4 ms·

That's absolutely the wrong way to go about looking at it. Not all facts are of equal importance. 97 correct facts about, say, gardening, and three incorrect fa

by untog 9y ago

That's absolutely the wrong way to go about looking at it. Not all facts are of equal importance. 97 correct facts about, say, gardening, and three incorrect facts about first aid is not a successful system. If Google is presenting the tool as a canonical source of truth, it needs to be right 100% of the time. In fact, being right 97.4% of the time is worse in many ways, as it lulls people into a false sense of security about how much they can trust the system. Get 97/100 obvious answers correct, then give someone wildly inappropriate advice when they ask something more "off piste". And let's not delude ourselves here, Google isn't doing this out of an altrustic desire to help people. They're making sure fewer people leave google.com, in the process starving the very sites they're getting information from of revenue. That should worry all of us. > we are mandated by management and ownership to produce anti-google PR and provide a steady supply of ammunition to its critics. This feels like an absurd criticism. Couldn't it apply to absolutely every negative thing written about Google, ever? Why should Google be immune from criticism?

pesenti 9y ago
And that’s a ridiculous standard because there is no such thing as 100% when talking about knowledge. Humans and experts wouldn’t agree 100% of the time so it’s impossible for computers to get there.
- untog 9y ago
  So why create a feature that pretends such a thing is possible, and promote it as heavily as Google does? In many ways, "I'm feeling lucky" was a great middle ground - by clicking it you're implictly saying "I know this might not actually be what I'm looking for, but I'm willing to compromise". Google has taken that compromise and stuck it at the top of the search results page.
  - RyanZAG 9y ago
    For profit corporations require that the senior employees they hire for impossibly high paychecks are constantly providing benefits that can be brought up in quarterly board meetings. This means taking an already functional product and making changes to it -- any change -- that can be spun as being a positive improvement worthy of a promotion. Google Search is already where it should be. Yet Google Search employs thousands of incredibly expensive engineers. Something has to be done, and that "something" is rarely going to be good, and almost guaranteed to be something nobody actually wanted.
  - jsight 9y ago
    That seems like a question with a really obvious answer. Because it is useful, makes users happy, and generates revenue. There really isn't another useful standard to apply here.
    - untog 9y ago
      > There really isn't another useful standard to apply here. ...accuracy?
      - jsight 9y ago
        Good luck turning that into an objective standard for a search engine.
  - ArchReaper 9y ago
    Is your argument "Google should not be allowed to do anything if their algorithms aren't 100% flawless and perfect"? I really am failing to understand your viewpoint.
    - untog 9y ago
      No, my argument is "Google should not present results as if they are an absolute answer when they are not capable of knowing whether that is true". It's pretty simple: a list of search results does not imply certainty. Injecting a single "answer" does. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's as if they have decided that the "I'm feeling lucky" button should apply to everyone.
      - ArchReaper 9y ago
        I guess I fundamentally disagree that them providing an 'answer' is somehow unethical, unless there is some kind of verbiage on the feature that claims 100% accuracy that I am unaware of.
      - Klathmon 9y ago
        But is google even implying that the results are the absolute answer? If I search for "how tall is tom cruise" and it gives me a number. It doesn't say that number is an absolute answer, it doesn't say that it's verified, it just shows the number. I personally don't see that as any different than if it returned a few websites, all of which say the same thing when I go to them. In all cases it's "Google" giving me the answer (an evil google could just as easily return websites with false results on purpose), but the way it currently works, it gives me the answer faster and in a better format. And even if that answer isn't 100% factually correct or verified in any way, it's still the same quality I would have gotten from google in any other method. If the answer is the same using both methods, wouldn't the only real solution to be "refuse to answer the question"?
        abiox 9y ago
        in the case of unattributed information, i would think some edge cases risk lawsuits (libel or other things) or pr problems if the information is wrong. imdb was sued for revealing a person's age; and while imdb won the case, a law in california was passed that dealt with the matter. what happens if google displays information about you that you feel is private (or some legal jurisdiction asserts is so)? i noticed that "what should i do if bitten by a snake" does have attribution. however, it seems to me that the information is presented in a "this is the answer" way, ie as trustworthy and actionable... what happens if following whatever google suggests results in harm or death? either way, i'm surprised google hasn't bothered to add couching language or some notional caveats. (even a "here's what we found:" seems reasonable distancing.)
mtgx 9y ago
Yes, this is just as misleading as NSA saying "we only intercept 1% of the world's traffic." Yeah, because 99% of the traffic is not communications, and most of it is video content and torrents.
jchw 9y ago
>This feels like an absurd criticism. Couldn't it apply to absolutely every negative thing written about Google, ever? Why should Google be immune from criticism? I think this is more a direct attack on WSJ's questionable neutrality rather than a strong defense of Google's behavior.
jdietrich 9y ago
>If Google is presenting the tool as a canonical source of truth, it needs to be right 100% of the time. Should we burn all the dictionaries and encyclopaedias because they aren't perfectly accurate? Textbooks don't have a black-box warning on the front page saying "The accuracy of this book cannot be guaranteed. Please verify any facts stated before storing them in your long-term memory or using them for any purpose"? "Truth" is an inherently messy concept. The very best curated sources and human experts are frequently fallible. If you assume that Google (or any other source) is infallibly accurate, then the problem lies with your education, not the source.
- untog 9y ago
  Google is not an encyclopedia or a dictionary, though. Encyclopedias are editorially curated products where each entry is researched and chosen very deliberately. The answers Google provides are picked by an algorithm and have nowhere near the level of oversight that dictionaries and encyclopedias do. > "Truth" is an inherently messy concept. The very best curated sources and human experts are frequently fallible. Here, we can agree. My objection is to Google presenting their tool as if it does provide one true answer to your question. "The problem lies in your education" is a fantastic way of absolving responsibility. What if people's education about tech is in fact exactly the problem? Do we shrug our shoulders and say "well, they should all know better" or do we proactively try to make the situation better?
  - UncleMeat 9y ago
    Yet Wikipedia is one of the greatest stores of knowledge on the planet, despite being full of inaccuracies.
    - untog 9y ago
      How many Wikipedia articles are one sentence saying "this is the answer"? None. If anything they're padded out to excess, detailing the different perspectives about any particular topic, complete with referencing and footnotes.

by untog 9y ago

pesenti 9y ago

And that’s a ridiculous standard because there is no such thing as 100% when talking about knowledge. Humans and experts wouldn’t agree 100% of the time so it’s impossible for computers to get there.

untog 9y ago
So why create a feature that pretends such a thing is possible, and promote it as heavily as Google does? In many ways, "I'm feeling lucky" was a great middle ground - by clicking it you're implictly saying "I know this might not actually be what I'm looking for, but I'm willing to compromise". Google has taken that compromise and stuck it at the top of the search results page.
- RyanZAG 9y ago
  For profit corporations require that the senior employees they hire for impossibly high paychecks are constantly providing benefits that can be brought up in quarterly board meetings. This means taking an already functional product and making changes to it -- any change -- that can be spun as being a positive improvement worthy of a promotion. Google Search is already where it should be. Yet Google Search employs thousands of incredibly expensive engineers. Something has to be done, and that "something" is rarely going to be good, and almost guaranteed to be something nobody actually wanted.
- jsight 9y ago
  That seems like a question with a really obvious answer. Because it is useful, makes users happy, and generates revenue. There really isn't another useful standard to apply here.
  - untog 9y ago
    > There really isn't another useful standard to apply here. ...accuracy?
    - jsight 9y ago
      Good luck turning that into an objective standard for a search engine.
- ArchReaper 9y ago
  Is your argument "Google should not be allowed to do anything if their algorithms aren't 100% flawless and perfect"? I really am failing to understand your viewpoint.
  - untog 9y ago
    No, my argument is "Google should not present results as if they are an absolute answer when they are not capable of knowing whether that is true". It's pretty simple: a list of search results does not imply certainty. Injecting a single "answer" does. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's as if they have decided that the "I'm feeling lucky" button should apply to everyone.
    - ArchReaper 9y ago
      I guess I fundamentally disagree that them providing an 'answer' is somehow unethical, unless there is some kind of verbiage on the feature that claims 100% accuracy that I am unaware of.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      But is google even implying that the results are the absolute answer? If I search for "how tall is tom cruise" and it gives me a number. It doesn't say that number is an absolute answer, it doesn't say that it's verified, it just shows the number. I personally don't see that as any different than if it returned a few websites, all of which say the same thing when I go to them. In all cases it's "Google" giving me the answer (an evil google could just as easily return websites with false results on purpose), but the way it currently works, it gives me the answer faster and in a better format. And even if that answer isn't 100% factually correct or verified in any way, it's still the same quality I would have gotten from google in any other method. If the answer is the same using both methods, wouldn't the only real solution to be "refuse to answer the question"?
      - abiox 9y ago
        in the case of unattributed information, i would think some edge cases risk lawsuits (libel or other things) or pr problems if the information is wrong. imdb was sued for revealing a person's age; and while imdb won the case, a law in california was passed that dealt with the matter. what happens if google displays information about you that you feel is private (or some legal jurisdiction asserts is so)? i noticed that "what should i do if bitten by a snake" does have attribution. however, it seems to me that the information is presented in a "this is the answer" way, ie as trustworthy and actionable... what happens if following whatever google suggests results in harm or death? either way, i'm surprised google hasn't bothered to add couching language or some notional caveats. (even a "here's what we found:" seems reasonable distancing.)

mtgx 9y ago

Yes, this is just as misleading as NSA saying "we only intercept 1% of the world's traffic." Yeah, because 99% of the traffic is not communications, and most of it is video content and torrents.

jchw 9y ago

>This feels like an absurd criticism. Couldn't it apply to absolutely every negative thing written about Google, ever? Why should Google be immune from criticism? I think this is more a direct attack on WSJ's questionable neutrality rather than a strong defense of Google's behavior.

jdietrich 9y ago

>If Google is presenting the tool as a canonical source of truth, it needs to be right 100% of the time. Should we burn all the dictionaries and encyclopaedias because they aren't perfectly accurate? Textbooks don't have a black-box warning on the front page saying "The accuracy of this book cannot be guaranteed. Please verify any facts stated before storing them in your long-term memory or using them for any purpose"? "Truth" is an inherently messy concept. The very best curated sources and human experts are frequently fallible. If you assume that Google (or any other source) is infallibly accurate, then the problem lies with your education, not the source.

untog 9y ago
Google is not an encyclopedia or a dictionary, though. Encyclopedias are editorially curated products where each entry is researched and chosen very deliberately. The answers Google provides are picked by an algorithm and have nowhere near the level of oversight that dictionaries and encyclopedias do. > "Truth" is an inherently messy concept. The very best curated sources and human experts are frequently fallible. Here, we can agree. My objection is to Google presenting their tool as if it does provide one true answer to your question. "The problem lies in your education" is a fantastic way of absolving responsibility. What if people's education about tech is in fact exactly the problem? Do we shrug our shoulders and say "well, they should all know better" or do we proactively try to make the situation better?
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Yet Wikipedia is one of the greatest stores of knowledge on the planet, despite being full of inaccuracies.
  - untog 9y ago
    How many Wikipedia articles are one sentence saying "this is the answer"? None. If anything they're padded out to excess, detailing the different perspectives about any particular topic, complete with referencing and footnotes.