4 ms·

Google can't interfere with its own search algorithms by definition. It is their design and theirs alone. The accusation isn't merely wrong but impossible gener

Google can't interfere with its own search algorithms by definition. It is their design and theirs alone. The accusation isn't merely wrong but impossible generically. The whole goddamn point of a search engine is to privledge certain results over another. The claims of armies of contractors reek of the zombie lies of their persecution complex.

pfortuny 7y ago
It stops being a search algorithm when it becomes an ad algorithm.
ineedasername 7y ago
Sure, you can define algorithm to be "whatever Google does" in this way, but that misses the point: The point isn't that they violate the algorithm, that is just a semantic convenience in presenting the article. The point is that they privilege and editorialize the results in ways they have claimed they do not do.
riazrizvi 7y ago
An algorithm implies an objective rules based system as opposed to one that changes to the whims of its operators. With a whimsical system an advertiser can come in and ask an operator to rank it up in the organic section where Google claims the rankings are based on page rank. You’re tied to the meaning of algorithm from a developer perspective where you can make things do whatever you want. In the Journal’s non-developer community an Algorithm is different to Do-What-You-Want, it’s a set of high level rules that are small enough to explain.
buboard 7y ago
"google's algorithm" is not an actual algorithm but the promise of organizing the world's information in an impartial way using machines instead of bribes. It was their selling point when they made the site, and their users have not forgotten those promises. http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ > Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Google does both nowadays. Shame
dunkelheit 7y ago
While what you are saying is obviously correct on some level, degree of control matters. If you ask google, they will happily tell you a story about a vast inscrutable "artificial intelligence" that soaks up wisdom of the internet and that they can control only in the broadest terms, when in reality the degree of control is much more granular. Why is this distinction important? From the article itself: > THE JOURNAL’S FINDINGS undercut one of Google’s core defenses against global regulators worried about how it wields its immense power—that the company doesn’t exert editorial control over what it shows users.

pfortuny 7y ago

It stops being a search algorithm when it becomes an ad algorithm.

ineedasername 7y ago

Sure, you can define algorithm to be "whatever Google does" in this way, but that misses the point: The point isn't that they violate the algorithm, that is just a semantic convenience in presenting the article. The point is that they privilege and editorialize the results in ways they have claimed they do not do.

riazrizvi 7y ago

An algorithm implies an objective rules based system as opposed to one that changes to the whims of its operators. With a whimsical system an advertiser can come in and ask an operator to rank it up in the organic section where Google claims the rankings are based on page rank. You’re tied to the meaning of algorithm from a developer perspective where you can make things do whatever you want. In the Journal’s non-developer community an Algorithm is different to Do-What-You-Want, it’s a set of high level rules that are small enough to explain.

buboard 7y ago

"google's algorithm" is not an actual algorithm but the promise of organizing the world's information in an impartial way using machines instead of bribes. It was their selling point when they made the site, and their users have not forgotten those promises. http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ > Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries [Marchiori 97]. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who "deserves" to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed. This business model resulted in an uproar, and OpenText has ceased to be a viable search engine. But less blatant bias are likely to be tolerated by the market. For example, a search engine could add a small factor to search results from "friendly" companies, and subtract a factor from results from competitors. This type of bias is very difficult to detect but could still have a significant effect on the market. Google does both nowadays. Shame

dunkelheit 7y ago

While what you are saying is obviously correct on some level, degree of control matters. If you ask google, they will happily tell you a story about a vast inscrutable "artificial intelligence" that soaks up wisdom of the internet and that they can control only in the broadest terms, when in reality the degree of control is much more granular. Why is this distinction important? From the article itself: > THE JOURNAL’S FINDINGS undercut one of Google’s core defenses against global regulators worried about how it wields its immense power—that the company doesn’t exert editorial control over what it shows users.