4 ms·

Even though I am convinced that the holocaust did happen, I'm not sure that Google should be tweaking their algorithms until they show the results Google wants

Even though I am convinced that the holocaust did happen, I'm not sure that Google should be tweaking their algorithms until they show the results Google wants you to see...

euyyn 10y ago
On the other hand, if you think about it, working on improving the quality of a search engine's results is tweaking its algorithm until it shows the results you think are better. A search engine that presents you with relevant, true information on a subject you don't know about (or about which you might be misinformed) sounds more quality IMO than one that doesn't. I hope the algorithm is generic (instead of one-ofs for specific subjects).
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  For this specific example it's alright, but when Google starts responding to public pressure by tweaking the algorithm to get rid of specific results, it's not that big a step going from something like this to something more questionable.
  - konceptz 10y ago
    Did we forget what page rank was? A way to find relevant and accurate information on the internet. This is why edu pages and pages with many (reputable) citations were ranked higher. Remember this is not twitter where popularity = truth. I do agree that it's dangerous but it's not new; this is built into the DNA of google searching.
- inimino 10y ago
  I very much doubt that it is generic. Unless they have an artificial intelligence that analyzes queries, reviews the whole of human knowledge and determines the truth, and then prioritizes search results accordingly, it would seem more likely that they are manually stepping in. Once the media got hold of this story it isn't surprising they took action. I would guess they are simply adding an "odiousness" factor to some sites which will penalize them in search results, or giving a boost to "consensus" sites as necessary until the results are socially and politically acceptable.
wcummings 10y ago
You think holocaust denial sites are high quality sources of information? If you asked a librarian for information about the holocaust would they present you with this information? Nope.
- inimino 10y ago
  Google is not a librarian. The expectation of search engines in the early days was that they were neutral parties and reflected whatever ideas were current on the Web itself. Since then, people gaming Google results for political reasons, and the occasional Google countermeasures such as this one, have become routine. In the current climate the technological gatekeepers are being explicitly politicized very quickly. To me this is part of a rejection of personal responsibility for political opinions and an urge to lay blame. I wonder if we won't soon see distinct social media and even search engines with distinct political biases, as we do already with traditional media.
  - wcummings 10y ago
    PageRank is hardly neutral. I don't believe this was ever an expectation among educated users. The number of back links a site gets, or its gov/edu tld have nothing to do with its content.
    - inimino 10y ago
      It's an algorithm, so it is by definition neutral with regard to things that are invisible to algorithms. Back links are (were) a proxy for content quality, as are domains. Setting per-domain weights is not neutral, but incoming links as a measure is. That is to say, it is not open to political bias on the part of Google. The shift towards increasing political interference with these algorithms raises additional issues. Google becomes responsible for what you are able to see, rather than just showing you what exists on the web relevant to your query. You may remember that Google exited the world's largest market some time ago precisely because they were not willing to accept political influence on search results.

Even though I am convinced that the holocaust did happen, I'm not sure that Google should be tweaking their algorithms until they show the results Google wants you to see...

euyyn 10y ago

On the other hand, if you think about it, working on improving the quality of a search engine's results is tweaking its algorithm until it shows the results you think are better. A search engine that presents you with relevant, true information on a subject you don't know about (or about which you might be misinformed) sounds more quality IMO than one that doesn't. I hope the algorithm is generic (instead of one-ofs for specific subjects).

kahrkunne 10y ago
For this specific example it's alright, but when Google starts responding to public pressure by tweaking the algorithm to get rid of specific results, it's not that big a step going from something like this to something more questionable.
- konceptz 10y ago
  Did we forget what page rank was? A way to find relevant and accurate information on the internet. This is why edu pages and pages with many (reputable) citations were ranked higher. Remember this is not twitter where popularity = truth. I do agree that it's dangerous but it's not new; this is built into the DNA of google searching.
inimino 10y ago
I very much doubt that it is generic. Unless they have an artificial intelligence that analyzes queries, reviews the whole of human knowledge and determines the truth, and then prioritizes search results accordingly, it would seem more likely that they are manually stepping in. Once the media got hold of this story it isn't surprising they took action. I would guess they are simply adding an "odiousness" factor to some sites which will penalize them in search results, or giving a boost to "consensus" sites as necessary until the results are socially and politically acceptable.

wcummings 10y ago

You think holocaust denial sites are high quality sources of information? If you asked a librarian for information about the holocaust would they present you with this information? Nope.

inimino 10y ago
Google is not a librarian. The expectation of search engines in the early days was that they were neutral parties and reflected whatever ideas were current on the Web itself. Since then, people gaming Google results for political reasons, and the occasional Google countermeasures such as this one, have become routine. In the current climate the technological gatekeepers are being explicitly politicized very quickly. To me this is part of a rejection of personal responsibility for political opinions and an urge to lay blame. I wonder if we won't soon see distinct social media and even search engines with distinct political biases, as we do already with traditional media.
- wcummings 10y ago
  PageRank is hardly neutral. I don't believe this was ever an expectation among educated users. The number of back links a site gets, or its gov/edu tld have nothing to do with its content.
  - inimino 10y ago
    It's an algorithm, so it is by definition neutral with regard to things that are invisible to algorithms. Back links are (were) a proxy for content quality, as are domains. Setting per-domain weights is not neutral, but incoming links as a measure is. That is to say, it is not open to political bias on the part of Google. The shift towards increasing political interference with these algorithms raises additional issues. Google becomes responsible for what you are able to see, rather than just showing you what exists on the web relevant to your query. You may remember that Google exited the world's largest market some time ago precisely because they were not willing to accept political influence on search results.