The updates – named Caffeine – are described by Google as “a next-generation architecture for Google’s web search“.

Thanks to my old colleague Ged Carroll and his RT for Stephen Waddington to this econsultancy.com article via Twitter.

Google describes the changes as “the first step in a process that will let us push the envelope on size, indexing speed, accuracy, comprehensiveness and other dimensions.”

Google has opened up a web developer preview to collect feedback: www2.sandbox.google.com/

Google is inviting feedback: Engineers will be reading the feedback, but we won’t have the cycles to send replies.

I ran a few searches against my name (daniel young) and found that:

• My Facebook profile result goes from 5 in old Google to 2 with Caffeine
• My FriendFeed profiles goes from 29 in old Google to 8 with Caffeine
• My Twitter profile goes from 18 in old Google to 14 with Caffeine
• This blog goes from 7 in old Google to 24 with Caffeine

Caffeine seems to be:

1. Favouring the sites that are updated more frequently
2. or, favouring social networks over other content
3. or, both of the above – since they are inter-related

The jump in FriendFeed could be attributed to the Facebook acquisition and the increased importance on real-time properties is most likely a counter strategy to the launch of Bing and Facebook’s real-time search capabilities.

Take a look at the results in Caffeine when we use the search term ‘pr agency’:

• Top result is the same in Caffeine and old Google – Punch PR
• GlobalCom PR replaces Yetis 10 at number 3 in Caffeine. Yetis 10 drops to rank 51!  Down 48 places.
• Edelman drops out of the top ten with Caffeine
• VitisPR, Brands2Life, Berkeley PR enter the top ten with Caffeine
• At the expense of Edelman, About PR.net (directory) and The Publicity Agency

My sites are fairly inconsequential but changes to the way that Google produces search results could result in lost business opportunities for organisations that have invested heavily in the Web or are reliant upon it.

The secrecy surrounding the Google algorithm is legendary but it seems odd that Google is asking the user community to tell it about the impact that the change is having on search results.

Does Google not have an obligation or duty to let organisations and individuals know what impact the changes will have on their web properties?

The changes aren’t objective – Google is making subjective decisions about the value of different types of content, sites, activity, formats and so on. These subjective judgements take on particular significance in the context of Google’s extraordinary market position – in excess of 90 per cent market share here in Australia.

This goes to the nub of an issue, which was explored in some detail at today’s AIMIA event in Sydney: ‘Advertiser’s Rights and Consumer Privacy‘.

The event focused on deceptive advertising techniques and unethical practice online.

Unfortunately for Google , it bears the brunt of much of the criticism due in part to its market dominance but also due to its lack of transparency.

The whole value chain came under scrutiny this morning – search engines (Yahoo!, Ask), aggregators, mobile carriers, social networks and digital advertising networks.

Speakers argued that there is a significant lack of accountability in the sector, which is characterised by very complex networks and inter-relationships.

Take two examples cited in today’s event, which featured Ben Edelman – an assistant professor at Harvard Business School:

1. Deceptive advertising tactics are widespread to the point of ubiquity within paid search. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by others:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

This means that online publishers are not responsible for the content they publish, no matter how misleading or deceptive it may be – resulting in many instances of dishonest and misleading search marketing tactics.

Search engines are, as a result, failing to take proactive action to clear out these deceptive practices.

2. Google and its partners inflate conversions to claim credit for traffic that advertisers would otherwise have received for free. Edelman outlines four examples of this here.

I don’t believe that Google is an evil enterprise but I am convinced that it has excessive market power and that this is not in the long term interests of our digital economy or the broader community. Perhaps it gets a hard time as a result of its market dominance but leaders in every field have a duty of care and obligation to do the right thing.

Google is pervasive yet untouchable. Mr. Edelman provided an example of this when he highlighted a laughable  and ironic complaints and claims process for Adwords.

The following is taken from Google Adwords Terms and Conditions for Australian customers:

10 Miscellaneous. The Agreement must be construed as if both parties jointly wrote it, governed by California law except for its conflicts of laws principles and adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California. The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes and replaces any other applicable agreements, terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter hereof. Any conflicting or additional terms contained in additional documents (e.g. reference to a purchase order number) or oral discussions are void. Each party shall not disclose the terms or conditions of these Terms to any third party, except to its professional advisors under a strict duty of confidentiality or as necessary to comply with a government law, rule or regulation.  Customer may grant approvals, permissions, extensions and consents by email, but any modifications by Customer to the Agreement must be made in a writing executed by both parties. Any notices to Google must be sent to Google Ireland Limited, AdWords Program, 1st & 2nd Floor, Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, Ireland, with a copy to Legal Department, via confirmed facsimile, with a copy sent via first class or air mail or overnight courier, and are deemed given upon receipt.  Notice to Customer may be effected by sending email to the email address specified in Customer’s account, or by posting a message to Customer’s account interface, and is deemed received when sent (for email) or no more than 15 days after having been posted (for messages in Customer’s account interface).

In short, please send an email to the Google engineers if you want to provide feedback on Caffeine, the new search algorithm (but don’t expect a reply), and submit notices regarding modifications to Adwords agreements by snail mail to their office in Dublin, Ireland.