We could be looking at a complete overhaul of search results thanks to a case involving Amazon and a high-end watch manufacturer. Earlier this week, California's Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision that the online retail giant does not infringe the trademark of Multi Time Machine (MTM) when it displays competitors …

COMMENTS

Post your comment

House rules Send corrections

Add to 'My topics'

Page:

Tuesday 7th July 2015 23:36 GMT bazza

Irritating

I'm increasingly irritated by search engines returning results I'm not interested in, and Amazon are just another example. If a search returns no result, I want to know that instead of having to plough through the vast swathes of useless results just in case the one I want is actually in there somewhere on the 10th page.

When I use + and quotes on a Google search string, I just wish they'd actually pay attention to that. Instead more often than not they they present a bunch of pages that actually do not feature the words I've supposedly specified as being compulsory in the search. Not useful at all. I long for the days of Alta Vista which simply did nothing more than straight string matching, not some hocus pocus bullshit algorithm whose only purpose is to encourage me to view pages that I already know I don't want to see.

Search engines have become the lazy answer to poor organisation and maintenance of data, and there's plenty of services out there like Google, Amazon, Bing, etc. that exploit that laziness as an excuse for pushing adverts. Microsoft's help is appalling these days, where pressing the help button on an in focus dialog box generally fails to being up the help page for that box.

44 3 Reply
1. Tuesday 7th July 2015 23:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Irritating
  
  Yes, and if I put - on a keyword, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT!
  
  28 0 Reply
2. Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:20 GMT noem
  
  Re: Irritating
  
  Considering the case concerns amazon, which is by definition a store. Which outcome would you rather have when going to the your local supermarket?
  
  You: Hi, do you have any Grey Goose?
  
  Employee: Nope!
  
  OR
  
  You: Hi, do you have any Grey Goose?
  
  Employee: We have a wide selection of other vodkas and since they all taste about the same why not give X brand a try. I've been told by customers that X brand is the best and is less expensive.
  
  I hate when comments aren't exactly relevant to the post being discussed. When I jump into the comments I expect it to be rant free and on topic! It's these lazy commentators that fill up the comments with pages of off topic rants, I just wish they'd actually pay attention to the thing I came to discuss.
  
  Seriously though, the issue at hand is whether search usability trumps copyright. In your case of altavista accuracy vs google's googol of results, the answer is much the same as the market spoke in 2013.
  
  17 7 Reply
  1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:13 GMT DiViDeD
    
    Re: Irritating
    
    "When I jump into the comments I expect it to be rant free and on topic"
    
    You're new around here, aren't you?
    
    29 0 Reply
  2. Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:27 GMT big_D
    
    Re: Irritating
    
    @noem, I'd rather see "We couldn't find any products matching your search criteria. Here are some similar products."
    
    That would be fine, for me. I then know that there is no point searching through 40 pages of results, because what I want isn't there, or I can look at the alternatives, knowing that they are the only option.
    
    27 0 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 09:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Irritating
      
      This opens up a whole new can of worms. How is the 'alternative' product 'similar'. Does it look like it ? Does it look different but is it made of the same components ? Does it have similar functionality ?
      
      I think you'd be back to square one.
      
      0 2 Reply
      1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 10:06 GMT Graham Marsden
        
        Re: Irritating
        
        The question is whether someone is *specifically* looking for an MTM watch or something that *looks* like a military design watch and there's really no way to tell that.
        
        If there are lots of watches of similar design and someone has seen a friend/ review/ advert for MTM they might go into a shop and say "I want one of those MTM watches" but then find the price is too high or they don't quite like the look of what they're offered or, of course, that the shop doesn't stock that particular brand at which point the assistant can say "We also have these..."
        
        As such, *provided* Amazon or whoever says something like "We cannot find any results that match what you're looking for, but we have these ones instead..." I would not have a problem.
        
        If, on the other hand, they say "Here's what you're looking for" and it's necessary to waste time trying to refine your search enquiry or look through several pages to discover that they don't actually have that particular brand, then that would be a problem.
        
        5 0 Reply
  3. Wednesday 8th July 2015 07:27 GMT bazza
    
    Re: Irritating
    
    Your counter-example is flawed and stupid.
    
    Which outcome would you rather have when going to the your local supermarket?
    
    You: Hi, do you have any Grey Goose?
    
    Employee: Nope!
    
    Who would ask for a specific brand if they actually wanted a generic thing? If one is interested in vodka generally, ask for goddamned vodka. Being told that a shop has vodka and refusing to confirm or deny the availability of a specifically requested brand is not helpful at all and a waste of time. And possibly illegal.
    
    I hate when comments aren't exactly relevant to the post being discussed. When I jump into the comments I expect it to be rant free and on topic! It's these lazy commentators that fill up the comments with pages of off topic rants, I just wish they'd actually pay attention to the thing I came to discuss.
    
    Did you read that before you posted it, or are you just being ironic?
    
    5 16 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 08:37 GMT noem
      
      Re: Irritating
      
      @bazza
      
      I've never said which way I actually preferred to have search operate, I akin search to a tool. You use the correct one for the job, Google will give you a ton of results, but something might be relevant. Other search engines might thin the results too much. I generally pick the tool that fits the job or try them all until I find what works. Rather than complaining my hammer does not work well with screws, I use a screwdriver (or a butter knife if I can't find the screwdriver). Some tools are better at certain tasks than others, the one size fits all is rarely that (the hammer screwdriver hybrid is less than ideal). Failing to use the proper tool is user error, ignorance or arrogance. Continuing to use the improper tool for the same task knowing full well it does not work and expecting a different result is insanity.
      
      User error: "I just type in the search bar and it returns results from the whole interweb, right?"
      
      Ignorance: "I can use something other than Bing?!?"
      
      Arrogance: "Google is the best why would I use anything else!"
      
      Insanity: "The last time bob used a fork in the electrical socket to get better AM reception, it shocked him bad, I was there. You're sure it won't do the same to me"
      
      You can save yourself from google's shoddy work, by wait for it...using something else or continue to complain that your arm is numb and you don't feel so well, while carrying on with the fork.
      
      The second part where I talk about comments not being especially relevant was meant to illustrate the irony of your own post, there's a pretty specific topic that that the legal case concerns and you've posted something that is not entirely relevant to the legal issue. You are exactly the same as the search engine you despise, you've created a new piece of data (ie. returned an irrelevant result) for users to wade through in order to get at the actual subject. Given that the comments should center on the merits of either side and the consequences of such a ruling on search usability/marketplace competition vs brand dilution/trademark. Given I've had to explain myself I've added another piece of irrelevancy to the comments section and ruined the joke to boot, this comment is in itself ironic!
      
      3 0 Reply
  4. Wednesday 8th July 2015 08:01 GMT FelixReg
    
    Re: Grey Goose
    
    Up-vote for the Grey Goose scenario, noem,
    
    Except a slight change should be made to better match the case at issue: It's not "which outcome would you rather...". It's: Is the second employee's response illegal?
    
    Those who argue against Amazon in this case are saying, "In response to the customer's 'gray geece' query, the clerk (who is not human and is therefore expected to never make a mistake) must either stay silent or tell the customer, 'Our store does not have any Gay Juice'."
    
    The article doesn't tell whether the Amazon search engine in this case had any knowledge of a product and/or brand name. I would expect not.
    
    3 1 Reply
    1. This post has been deleted by its author
  5. Wednesday 8th July 2015 14:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Irritating
    
    Customer: Do you have pepsi?
    
    Employee: No but we have coke.
    
    Customer: I don't care, I asked for pepsi (goes to next shop).
    
    If the user query was specifically for MTM and the MTM keyword was not found any results should show that the query returned no results. If I type in "TMT" instead of "MTM" I get "Your search "tmt special ops watch" did not match any products." then I get a list with TMT crossed out (ie the search for "special ops watch" without the "TMT")
    
    1 1 Reply
  6. Wednesday 8th July 2015 18:30 GMT Trevor_Pott
    
    Re: Irritating
    
    When I jump into the comments I expect it to be rant free and on topic!
    
    You may be interested to this introduction to The Register's comment section in .gif form. It may explain some things to you.
    
    2 0 Reply
3. Wednesday 8th July 2015 06:14 GMT Mi Tasol
  
  Re: Irritating
  
  You got it in one.
  
  I now use Yahoo Advanced Web Search. Takes a few seconds longer to fill in but does not respond with 50 pages of irrelevant crap so much much faster in the long run
  
  Second choice is DuckDuckGo
  
  Last two choices are Bing and Google
  
  1 3 Reply
4. Wednesday 8th July 2015 08:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Irritating
  
  "When I use + and quotes on a Google search string, I just wish they'd actually pay attention to that. "
  
  YouTube has a similar problem in being apparently unable to define a search term exactly. This is annoying when "petits chanteurs de France" comes back with any choir's name containing "petits chanteurs de" - and none of the visible results are the expected choir.
  
  It had been assumed that enclosing a phrase in double-quotes would mean "exactly this". Apparently that is treated as if each word is a separate term in any combination - even without some words.
  
  However - yesterday a result did come back with only one video and it was the exact choir match. That has never happened before.
  
  The format that seemed to do it was "these-words-in-this-order" viz hyphen separators which usually mean "words in this order" - and all enclosed in quotes. More experimentation is needed today to see if this was a fluke - or whether the search really can now be made to give only the results that are relevant.
  
  4 0 Reply
5. Wednesday 8th July 2015 18:55 GMT anoco
  
  Re: Irritating
  
  Before I forget, the + symbol on google now means google+ results. We should sue them for misleading us!! If you really want a precise search, use Google Verbatin. An option under the "search tools" box. Or bookmark this link https://www.google.com/webhp?tbs=li:1 for the same results.
  
  Now about my Grey Goose problem... If the said employee pointed the customer to a bottle of Absolut, would Grey Goose have a legal standing against the market? Or would it be up to the customer to stop asking questions to that person, or better, stop shopping at that market altogether?
  
  Even if the customer is stupid enough to buy a different brand (and I'm sure they are), I think this is a problem in between the customer and Amazon. Maybe even in between MTM and the customer because they are not available at Amazon. But not in between MTM and Amazon.
  
  2 0 Reply
6. Wednesday 8th July 2015 21:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Irritating
  
  I think you're misremembering Alta Vista's search capabilities:
  
  Query: World War II Battles
  
  Answer:
  
  shop for World War II Battles at Walmart
  
  best price on World War II Battles at Target
  
  looking for World War II Battles at Sears
  
  etc.
  
  10 pages of nothing but cut and paste queries that appear verbatim in the supposed answer
  
  1 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 00:53 GMT Anonymous Coward

Are you aware...

...that Cali is a city in Colombia? Your article distinctly seems to refer to California, a state in the US.

And btw, the video comes up with a "content restriction" saying I'm not allowed to see it from my current location. Not that I care, mind.

12 1 Reply
1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:24 GMT IvyKing
  
  Re: Are you aware...
  
  "Cali" is not a common abbreviation for California, the most common is the USPS approved "CA", followed by "Calif". "Cal" is another common shortening of the name, though it is more used for college and university names, e.g. Cal (UC Berkeley - Go Bears), Southern Cal (USC), Cal Tech, Cal Poly, Cal State $city_name, Cal Lu, etc.
  
  In addition, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers the Western US in addition to the Golden State.
  
  3 1 Reply
  1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 06:44 GMT choleric
    
    Re: Are you aware...
    
    It's an El Reg-ism resulting from a penchant for headlines referencing a certain Mary Poppins tune. In this case an example might be:
    
    "Super-Cali loves big watches; MTM victorious"
    
    None of the standard abbreviations for California work nearly as well.
    
    14 0 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 10:08 GMT Graham Marsden
      
      @choleric - Re: Are you aware...
      
      Are you after a job as an El Reg sub-editor?
      
      1 0 Reply
      1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 11:04 GMT choleric
        
        @Graham Marsden
        
        Thank you for your words. However, I only came up with that meagre line after a leisurely breakfast enjoying a bowl of Frosties. I don't think there are enough hours in the day, nor enough Frosties in the world to let me compete with the quality and quantity of headlines produced by the laser-focused, turbocharged sub-editing fiends that El Reg currently employs.
        
        3 0 Reply
2. Wednesday 8th July 2015 06:51 GMT Mike Taylor
  
  mi.taylor@elsevier.com
  
  Precisely the conclusion I took from the heading; and half the reason I clicked, was to see why Cali's judiciary was going to have the effect
  
  0 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 00:58 GMT Neoc

And yet a simple solution, used by other engines, would be to have a nicely visible notice saying that (for example) "No products match your search", followed by "here are other products you might be interested in".

Problem solved.

36 1 Reply
1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:11 GMT ecofeco
  
  Exactly. Amazon is deliberately misleading. Which is of course, the American way.
  
  10 9 Reply
  1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    > "Which is of course, the American way."
    
    So when it's unethical behavior in Britain that's being discussed, you then say "It's the British way", and the same goes for other countries, right?
    
    Or do you reserve such treatment only for your "most hated nations" list?
    
    7 9 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:15 GMT ecofeco
      
      BJ, Amazon is an American company. Get over yourself.
      
      3 4 Reply
      1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 22:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Pure insight
        
        ''Amazon is an American company. Get over yourself."
        
        Ah, I get it now!
        
        America = Evil
        
        This explains everything!
        
        0 1 Reply
2. Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:20 GMT tom dial
  
  As the staff in a brick and mortar jewelry store surely would do.
  
  Those who search on Amazon should expect to see results for products that Amazon or its vendors can supply. Sellers who decline to sell through Amazon are a bit cheeky to go to court and demand that Amazon, whose business is selling products, show nothing at all that doesn't match their brand. Those who do sell through Amazon can reasonably expect Amazon to requested results for their product ahead of results for similar and possibly substitutable products, but have no reason to expect Amazon to exclude others unless Amazon, possibly for a price, agreed to do so.
  
  4 9 Reply
  1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:54 GMT Neoc
    
    @Tom Dial: not if a brand name was used in the search criteria. If the user asked for MTM watches then showing other brands WITHOUT CLEARLY STATING NO MTM WATCHES WERE FOUND is misleading the consumer. If you go to a chemist and ask for a specific brand of medicine and the chemist tries to sell you a different brand *without telling you*, surely you'd be pissed off. Or would you accept the "oh, but you should have noticed it wasn't the same brand when I handed it over to you" excuse?
    
    20 4 Reply
3. Wednesday 8th July 2015 07:07 GMT Lusty
  
  @Neoc the really nice thing is it would take Amazon about 10 seconds to change the site to do so and effectively make this court case null and void. Or they could leave America, that threat always seems to change the outcome of court decisions in the completely uncorrupt USA :)
  
  7 0 Reply
4. Wednesday 8th July 2015 10:18 GMT Bronek Kozicki
  
  Funny thing, Amazon does exactly this for majority of search terms. I guess "MTM" received special treatment and that is not cool.
  
  1 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:29 GMT CoreVoid

Exactly how is this a problem?

So, I don't particularly like the business practices of Amazon, but for this particular case, I see nothing at all wrong with what they did. They did not explicitly advertise that product.

I view this as if I had walked into a department store, gone to the men's watches section, and asked for a specific brand and model of watch, only to be told 'Sorry, we do not carry those. However, we do have these others, which are very similar to what you just asked me about.'

How is it different from that?

Maybe my perspective is wrong, but I don't see how that company has a legal basis for complaining. I can still see why they would complain, it certainly sucks, but I don't believe we should break everything just because one company can't figure out how to keep up with modern sales and marketing(hrm... music industry.. taxi industry... etc).

4 9 Reply
1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 01:57 GMT notowenwilson
  
  Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
  
  The difference is that when you ask amazon for item X they aren't saying "we don't have them, but here's item Y which are similar" they are saying "here you go then" and displaying item Y.
  
  22 0 Reply
  1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 02:33 GMT noem
    
    Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
    
    Given you can't find X, amazon has found Y. Y is clearly labeled as Y product. At best the hearsay the CEO of MTM offered up is hearsay, at worst he's liar and possibly guilty of perjury.
    
    Now go and try this in amazon's search for yourself "MTM watches" vs "MTM" vs "Multi Time Machine", the first one containing the key word "watches" is the only one that yields watches the other two inputs which contain only the brand name are completely unrelated to timepieces.
    
    So is it reasonable for amazon to return a search result containing watches if the input has that keyword or is it supposed to return absolutely nothing as soon as a brand is added to the search despite having a partial match for the input?
    
    This post gave me math flashbacks :)
    
    4 7 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 14:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
      
      But if you type a rubbish name instead of MTM, say TMT, Amazon tells you that it found no results, then proceeds to give you results without the "tmt" part. So, if you're used to amazon, this is misleading, since it's not the usual response.
      
      0 0 Reply
2. Wednesday 8th July 2015 08:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
  
  @CoreVoid
  
  > How is it different from that?
  
  Think of it in these terms instead: if I own Knock-Off Watches Ltd and I directly advertise my watches as MTM models then I would be breaking the law. If I were to advertise with a big MTM logo but a small print disclaimer at the bottom saying they are knock-offs then I would still be mis-using the MTM trademark and they would be able to sue me.
  
  So why should it be different if Amazon stick the MTM logo on my advert for me?
  
  A second point, not yet explored, is that Amazon could be deemed to be deliberately trying to 'punish' MTM, by promoting competitors at every opportunity, in retalliation for refusing to sell through Amazon. This is a clear breach of US unfair trade practice legislation and is likely to be the next legal avenue if MTM fail on the trade mark one.
  
  3 3 Reply
3. Wednesday 8th July 2015 08:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
  
  "How is it different from that?"
  
  It is the same as going into a cafe and asking for a "Coke" - which is probably a trademark for Coca Cola. If you are given a glass of a dark fizzy liquid that is another "cola" drink then that is possibly not what you ordered or expected.
  
  However there is a legal nicety when a brand name has become so ubiquitous that it becomes the generic name for something. The obvious examples are "Aspirin", "Petrol", and "Hoover".
  
  A more complete list and explanation on Wikipedia
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
  
  1 1 Reply
  1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 11:20 GMT Fat-Boy-R-Dee
    
    Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
    
    "It is the same as going into a cafe and asking for a "Coke"
    
    Not to go off on *too* far of a tangent :-) - but sometimes that becomes genericized past the point of practicality. For example, here in the southeast US ...
    
    "Hey while you're in there, can you get me a Coke?"
    
    "Sure, what kind?"
    
    "Diet orange, please."
    
    1 0 Reply
    1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 15:15 GMT User McUser
      
      Re: Exactly how is this a problem?
      
      sometimes that becomes genericized past the point of practicality.
      
      For reference in case you travel - http://popvssoda.com/
      
      0 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:10 GMT punk4evr

Some would be Hosed...

Well Progressive would be really in a bind. Thats their whole selling point!

0 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:14 GMT Turtle

Versace.

"...Timex makes Versace watches..."

Ha-ha-ha!

0 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:17 GMT punk4evr

Wait, you mean...

Wait, you mean my Rolex may not be a Real Rolex?> OMG how have we ever managed to by the Real Things, when we can't tell the difference! And my Hundai is really a JAG... so... There you go! My vw is also really a Porsche!

0 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:48 GMT Kevin McMurtrie

Have you got anything without spam?

Amazon and Netflix not only offer alternative products to a search that returned no results, but return related searches that also produce only alternative products. Search for "WaffleWidget" and it returns results for "SpamWidget" plus a recommendation to search for "WaffleWidget Deluxe." Right, the deluxe one is it. Of course the search for "WaffleWidget Deluxe" returns results for "SpamWidget Spam Spam Deux" plus a similarly futile suggestion to search for "WaffleWidget 2016." I can definitely see companies getting just as irritated as customers about the brand mixing.

3 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 04:55 GMT Winkypop

Amazon

Watch out.

It's a jungle out there!

6 0 Reply
1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 10:32 GMT 's water music
  
  Re: Amazon
  
  It's a jungle out there!
  
  It makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under
  
  1 0 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 05:00 GMT david 12

It's an abuse of trademark to supress competition..

The intention is that you can't search for watches unless you already know a brand name.

Owners of well-known brand-names want this. New market entrents don't want it.

Consumers benifit from competition, big watch companies benefit from monopoly.

And I don't give a damm about watches, but once they get this through the same applies to cars and dishwashers.

6 3 Reply
1. Wednesday 8th July 2015 09:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Apparently a court can rule that a successful trademark has become so popular that it is now a generic name for that type of product. "Petrol" is one of the least obvious in the UK. "Aspirin" is also generic is some countries - but in others it is still protected as a Bayer trademark.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
  
  1 0 Reply
2. Wednesday 8th July 2015 14:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  you can always type in "watch", "women's watch", "military watch" etc. But if I type in "Casio Watch" I don't want a Swatch.
  
  0 1 Reply
Wednesday 8th July 2015 06:03 GMT Big Al

Net result? Amazon will add a line saying "Your search returned no results. Here are some products you might be interested in", and then carry on as now.

This will not redefine site search.

5 0 Reply