3 ms·
> Take a search for "Las Vegas shooting". What is the impartial process for deciding the most relevant result for that? Relevance is inherently editorial. In t
by untangle 9y ago
> Take a search for "Las Vegas shooting". What is the impartial process for deciding the most relevant result for that? Relevance is inherently editorial.
In that case, the search should be done on the NYT site (or similar).
Or perhaps Google should add a "Use Edited Sites only" preference as a category of SafeSearch.
- magicalist 9y ago> In that case, the search should be done on the NYT site (or similar). Huh? I'm saying the act of putting one site over another is itself a decision based on opinion. Should machine learning be used to determine if the site has a summary of the situation...or is that even what the user was asking for? Should it just have those exact words in it? Should it be the most cited link? From the most cited source overall or on this particular topic? Should it instead be based on the clicks that links to that site gets? Was the most relevant site even in the sites originally in the list of sites to crawl for an index? Also, not sure if you were just making a rhetorical point, but you'll note that your > on the NYT site (or similar). just kicks the can down the road. Why NYT? What similar sites are a good match instead? How do you even determine that some piece of writing is an editorial? Does it have to call itself that to qualify?