5 ms·

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."

by dhimes 8y ago

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
      Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^
      - potta_coffee 8y ago
        It's easily substantiated by searching different terms and observing the difference between what you're searching for and what results are provided.
        dagenix 8y ago
        That proves nothing. 1. It's subjective if the results are wrong. _You_ know what you are looking for, Google however has to guess. And it's algorithms aren't perfect at figuring out _your_ intent - even though they may do a fine job for the average person. Right now, for me, the top result is from a Reddit thread about this very query. The rest are things like "black and white couple" and "couple with white background". These aren't what you expect, but, it makes sense why they are being returned. 2. Your test does nothing to establish intent. A pretty reasonable explanation for the search results is just that that is what the algorithm does. 3. I'm sure someone can come up with some theory about how tweaking the results of this very specific search is a nefarious plot to promote interracial relationships - but it requires some pretty tortured logic to conclude that such a plan would, even if true, be even remotely effective at accomplishing it's goal. That's basically the Hallmark of a conspiracy theory.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Is it though? The term “white couple” is already racially charged and its use across the internet will often be in that context. Are you implying that there are Google employees manually tinkering with the result of millions of search terms for the purposes of influencing the American population? And nobody at Google has leaked it? That’s hilarious. And how is that influence campaign going to work on a practical level? Are you assuming people are so dumb as to change their opinion on core political matters because their racially charged search term didn’t acid wash the internet of its diversity??
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.

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."

by 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
    Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^
    - potta_coffee 8y ago
      It's easily substantiated by searching different terms and observing the difference between what you're searching for and what results are provided.
      - dagenix 8y ago
        That proves nothing. 1. It's subjective if the results are wrong. _You_ know what you are looking for, Google however has to guess. And it's algorithms aren't perfect at figuring out _your_ intent - even though they may do a fine job for the average person. Right now, for me, the top result is from a Reddit thread about this very query. The rest are things like "black and white couple" and "couple with white background". These aren't what you expect, but, it makes sense why they are being returned. 2. Your test does nothing to establish intent. A pretty reasonable explanation for the search results is just that that is what the algorithm does. 3. I'm sure someone can come up with some theory about how tweaking the results of this very specific search is a nefarious plot to promote interracial relationships - but it requires some pretty tortured logic to conclude that such a plan would, even if true, be even remotely effective at accomplishing it's goal. That's basically the Hallmark of a conspiracy theory.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Is it though? The term “white couple” is already racially charged and its use across the internet will often be in that context. Are you implying that there are Google employees manually tinkering with the result of millions of search terms for the purposes of influencing the American population? And nobody at Google has leaked it? That’s hilarious. And how is that influence campaign going to work on a practical level? Are you assuming people are so dumb as to change their opinion on core political matters because their racially charged search term didn’t acid wash the internet of its diversity??

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.