Nick Carr notes that both Google and Microsoft are standing behind their search engines in an odd way; I see this as a potential PR problem that can't end well for either outfit. First, stir in a gamed search result that places a hate site (Klan related, for gosh sakes) to the top of the list.

Next, when asked about the result by interested parties and embarrassed partners, call it a "sign of your integrity". First Google:

At Google, a Web site's ranking is determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to any given query, a company representative said. The company can't tweak the results because of that automation and the need to maintain the integrity of the results, she said. "In this particular example, the page is relevant to the query and many people have linked to it, giving it more PageRank than some of the other pages. These two factors contribute to its ranking," the representative wrote in an e-mail.

Then Microsoft:

The results on Microsoft's search engine are "not an endorsement, in any way, of the viewpoints held by the owners of that content," said Justin Osmer, senior product manager for Windows Live Search. "The ranking of our results is done in an automated manner through our algorithm which can sometimes lead to unexpected results," he said. "We always work to maintain the integrity of our results to ensure that they are not editorialized."

So, let me get this straight: if your marketing department tries to game Google results via invisible redirect sites, they ban you from the results. If, on the other hand, you're a hate group that has managed to game the system somehow, it's all ok. Hmm...

Now, there is a defensible position for these guys - if they start "playing god" based on political stances, there's a slippery slope down which they could slide infinitely - I can see why they don't want to go there. The fact is, however, they already go in and tweak results for various and sundry reasons, mostly dealing with spam/splog detection - so they already live on that slippery slope, whether they like it or not. I don't know that they want to fight on this particular ground - and I love the way Carr summarized their positions:

By "editorialized," he seems to mean "subjected to the exercise of human judgment." And human judgment, it seems, is an unfit substitute for the mindless, automated calculations of an algorithm. We are not worthy to question the machine we have made. It is so pure that even its corruption is a sign of its integrity.

I can just imagine the MS Live PR people wishing this would go away on its own...