5 ms·

Be fair I didn't read the article. Just judging by the site, the headline, and current events, I assume the problem is that the content of the page is opinion i

Be fair I didn't read the article. Just judging by the site, the headline, and current events, I assume the problem is that the content of the page is opinion instead of fact. Ok, what's wrong with that? If that site/blog post has gained more traffic, social signals, backlinks, etc. etc than it's "competitors" shouldn't it naturally be top ranking?

libeclipse 10y ago
That's not what the article is about. It's about misinformation; the fact that people are citing these sites and touting numbers that "prove" that Hilary lost on both electoral and popular vote.
- thisisdallas 10y ago
  > touting numbers that "prove" that Hilary lost on both electoral and popular vote. Which is moot point until someone can scientifically prove the person who's calculations showed Hillary losing the popular vote are indeed inaccurate, correct?
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  I've seen some (really condescending) comments doing just that. I thought they were on drugs or just trolls.
guelo 10y ago
It pretends to be a fact, not opinion.
mikeash 10y ago
What gives you the impression that it's opinion and not fact? The article in question is making a factual claim, it just happens to be completely wrong. It's like googling "moon landing date" and the first hit is a page that sincerely argues "the moon landing never happened."
- thisisdallas 10y ago
  > It's like googling "moon landing date" and the first hit is a page that sincerely argues "the moon landing never happened." And that's what I am confused about. Isn't google suppose to the show the most popular result based on a set of criteria?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Not in the "news" section. The complaint isn't that it's the first hit in the regular search results, it's that it's the first hit under news. (Or rather, it was. Now this Washington Post piece is first, and the false article is second!)
    - thisisdallas 10y ago
      Ahh ok, I see. Odd.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

libeclipse 10y ago

That's not what the article is about. It's about misinformation; the fact that people are citing these sites and touting numbers that "prove" that Hilary lost on both electoral and popular vote.

thisisdallas 10y ago
> touting numbers that "prove" that Hilary lost on both electoral and popular vote. Which is moot point until someone can scientifically prove the person who's calculations showed Hillary losing the popular vote are indeed inaccurate, correct?
0xfeba 10y ago
I've seen some (really condescending) comments doing just that. I thought they were on drugs or just trolls.

guelo 10y ago

It pretends to be a fact, not opinion.

mikeash 10y ago

What gives you the impression that it's opinion and not fact? The article in question is making a factual claim, it just happens to be completely wrong. It's like googling "moon landing date" and the first hit is a page that sincerely argues "the moon landing never happened."

thisisdallas 10y ago
> It's like googling "moon landing date" and the first hit is a page that sincerely argues "the moon landing never happened." And that's what I am confused about. Isn't google suppose to the show the most popular result based on a set of criteria?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Not in the "news" section. The complaint isn't that it's the first hit in the regular search results, it's that it's the first hit under news. (Or rather, it was. Now this Washington Post piece is first, and the false article is second!)
  - thisisdallas 10y ago
    Ahh ok, I see. Odd.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]