4 ms·

Is there someone that google WILL autocomplete "criminal" for? I tried a lot of people, including those who have been convicted of crimes, and it seems to refu

by airza 10y ago

Is there someone that google WILL autocomplete "criminal" for? I tried a lot of people, including those who have been convicted of crimes, and it seems to refuse to do so. (E.G Mike Tyson, John Gotti, as well as politicians like Nixon, George W Bush, and even hitler.)

burkaman 10y ago
Yeah, this is a garbage article, "criminal" and "indictment" don't autocomplete for anyone. Probably so Google doesn't get sued for accusing an innocent person of being a criminal with autocomplete.
- transpy 10y ago
  But.. I type "Hilarry ind" (to see if I get "Hillary Indiana" like the example) and I get immediatly "Hillary indictment". It seems that search results are very hard to reproduce and compare, given that they are very tailored, is this the case?
kauffj 10y ago
Interesting. It did seem a bit heavy handed, which made me wonder if something else was going on (and I figured by posting here I'd find out :). For what it's worth, I _can_ get indictment to autocomplete for others (e.g. try "vick indi"). Also, I'm guessing this whole story would have gone nowhere if Google had just said "we filter labels like criminal" rather than claiming they only filter "offensive or inappropriate content".
- airza 10y ago
  Hmm, vick indi works but michael vick indi doesn't. Maybe it's doing it based on a name detecting NLP component.
- burkaman 10y ago
  "Clinton cri" and "Clinton indic" work too. Looks like this is a really basic filter that doesn't allow criminalish words to be added to full names.
flurben 10y ago
Pee Wee Gaskins
jasonkostempski 10y ago
That should have been Google's only comment on the matter. I wonder if they didn't even think to try such a simple test.
gavin_belson 10y ago
Life imitates art. Hooli Scrub.
gk1 10y ago
Many people responding to this "story" are exhibiting classic confirmation bias. They're putting in searches that would confirm their existing belief that Hillary is "crooked" or that the system is rigged instead of ruling out other possibilities. If you can show this happens for Hillary and not for 10 other people, that would be much more convincing than showing 10 times that it happens for Hillary. NY Times has a fun interactive puzzle that demonstrates this bias: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick...
- airza 10y ago
  yes, that was more or less the idea of my comment :P

by airza 10y ago

burkaman 10y ago

Yeah, this is a garbage article, "criminal" and "indictment" don't autocomplete for anyone. Probably so Google doesn't get sued for accusing an innocent person of being a criminal with autocomplete.

transpy 10y ago
But.. I type "Hilarry ind" (to see if I get "Hillary Indiana" like the example) and I get immediatly "Hillary indictment". It seems that search results are very hard to reproduce and compare, given that they are very tailored, is this the case?

kauffj 10y ago

Interesting. It did seem a bit heavy handed, which made me wonder if something else was going on (and I figured by posting here I'd find out :). For what it's worth, I _can_ get indictment to autocomplete for others (e.g. try "vick indi"). Also, I'm guessing this whole story would have gone nowhere if Google had just said "we filter labels like criminal" rather than claiming they only filter "offensive or inappropriate content".

airza 10y ago
Hmm, vick indi works but michael vick indi doesn't. Maybe it's doing it based on a name detecting NLP component.
burkaman 10y ago
"Clinton cri" and "Clinton indic" work too. Looks like this is a really basic filter that doesn't allow criminalish words to be added to full names.

flurben 10y ago

Pee Wee Gaskins

jasonkostempski 10y ago

That should have been Google's only comment on the matter. I wonder if they didn't even think to try such a simple test.

gavin_belson 10y ago

Life imitates art. Hooli Scrub.

gk1 10y ago

Many people responding to this "story" are exhibiting classic confirmation bias. They're putting in searches that would confirm their existing belief that Hillary is "crooked" or that the system is rigged instead of ruling out other possibilities. If you can show this happens for Hillary and not for 10 other people, that would be much more convincing than showing 10 times that it happens for Hillary. NY Times has a fun interactive puzzle that demonstrates this bias: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick...

airza 10y ago
yes, that was more or less the idea of my comment :P