4 ms·

Google is all about filtering. It doesn't just show you a random selection of every page on the internet containing your search term. Instead it applies subject

by hsod 9y ago

Google is all about filtering. It doesn't just show you a random selection of every page on the internet containing your search term. Instead it applies subjective criteria to present you with what Google thinks would be the "best" results for you. This is why people use Google. So I don't understand when people make the generic argument against filtering, that filtering is categorically bad and Google shouldn't be in the business of deciding what we see and don't see. That's the whole point of Google!

musage 9y ago
> This is why people use Google. Wait, what? I use it despite that. Since 2000. Everybody seeing the same search results was never a problem, and sometimes even useful. There is a wide area between "just show random pages" (which probably not even the first prototype of any search engine ever did) and a "personal" filter you can't configure at all.
- musage 9y ago
  For the downvoters, this may come as a shock to you, but you don't get to tell me the reality of my life, either. And there is more than "random matches" and "personal filter", that's so banal it shouldn't even need saying, but apparently it does. So far you've only shown the desire to shut up what you can not argue with.
- hsod 9y ago
  I don't mean the filter is personalized to you, I just mean that there is a filter! That is, Google doesn't believe every website is equally "good", they Rank Pages based on subjective criteria. I just don't get why no one has a problem with Google trying to filter out spam (even though it can't be detected with 100% accuracy) but trying to prevent 4chan/GatewayPundit's blatant and obvious lies from being elevated is a place to take a principled stand. Where are the tears for the spammers and scammers who have been so unfairly censored by Google for so many years?
  - musage 9y ago
    > I just don't get why no one has a problem with Google trying to filter out spam (even though it can't be detected with 100% accuracy) but trying to prevent 4chan/GatewayPundit's blatant and obvious lies from being elevated is a place to take a principled stand. What does this have to do with personal filters? Yes, there are filters, Google has to "make decisions", and parse language. That's a given. But that doesn't require showing different things to different people. With a personalized algorithm behind the curtain, googling for "Pizza" might show you where to get Pizza near where you are, and let's say "Pizza in general" would give the results that just typing "Pizza" without a personal filter would give. So you have "Pizza / Pizza in general" vs. "Pizza shop in $city / Pizza". Big deal? What was gained here? You trade some convenience for the impossibility to get the search results everybody else is getting. When I ask someone what they think is the X-est Y, and they first have a list of questions for me to answer first so they can tailor their response to me -- not to clarify the question, mind you, but so they can tell me something I might like to hear -- I won't be asking that person for their opinion again. > they Rank Pages based on subjective criteria. That's not how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
    - hsod 9y ago
      I feel like we're talking past each other. Personalization of search results is orthogonal to this article and discussion so I'm going to pass on responding to your points there. As for PageRank, I really appreciate the Wikipedia link. Super helpful. If you're arguing that PR is not subjective because it uses an algorithm, my response is: the algorithm encodes subjective judgements about how to evaluate "quality" in a web page. For example, the subjective judgement that a web page is likely to be of higher quality if there are a lot of other high quality web pages that link to it.

by hsod 9y ago

musage 9y ago

> This is why people use Google. Wait, what? I use it despite that. Since 2000. Everybody seeing the same search results was never a problem, and sometimes even useful. There is a wide area between "just show random pages" (which probably not even the first prototype of any search engine ever did) and a "personal" filter you can't configure at all.

musage 9y ago
For the downvoters, this may come as a shock to you, but you don't get to tell me the reality of my life, either. And there is more than "random matches" and "personal filter", that's so banal it shouldn't even need saying, but apparently it does. So far you've only shown the desire to shut up what you can not argue with.
hsod 9y ago
I don't mean the filter is personalized to you, I just mean that there is a filter! That is, Google doesn't believe every website is equally "good", they Rank Pages based on subjective criteria. I just don't get why no one has a problem with Google trying to filter out spam (even though it can't be detected with 100% accuracy) but trying to prevent 4chan/GatewayPundit's blatant and obvious lies from being elevated is a place to take a principled stand. Where are the tears for the spammers and scammers who have been so unfairly censored by Google for so many years?
- musage 9y ago
  > I just don't get why no one has a problem with Google trying to filter out spam (even though it can't be detected with 100% accuracy) but trying to prevent 4chan/GatewayPundit's blatant and obvious lies from being elevated is a place to take a principled stand. What does this have to do with personal filters? Yes, there are filters, Google has to "make decisions", and parse language. That's a given. But that doesn't require showing different things to different people. With a personalized algorithm behind the curtain, googling for "Pizza" might show you where to get Pizza near where you are, and let's say "Pizza in general" would give the results that just typing "Pizza" without a personal filter would give. So you have "Pizza / Pizza in general" vs. "Pizza shop in $city / Pizza". Big deal? What was gained here? You trade some convenience for the impossibility to get the search results everybody else is getting. When I ask someone what they think is the X-est Y, and they first have a list of questions for me to answer first so they can tailor their response to me -- not to clarify the question, mind you, but so they can tell me something I might like to hear -- I won't be asking that person for their opinion again. > they Rank Pages based on subjective criteria. That's not how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
  - hsod 9y ago
    I feel like we're talking past each other. Personalization of search results is orthogonal to this article and discussion so I'm going to pass on responding to your points there. As for PageRank, I really appreciate the Wikipedia link. Super helpful. If you're arguing that PR is not subjective because it uses an algorithm, my response is: the algorithm encodes subjective judgements about how to evaluate "quality" in a web page. For example, the subjective judgement that a web page is likely to be of higher quality if there are a lot of other high quality web pages that link to it.