Talk:FairSearch

Page Created

Right Fairsearch, are they a consumer group, are they an industry group? Is it ironic Microsoft complaining about Google's monopoly? I don't have the answers just yet, but I think it's all pretty notable.

• http://searchengineland.com/deconstructing-fairsearch-orgs-google-antitrust-consumer-survey-93789
• http://news.techworld.com/sme/3310291/google-probed-by-industry-pressure-group-fairsearchorg/
• http://time.com/2969709/yelp-google-antitrust/
• http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/12/4216026/who-is-fairsearch
• http://www.computerworld.com/article/2496436/technology-law-regulation/microsoft-not-fooling-anyone-by-using-fairsearch-front-in-antitrust-compla.html
• http://googlecompetition.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/who-is-fairsearchorg.html - Google hate them

Deku-shrub (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Deku-shrub. It might be a good idea firstly to add these sources to the article, and then to look at writing neutrally in order to protect this article. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, am unstubbing now and unneutral POVing now Deku-shrub (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Updating and expanding this article

My name is Brian Gluckman and I work at The Glover Park Group. One of our clients is FairSearch, who asked me to look into this article and improve it. I have a couple of new section ideas, but right now I want to concentrate on adding a few sentences to the sections already there. I would like help from the community reviewing what I drafted and adding it to the article if you agree with it.

Here are the specific edits I am requesting:

1) The article's introduction explains how others characterize the group, but I think it makes sense to add in what FairSearch says its mission is as well. My suggested edit to be placed between the first and second sentences

The group has stated that its objective is to "support transparency, competition, and innovation."

2) The last sentence of the History section could be rewritten, since the wording implies that these letters are still being sent, for which I can't find any proof. To get some context around these letters, I consulted additional sources, one of which I cited along with the source already in the article. My suggested replacement

In December 2014, the The New York Times published emails and letters dated between 2011 and 2014 sent by former US attorney general Patrick Lynch on behalf of FairSearch to attorneys general around the United States, urging them to investigate Google.

Comments and questions are welcome. Thank you for your consideration. Bgluckman (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi, I edited in your first suggestion. With regards to the relationship with Patrick Lynch, Jim Hood etc, I'm operating under the assumption that the emails reflect ongoing relationships with with FairSearch, Digital Citizens Alliance and other anti-google organisations. Moves to reiterate their positions following the Sony leak rather than distance themselves further persuades me of this. Finally, the NYT article uses 'Since at least 2011' Deku-shrub (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Brian. You didn't disclose that the Patrick Lynch Group is run by your former college Ben Hammer. Why don't you just ask him if Patrick's still in the lobbying/not lobbying business these days? :p Deku-shrub (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, Deku. For the first suggestion, I don't see your edit in the article, so it would be good if you can add that in if you're in favor of it. Or leave it for someone else to take a look at if not. On your second note, I didn't actually know Patrick Lynch Group is run by my former colleague, and besides, any personal knowledge that I have isn't an appropriate source for updating this article, so I think it best to stick to discussing what sources are available.

A note here to any editors who may come to this request: I am leaving it open for editors to review, since I think that these changes would be an improvement and believe that it would be best for an impartial editor on this issue to take a look. However, FairSearch is no longer a client of GPG, so I will not be continuing to offer any other suggestions for this article. Bgluckman (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I actually worked quite a bit with @Deku-Shrub: on the Digital Citizens Alliance page that I see from the discussion is relevant here and I think we made some good compromises there. I don't support the inclusion of the company's official mission statement, except in the infobox templates that allow it. We do report on how the company is described by independent sources and not how the company describes itself. Editors affiliated with the organization often rationalize material like this because of a desire to include the company's messaging. However, I do want to give the page a once-over and make sure it is fair. CorporateM (Talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I did a lot of cleanup of primary sources, copyediting, and misc edits. As part of that, I believe the date issue should be resolved. Normally the way of handling this is to rely on the date the source was published. I don't have this page on my watchlist, so please ping me if anything else is needed. CorporateM (Talk) 04:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)