  We present a model of competition between web search algorithms, and study
the impact of such competition on user welfare. In our model, search providers
compete for customers by strategically selecting which search results to
display in response to user queries. Customers, in turn, have private
preferences over search results and will tend to use search engines that are
more likely to display pages satisfying their demands.
  Our main question is whether competition between search engines increases the
overall welfare of the users (i.e., the likelihood that a user finds a page of
interest). When search engines derive utility only from customers to whom they
show relevant results, we show that they differentiate their results, and every
equilibrium of the resulting game achieves at least half of the welfare that
could be obtained by a social planner. This bound also applies whenever the
likelihood of selecting a given engine is a convex function of the probability
that a user's demand will be satisfied, which includes natural Markovian models
of user behavior.
  On the other hand, when search engines derive utility from all customers
(independent of search result relevance) and the customer demand functions are
not convex, there are instances in which the (unique) equilibrium involves no
differentiation between engines and a high degree of randomness in search
results. This can degrade social welfare by a factor of the square root of N
relative to the social optimum, where N is the number of webpages. These bad
equilibria persist even when search engines can extract only small (but
non-zero) expected revenue from dissatisfied users, and much higher revenue
from satisfied ones.
