5 ms·

"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias

by kofejnik 7y ago

sergiotapia 7y ago
Correct but you will be downvoted here of course. Edit: and now this comment is flagged.
- sctb 7y ago
  > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dguaraglia 7y ago
The DailyMail isn't reputable by any standard. If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it. Yes, at CNN.
zimpenfish 7y ago
Not solely. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... > The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. I'm surprised it took Google 2 years to get around to the same viewpoint.
- Matsta 7y ago
  I mentioned in my comment, but I think they have been struck with a manual action from Google. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.
  - driverdan 7y ago
    Wikipedia is not a primary source. Even so it's more trustworthy than The Daily Mail.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?
    - Bartweiss 7y ago
      It's sort of funny how knee-jerk "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has become. It is among other things a user-editable encyclopedia. It's also the largest project of the Wikimedia foundation, an online-encyclopedia development initiative with a paid staff, and one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. As you say, it is a primary source here. The question isn't what's on the Daily Mail's anyone-can-edit Wikipedia page, it's what a closed group of encyclopedia overseers have decided constitutes an acceptable source. What's more, the closest competitor, Britannica, relies on finding expert contributors instead of listing specific reputable sources, so its editors wouldn't be nearly as relevant here!
    - creaghpatr 7y ago
      >The editors of an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented conflicts among the editors.
      - viraptor 7y ago
        Crowdsourced is the only difference here. Encyclopedia editors can also be biased. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...
- droithomme 7y ago
  How long until Google realizes the same about CNN and several other tabloid sites.
mabbo 7y ago
I'm on the fence with whether I agree with you. Yes, biases may come into play, but Daily Mail has always played fast and loose with facts. If Google has found a way to identify bullshit like that and de-prioritize it from search results, that's both amazing and good for the world. It would encourage DailyMail to focus on news, facts, reality and not their usual tabloid fare.
orwin 7y ago
And if it's not the majority definition and does actually not improve the search experience, the market will punish them for it. I'm nearly degooglized (youtube vulgarisation videos are hard to pass sadly), i'm not a fan of their policies and their control of the market, but come on, this argument do not stand.
stcredzero 7y ago
"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias I think a fair assessment wouldn't pin 100% of the cause to Google's ideological bias. However, a fair assessment of the situation would also acknowledge the existence of Google's ideological bias.

"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias

sergiotapia 7y ago

Correct but you will be downvoted here of course. Edit: and now this comment is flagged.

sctb 7y ago
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dguaraglia 7y ago

The DailyMail isn't reputable by any standard. If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it.

droithomme 7y ago
> If people want to consume trash, they know where to find it. Yes, at CNN.

zimpenfish 7y ago

Not solely. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... > The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. I'm surprised it took Google 2 years to get around to the same viewpoint.

Matsta 7y ago
I mentioned in my comment, but I think they have been struck with a manual action from Google. Reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en
creaghpatr 7y ago
Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.
- driverdan 7y ago
  Wikipedia is not a primary source. Even so it's more trustworthy than The Daily Mail.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    It's sort of funny how knee-jerk "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has become. It is among other things a user-editable encyclopedia. It's also the largest project of the Wikimedia foundation, an online-encyclopedia development initiative with a paid staff, and one of the highest-traffic websites in the world. As you say, it is a primary source here. The question isn't what's on the Daily Mail's anyone-can-edit Wikipedia page, it's what a closed group of encyclopedia overseers have decided constitutes an acceptable source. What's more, the closest competitor, Britannica, relies on finding expert contributors instead of listing specific reputable sources, so its editors wouldn't be nearly as relevant here!
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    >The editors of an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented conflicts among the editors.
    - viraptor 7y ago
      Crowdsourced is the only difference here. Encyclopedia editors can also be biased. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/...
droithomme 7y ago
How long until Google realizes the same about CNN and several other tabloid sites.

mabbo 7y ago

I'm on the fence with whether I agree with you. Yes, biases may come into play, but Daily Mail has always played fast and loose with facts. If Google has found a way to identify bullshit like that and de-prioritize it from search results, that's both amazing and good for the world. It would encourage DailyMail to focus on news, facts, reality and not their usual tabloid fare.

orwin 7y ago

And if it's not the majority definition and does actually not improve the search experience, the market will punish them for it. I'm nearly degooglized (youtube vulgarisation videos are hard to pass sadly), i'm not a fan of their policies and their control of the market, but come on, this argument do not stand.

stcredzero 7y ago

"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias I think a fair assessment wouldn't pin 100% of the cause to Google's ideological bias. However, a fair assessment of the situation would also acknowledge the existence of Google's ideological bias.