads and visually-distinct inline ads above the results. I see nothing to support your assertion that "Adrian Krebs, who wrote the tweet, is not claiming ads and search results are the same thing, contrary to the insistence of many here who think they are speaking for him. Instead, he is treating ads and search as truly distinguishable things but makes a point about the placement of ads relative to search." The reading of this overall thing as his making the point that Google have so blurred the lines between their above-the-results ads and the results themselves that they're effectively doing exactly the thing they say they don't seems entirely unambiguous to me.

[EDIT EDIT] I worked out a way to obtain your reading—or, at least what I think your reading is. If you assume that Krebs mis-read the very short and clear document that he took time to highlight, embed, and tweet (as quoted above—I'm assuming the highlighting was his) then this: "The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then." isn't just an accurate-enough but (perhaps) imperfectly precise phrasing, but simply wrong, and everything else related to it including how ~everyone here and on Twitter read it is wrong (=correct for a funny and the-most-obvious critique of the document vs. reality, but wrong for what Krebs intention was under your reading), and you assume that Krebs either didn't notice that everyone was getting it wrong or decided to pretend that's what he meant, and you assume he only intended to showcase part of the image he re-posted from here, then your reading prevails.

I do not judge this a strong reading, at all.

I missed another Krebs post (sorry, I'm shit at using the Twitter UI, that is my fault entirely). Even my excessively-generous attempt to find your reading now fails. It ain't there.

>>>

Adrian Krebs @krebs_adrian Replying to @dannysullivan Thanks for clarifying this. I think the post leaves some room for interpretation. The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results, which is not the case today.

>>>

There is no room for doubt. You took a plausible but unsupported-anywhere-else reading of single phrase in the OG post, contrary to seemingly almost everyone else who read it, then did... all of this, over it, including accusing people of all kinds of bad faith or poor reading ability, based on no merit. On top of the overwhelming contextual evidence that you were incorrect, here it is in black and white.

Well, you are wrong. I am in no way "conceal[ing] the truth or avoid committing oneself". I am fully committed to the position that you are incorrect, and I've used clear language to show you why.

It refers to deliberate ambiguity. The Google statement is clearly different from the statement falsely attributed to them. And its by the addition of ambiguity (equivocating) that this false attribution is being defended.

Yes, you have it right:

>>>

To repeat: "The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results"

The concern of the entire thing aligns with the reading that most people (apparently?) took away to begin with, which is that their above-the-results ads are so similar to organic results that all of the same things are wrong with it as with directly selling placement within results.

The confusion appears to stem entirely from Krebs having in his head that a top-of-organic-results-placement of a link is still, also, an ad, when he wrote the original post. Which is not unreasonable, but could, lacking other context (but there's a ton...) be read a different way. He corrects that in the above follow-up and confirms your interpretation.

The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be.

Others disagree that an ad presented among the search listings, with visual presentation only distinguisable from a search result if you know the very small indicator to look for, as the first few entries is a meaningful distinction from just selling search listing results directly, rather than euphemistically.

I agree, I think the line between ads and searches are blurred, but I think that point can be made without misrepresenting the statement from Google as an explicit critique of ads placed above search results.

Since they sell ads that look like search results (which you agree on), they arrived at the same point of selling the top search result positions. Keeping that in mind I don't feel like the tweet is a misrepresentation. Do you, really?

The tweet is attributing to Google a statement explicitly decrying placement of ads at the top of search results. This is not anywhere in the statement.

To make an untruth into a truth, it's necessary to zoom out and get fuzzy in words so the one thing kinda-sorta means the other.

So you can make things fuzzy by saying "ads on top" kinda sorta means "making ads look like search results" which kinda means it's okay to attribute a thing to Google that wasn't said.

I think the breakdown is this: people feel like this clarification is a challenge. When I say "google didn't say that about ad placement" people hear "Google has never done anything wrong with their search ads." And so it's a proxy for that argument.

Maybe. I think it's less fuzzy - the ads back then were clearly ads and harder to mix up with search results. So even if Google had ads on top of search results then, it wasn't as misleading. Or rather: The statement looked valid then, but doesn't anymore. That's what people pick up on.

You think the line has been blurred, but not removed, so a statement that Google won't sell search results because Google draws a distinction at sale time between ad slots and search results is not evidence of a change in position to the reality now where you can buy "things that look 99% identical and sit in the same location as search results" because those things are called ads in the purchase interface.

Others view these things as sponsored search listings because.... they have 99% in common with search listings and only 50% in common with ads as presented at the time that Google made this statement.

What they are selling, despite being called ads, are for all intents and purposes search results. So I don't think it's unfair to call them out for how it conflicts with earlier positions against the selling of search results.

Google's statement was that they will make it clear that ads were not the same as search results.

Krebs paraphrased that statement as Google "critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results" and noted that they were instead placed on a sidebar.

He's not flagging the statement out of a belief that ads and search basically amount to the same thing.

Those are all great points that you made. However, is it more important to be fair to them or to criticize them for their bad practices? Can you win a fight by being principled, when the other side is fighting dirty? Maybe. Personally, I'd let small errors slide, and look at the larger picture - How the tech world is slowly shifting towards a pay-to-play, rent-seeking, monopolist model. I'm optimistic about the future, and we can still save it. I'm no organizer, but I would focus our efforts on taking down these mega corps that have abused our trust and good-will - to make room for smaller companies to flourish that do believe in doing the right thing.

Might me a locale thing? For me (southwestern Ontario), a "new car" SERP shows a Google Maps block at the top with non-ad links to dealerships, but after that are some pretty reasonable organic results for pages like Edmunds, caranddriver.com, etc.

The organic results even include an optional transparency pop up (click the ...) that explains in more detail the factors that went into showing the result.

EDIT: Oh wait, never mind. On desktop, the ads are loaded in from a separate domain that my router blocks. On mobile, I see several at the top of the page. Fail.

"Not scrolling" isn't a useful metric, you can make it say whatever you want it to say. On my small screen phone I see 1 result entry without scrolling, on my large screen desktop I see all 10 result entries. If I feel one way about the issue I can grab my phone and claim "I see nothing but ads without scrolling!" even if it's a single ad while if I feel another way I can go to my desktop and claim "the vast majority of results shown on screen after searching aren't ads" even if there are 3.

The former is a firey way to say "an ad is shown at the top" and the latter a dismissive way to distract from how many ads there are, neither actually talks to the state of the number of ads despite what their wording implies.

This isn't nitpicking about a minor detail, the fabricated claim is the entire core of the submission and the only reason it is getting this HN engagement. Imagine that they'd written a tweet saying "I think Google should not show ads above the search results" or "there should be fewer ads", and not added the screenshot. Do you think that would be near the top of the frontpage? I don't.

If the author's point is that the "Ad" text is not distinct enough and conflicts with the doc's view that ads need to be clearly marked, why not actually say that? Because what is distinct enough is just a matter of opinion. So instead the author has taken something that's not a matter of opinion but a clear fact ("there are ads above the search results") and just made up the part about the doc critiquing this. It's genius, because everyone loves a good story of corporate hypocrisy. But it's also not true. Why exactly are we looking to reward dishonest clickbait?

Exactly what information were you hoping to glean from a search like "new car"? There are searches that are too insipid to be considered as part of search quality signals.

There is a corresponding meme where people complain about the quality of the results for "best pants" where they have to amend it to "best pants reddit". Well, I have news for you: "best pants" is not a search that can be usefully answered. There is no such thing as "best pants".

Not sure I agree. I worked in AdWords support when the decision was made to move the top 1-3 ads above the search results.

There was a lot of internal chatter about whether this was compromising the integrity of the results. The decision was made to make the ad unit super obviously distinct from organic content, and to make a high quality threshold for getting promoted to that position - many pages would still be served with ads on the right of results but not above.

Even still we were very worried about the perception that the organic results were for sale. I would definitely believe that at one point in time the company was prepared to draw a line in the sand around “no ads above organic results.”

Edit: at launch the top ads looked like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3892/2343/1600/google_adw...

I don't find it super obvious at all. I have to actively spend brain energy scrolling to find the first real result

The appearance of the ads has gotten closer and closer to search results. The first time the ads moved above the results they did look different.

I don't use google, so I had a look for "new car" and didn't see any adverts.

Then realised I had to turn off my blocker.

Looks like

$('#tads').remove()

will remove the adverts?

No amount of adblocking will help with the fact that I got a top-hit to a car selling website when I searched for "new car".

What should be the top hit to the query "new car"? What was the desired goal?

It's a good chance someone wanting to find a "car selling" website might use that phrase, no?

Could be a lot of things, including wanting to buy a new car, yeah. But maybe I want to search for "new car smell", which is a thing. Maybe I want to read blogs or experiences people have buying new cars vs used.

Search as it is now is fundamentally at odds with us as our own agents. We're 30 years into the internet. I shouldn't just be presented with a magical search box that tries to figure out what I want and intermingles it with trash that makes them money and fosters a broken internet. Instead, I should get knobs, settings, configuration galore, include/exclude operators, filter lists, curated lists, sub-lists of internet sites, dynamic lists determined automatically by the search engine (only blogs, only forums, only search sites), etc. Who knows where search might be if we didn't have "magic" results from Google.

A good "taste" of what search might have been is if you look at Google's product or shopping search tab.

"new car smell"

- How to Make a Car Smell New Again - Auto Adviser

- How to Get That 'New Car Smell' in an Old Car - Car Cologne

- The Science of the New-Car Smell - caranddriver.com

Yep. The original top ad unit had a dark blue background, plus I think some sort of “sponsored” text that clearly delineated the ads. It has since become almost indistinguishable from organic results.

Edit: Used to look like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3892/2343/1600/google_adw...

These days I assume that Google does two things at once: place clearly identifiable and directly billable ads, and include "is a known business" in the relevance algorithm blackbox as one of the inputs. One of the many factors and criteria would just happen to be ad spend. There wouldn't be an item "make us more relevant" on the bill, but relevance for a company stopping spending would drop unless some other organic factor happened to compensate.

And I'd take it as a given that if that assumption was true, a large majority of Googlers would not have the faintest idea that this is happening and refute any speculations that it might exist without even a trace of insincerity.

I'm not even saying this intending a "look how evil Google has become!" implication, I actually think that it would likely be a quality decrease, from the users perspective, if they deliberately left that out. From the user's perspective, "Is a business known to us" is likely a valuable relevance improvement, not a quality decrease. But it shows how scarily dominant Google's position can be.

> Given the context of the times, it was clearly not a statement about layout but about actually reordering the "organic" search results based on payments and without marking those boosted results as ads.

It's actually worse. Google didn't just say "our competitors put ads on top of results". They're suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening, their competitors like Bing (MSN then) were doing what Google is doing now - merely placing ads above the results, not selling placement.

The end result is that they're all now selling placement. The visual difference between ads and organic results is almost non-existent.

>It's actually worse.

Well hold on. We can go ahead and talk about how different this Google statement is from their ethos in the present day. But the framing of this being about ad placement was incorrect, and that has nothing to do with anything.

>They're suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening

It wasn't? This strikes me as yet another completely out of left field reaction. I mean, is there a consensus that that's obviously false? A source? Where is this "in fact that wasn't happening" coming from? Was there a big media cycle where there was a deep dive investigation into this that settled the question, that everyone remembers except me? There's a whole field of actors who at one time were relevant: Jeeves, Lycos, Altavista, Infoseek, Dogpile, Hotbot, Webcrawler, etc. And they went through any number of permutations of design, ownership, were sold and reacquired and it stands to reason that at some point some versions of these did things that Google is suggesting.

At a minimum it seems prima facie plausible that competitors entertained this.

> suggesting/hinting that those competitors accept payment for placement when in fact that wasn't happening

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/yahoo-adopting-paid-incl...

It was a fee to be included in the directly, not placement. I bought that "directory listing" aka hire PR paid link for many clients.

Glad to see this up in the comments. This is why I hate so many internet discussions, in that they are deliberately made in bad faith, even when the general topic under discussion is valid.

It's quite clear to anyone who has used Google over the past decade that:

1. When you search for anything remotely commercial, your first page is essentially all ads, especially on mobile. It used to be possible that, if you were a site but had the top spot in Google for a commercial term, you had a great opportunity. That is no longer the case now, in that you are forced to pay "the Google tax", because there will be 4-5 ads above your primary search position if you don't pay for an ad.

2. Over time Google has made the distinction between organic results and ads much less clear. All you get now is teeny bolded "Ad" text in the upper left corner, everything else looks the same.

These are valid criticisms. Saying "Google critiqued the practice of displaying ads above search results" is simply not true based on the poster's own linked screenshot.

Google Serps definitely tested not having inline ads at different stages, I don't remember if is was ever solely sidebar ads, I think it was keyword dependent going back pretty far.

I've got three wayback machine links below and the nostradomous one eschewed inline ads in 2002 so I think the experience was somewhat dependent on what keywords you were searching.

But going back to 2000 (when scraping DMOZ was still how everyone seeded quality), you can see that "inline ads" above organic results were a relatively early thing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20021002224152/http://www.google...

https://web.archive.org/web/20001205201000/http://www.google...

https://web.archive.org/web/20021105030346/http://www.google...

Looked through old posts from the google dance days on webmasterworld, I couldn't see any discussion of ads repositioned from the sidebar to inline, so yeah, I think inline placement was around a long time, certainly by the time this google blog post was first published.

Exactly. This was called “paid inclusion“ and was offered by Yahoo, for example.

Yeah, if memory serves the overture ad network (which powered yahoo ad results before yahoo bought them) had better roi for a short time period for that very reason.

I just looked at it and your post doesn't seem related at all. The post is pointing out that Google says they don't sell search result positioning, which is equivocation because if you watch any normal person use Google or just look at their search results page they absofuckinglutely do. "Oh but it's not 'in the search area'" yeah OK, so they're both tricking people and are disingenuous about it, like that apparently-Google-employee (Danny Sullivan) who shames themselves by pathetically defending it in the Twitter thread. That's not better.

You may be correct, but I don't think the "letter of the law" is a particularly useful standard to judge Google by. So you can't pay to have your site ranked higher? Who even cares now? At this point you can pay Google to deploy dark patterns that trick people into clicking on ads thinking that they're actually organic results. In a sense that is even better than a higher page rating...

Exactly. And, remarkably, so far this is not registering for anybody else in this thread. It is about not placing ads within search results, and making clear that ads, wherever they are, are different from search.

On a very vague, thematic level, this kind of grandstanding in Google's statement does seem to be in some sort of conflict with Google's approach to ad placement in 2022, because ads do very much seem similar to search results, but it has nothing to do with "ads above search results" or ads in the sidebar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com