7 ms·

Oh come on, that's just an absurd example. Gun rights and an article about gun control are literally the same thing. The article surfaced by Google's algorithm

Oh come on, that's just an absurd example. Gun rights and an article about gun control are literally the same thing. The article surfaced by Google's algorithm is the more relevant and comprehensive one when it comes to gun rights. I suspect anyone who disagrees is taking a provincial, American view on the subject, and is being triggered by the phrase "gun control".

jsega 8y ago
>I suspect anyone who disagrees is taking a provincial, American view on the subject, and is being triggered by the phrase "gun control". How open-minded of you. There is no better way to partake in a discussion in good faith then to use the old: If you disagree with me [insert negative suggestion here].
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  I'm an owner of firearms and in favor of the second amendment and I still agree with parent, Gun Control being highlighted as a relevant article makes complete sense, since Gun Control is fundamentally about rights related to firearm ownership.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    It's not absurd, but there is a page that fits the search term better in the same domain. That's what makes it "suspicious."
    - rovr138 8y ago
      The title and domain is not the only thing that matter for Google’s ranking.
      - jMyles 8y ago
        Right - of course. So the question is: are the other "things that matter" designed to: 1) Inform the user and help the user quickly find facts, narratives, and meaningful content related to the search phrase? 2) Sell things? 3) Promote modes of political control by narrowing the scope of acceptable thought and connection between search phrase and content? We all hope for #1. We all accept #2. But I think that most of us, at least until recently, had thought that #3 wasn't happening to any significant degree. I agree that results like this one are befuddling - a search for "Politically controversial and anti-state concept <foo>" brings as the first result, "Related but saccharine pro-state concept <bar>" when both foo and bar appear in approximately equal stature in the domain in question. Yeah, I think that's odd. And I don't see a way to easily explain it in the context of numbers 1 and 2 above.
        wool_gather 8y ago
        The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect from "Gun rights") and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control definitely put a different complexion on the subject -- or at least very closely related subjects -- and it seems like someone searching for "Gun rights" would probably be better served by being shown the first article. So I think you're right to be skeptical here. On the other hand, after a scan of each, I see two plausible reasons that the "Gun control" article might be elevated. One, it's somewhat longer, with more references and cross-links (it even has a "See also" link to the "Gun rights" article). Two, superficially, the "Gun control" article is a bit more internationally focused. The title of the "Gun rights" article is straight out of the U.S. Constitution. The appearance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny -- they both spend similar shares of their content on U.S. stuff -- but it might make a small difference. Regardless of the reason, it's definitely good to pay attention to this sort of thing.
        potta_coffee 8y ago
        Try Googling the term "white couple" as an image search - you will be provided with a page of interracial couples, not white couples. Not that I have a problem with interracial couples, my own family is interracial. But it's obvious how Google is attempting to influence the perspectives of it's users.
    - dagenix 8y ago
      According to you. There are a few other comments here with people expressing views that tue gun control article is actually the more useful result. Interpreting Google's ranking algorithm as a conspiracy to infrinage on gun rights is unsubstantiated by fact.
- sjwright 8y ago
  > How open-minded of you. Spoken like an American. You do know the rest of the world is doing just fine without your absurd gun "rights". I much prefer my "right" to live in a city where guns are exceptionally difficult to procure. That right keeps me much safer than your gun rights—and that's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.
  - dang 8y ago
    Nationalistic flamewar is not allowed on HN regardless of which nation you have a problem with. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Fair enough, but it's simply a fact that certain obvious societal problems begin and end at the boundaries of nations. I didn't choose for it to be like that, I wish it wasn't like that. I didn't create the world we live in.
      - dang 8y ago
        Ok, but please follow the rules when posting here. That means avoiding flamebait, including nationalistic swipes.
auto 8y ago
But there is a wikipedia article for gun rights, or at least a separately titled one that is redirected from gun rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms Why wouldn't that get autofilled on the front page of the search results instead?
- sct202 8y ago
  And right under that there is a suggested link for "Right to keep and bear arms." What is most likely happening is that the Gun Control page is more popular than the Right to keep and bear arms page, so the algo picked that one for the single card that they load. IDK what they use for ranking, but I would imagine that the fact that 'gun' appears in the title of one and not the other is impacting the matching and also the Gun Control page is much longer so it probably seems like a higher quality page versus the other one.
  - llampx 8y ago
    You don't seriously believe that, do you? Google has an agenda. They don't hire lobbyists on K street to fight for more neutral search results.
    - lolc 8y ago
      Having the word "gun" in the title explains why the "gun control" page is listed first. Positing Google does it because they have an agenda besides showing relevant results fails the law of parsimony here. Please explain how Google implements its agenda into the search results people see before mocking other people's statements.
      - partiallypro 8y ago
        It may not be "on purpose," but it is happening. Creators of algorithms inherently assign their own biases. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/12/why_google_search_results_favor_democrats.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/1... http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512 Also note that the top "organic" result on Google's search for "Gun Rights" is just a tag page from NPR. There is no way that's a relevant result. So even if it's not on purpose, it's a very poor result...and given it stands out more so than other keyword searches it seems a bit odd. Edit: down voted for citing study from the National Academy of Sciences, bubbles certainly are thick.
partiallypro 8y ago
"Gun Control" was not what was searched for, it is not up to Google to tip the scales on what ideological conclusion is seen, only what item is searched for with relevant results. They have a moral obligation to be neutral. If you were in Saudi Arabia, searched for "women's rights" and Google switched it to an article on "obedience to your husband," I'm sure you'd have a huge problem with that.
- lagadu 8y ago
  Yes it was. The concept of gun rights cannot exist without the concept of gun control, it's quite literally the same theme. Gun control is what defines which gun rights people have.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    To pretend that rights vs control are not highly loaded terms seems purposely ignorant. There are clearly a few ways of approaching the issue, and defaulting to one is undoubtedly going to annoy those of any other interpretation.
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Search "Free speech" and get "Censorship" would be your stance, then.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      The implication being what, that returning the “Censorship” article is pro-censorship? That people who choose to type in “free speech” are so stupid as to flip their position because Google responded with an article on the exact same topic, which is no more pro-censorship than the free speech article is pro-free-speech? You’re being silly.
      - sjwright 8y ago
        Oh no, my opinion is being voted down. Must be the algorithm!
dang 8y ago
Nationalistic flamebait is not allowed on HN. You continued it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18072292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18072292. That's not cool, and a bannable offense if you repeat it. Then you flagrantly broke the HN guidelines here and vandalized the thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18062563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18062563. If you do this again we will ban you as well. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18054615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18054615 and marked it off-topic.

jsega 8y ago

>I suspect anyone who disagrees is taking a provincial, American view on the subject, and is being triggered by the phrase "gun control". How open-minded of you. There is no better way to partake in a discussion in good faith then to use the old: If you disagree with me [insert negative suggestion here].

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I'm an owner of firearms and in favor of the second amendment and I still agree with parent, Gun Control being highlighted as a relevant article makes complete sense, since Gun Control is fundamentally about rights related to firearm ownership.
- dhimes 8y ago
  It's not absurd, but there is a page that fits the search term better in the same domain. That's what makes it "suspicious."
  - rovr138 8y ago
    The title and domain is not the only thing that matter for Google’s ranking.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Right - of course. So the question is: are the other "things that matter" designed to: 1) Inform the user and help the user quickly find facts, narratives, and meaningful content related to the search phrase? 2) Sell things? 3) Promote modes of political control by narrowing the scope of acceptable thought and connection between search phrase and content? We all hope for #1. We all accept #2. But I think that most of us, at least until recently, had thought that #3 wasn't happening to any significant degree. I agree that results like this one are befuddling - a search for "Politically controversial and anti-state concept <foo>" brings as the first result, "Related but saccharine pro-state concept <bar>" when both foo and bar appear in approximately equal stature in the domain in question. Yeah, I think that's odd. And I don't see a way to easily explain it in the context of numbers 1 and 2 above.
      - wool_gather 8y ago
        The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect from "Gun rights") and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control definitely put a different complexion on the subject -- or at least very closely related subjects -- and it seems like someone searching for "Gun rights" would probably be better served by being shown the first article. So I think you're right to be skeptical here. On the other hand, after a scan of each, I see two plausible reasons that the "Gun control" article might be elevated. One, it's somewhat longer, with more references and cross-links (it even has a "See also" link to the "Gun rights" article). Two, superficially, the "Gun control" article is a bit more internationally focused. The title of the "Gun rights" article is straight out of the U.S. Constitution. The appearance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny -- they both spend similar shares of their content on U.S. stuff -- but it might make a small difference. Regardless of the reason, it's definitely good to pay attention to this sort of thing.
      - potta_coffee 8y ago
        Try Googling the term "white couple" as an image search - you will be provided with a page of interracial couples, not white couples. Not that I have a problem with interracial couples, my own family is interracial. But it's obvious how Google is attempting to influence the perspectives of it's users.
  - dagenix 8y ago
    According to you. There are a few other comments here with people expressing views that tue gun control article is actually the more useful result. Interpreting Google's ranking algorithm as a conspiracy to infrinage on gun rights is unsubstantiated by fact.
sjwright 8y ago
> How open-minded of you. Spoken like an American. You do know the rest of the world is doing just fine without your absurd gun "rights". I much prefer my "right" to live in a city where guns are exceptionally difficult to procure. That right keeps me much safer than your gun rights—and that's an indisputable fact, not an opinion.
- dang 8y ago
  Nationalistic flamewar is not allowed on HN regardless of which nation you have a problem with. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Fair enough, but it's simply a fact that certain obvious societal problems begin and end at the boundaries of nations. I didn't choose for it to be like that, I wish it wasn't like that. I didn't create the world we live in.
    - dang 8y ago
      Ok, but please follow the rules when posting here. That means avoiding flamebait, including nationalistic swipes.

auto 8y ago

But there is a wikipedia article for gun rights, or at least a separately titled one that is redirected from gun rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms Why wouldn't that get autofilled on the front page of the search results instead?

sct202 8y ago
And right under that there is a suggested link for "Right to keep and bear arms." What is most likely happening is that the Gun Control page is more popular than the Right to keep and bear arms page, so the algo picked that one for the single card that they load. IDK what they use for ranking, but I would imagine that the fact that 'gun' appears in the title of one and not the other is impacting the matching and also the Gun Control page is much longer so it probably seems like a higher quality page versus the other one.
- llampx 8y ago
  You don't seriously believe that, do you? Google has an agenda. They don't hire lobbyists on K street to fight for more neutral search results.
  - lolc 8y ago
    Having the word "gun" in the title explains why the "gun control" page is listed first. Positing Google does it because they have an agenda besides showing relevant results fails the law of parsimony here. Please explain how Google implements its agenda into the search results people see before mocking other people's statements.
    - partiallypro 8y ago
      It may not be "on purpose," but it is happening. Creators of algorithms inherently assign their own biases. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/12/why_google_search_results_favor_democrats.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/1... http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512 Also note that the top "organic" result on Google's search for "Gun Rights" is just a tag page from NPR. There is no way that's a relevant result. So even if it's not on purpose, it's a very poor result...and given it stands out more so than other keyword searches it seems a bit odd. Edit: down voted for citing study from the National Academy of Sciences, bubbles certainly are thick.

partiallypro 8y ago

"Gun Control" was not what was searched for, it is not up to Google to tip the scales on what ideological conclusion is seen, only what item is searched for with relevant results. They have a moral obligation to be neutral. If you were in Saudi Arabia, searched for "women's rights" and Google switched it to an article on "obedience to your husband," I'm sure you'd have a huge problem with that.

lagadu 8y ago
Yes it was. The concept of gun rights cannot exist without the concept of gun control, it's quite literally the same theme. Gun control is what defines which gun rights people have.
- justtopost 8y ago
  To pretend that rights vs control are not highly loaded terms seems purposely ignorant. There are clearly a few ways of approaching the issue, and defaulting to one is undoubtedly going to annoy those of any other interpretation.
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  Search "Free speech" and get "Censorship" would be your stance, then.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    The implication being what, that returning the “Censorship” article is pro-censorship? That people who choose to type in “free speech” are so stupid as to flip their position because Google responded with an article on the exact same topic, which is no more pro-censorship than the free speech article is pro-free-speech? You’re being silly.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Oh no, my opinion is being voted down. Must be the algorithm!

dang 8y ago

Nationalistic flamebait is not allowed on HN. You continued it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18072292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18072292. That's not cool, and a bannable offense if you repeat it. Then you flagrantly broke the HN guidelines here and vandalized the thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18062563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18062563. If you do this again we will ban you as well. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules from now on. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18054615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18054615 and marked it off-topic.