[sullivandanny]

The Honest Results policy is that we're not going to allow advertisers or partners or any one with a relationship to Google to have an advantage in our unpaid search results.

As for ad labeling, I don't work on the ad side. I work on the Search side. My understanding from those on the ad side is that the labels are visible and do work. And ads are always labeled.

[runnerup]

I'm going to be blunt here, because this is your job. You've agreed to take on a particular level of responsibility and competency and I believe it's fair to hold you up to that.

> And ads are always labeled.

Poorly these days, and you know it. Many, many people here are making the point that if you eventually shrink the word "Ad" down to a 2-point font we would still have a PR person here arguing "but we Label it as an ad." You have a lot of users now telling you that you're already reaching the point where ads are not considered distinguishable from results.

> As for ad labeling, I don't work on the ad side. I work on the Search side.

For customers, Ads are part of the Search product. On mobile, ads and ad-driven widgets often take up the first 1-3 screen scrolls before I scroll down to a "not-ad". For me, if this isn't part of your work, you're not working "my" Google Search. Your work may be to represent some subset of what Google Search is, but it's NOT the part of the "Google Search" product that is being discussed here.

We are not discussing DWIM search or paywalled results or even stack-overflow scrape spam that infests my actual Search results. We are discussing how ads that look a hell of a lot like search results infest the top 1-3 mobile screen-scrolls before I get to the results that are comprised of the same Stack Overflow page copied by 4 different scraper engines and reposted on multiple domains.

If the ads, which is the topic here, isn't part of the product you work on, then your professional experience carries no weight in this discussion -- though your personal experience is as welcome as anyone else's. 'jsnell pointed out what you did, but 5 hours earlier; his clarification was well received and there was already a discussion about the clarification.

I do understand the point you're making. Many here had harsh words for the linked twitter post. My favorite was [0], also several hours before your response. In fact in this discussion on HN there's actually so little confusion over the point you clarified that it almost seems that responding to the linked twitter post on HN, without responding to any of the HN discussion ... is very much a case of responding to a straw man.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30151320