3 ms·
First, I don't agree with your assessment of the article at all. There are multiple concrete assertions regarding manipulations of the search rankings themselve
by dunkelheit 7y ago
First, I don't agree with your assessment of the article at all. There are multiple concrete assertions regarding manipulations of the search rankings themselves. I also don't agree that it is somehow "more okay" to manipulate autocomplete results than the search results proper.
Second, I think the big chunk of the problem here is lack of transparency. Google has traditionally been very secretive about its algorithms to avoid tipping off spammers. So if you ask them directly they will hem and haw when in fact they ban spammers and also, as the article reports, they moderate inflammatory content and manually boost rankings of specific websites. The question is - what is the exact scope of these activities? Where is the red line that they will not cross? I think the public deserves to know.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoWhat’s a site they’ve manually boosted?
- dunkelheit 7y ago> Google made algorithmic changes to its search results that favor big businesses over smaller ones, and in at least one case made changes on behalf of a major advertiser, eBay Inc., contrary to its public position that it never takes that type of action. The company also boosts some major websites, such as Amazon.com Inc. and Facebook Inc., according to people familiar with the matter. Of course the exact nature of changes and boosts remains unknown but that's just underlines the need for transparency.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago"algorithmic changes" implies the boost is not manual.
- soraminazuki 7y agoAn "algorithm" still implies human intent. Heck, even a blacklisting system is still a form of an "algorithm." Even if each changes to the algorithms Google have made in the past may be justified, the public can't make an informed decision about it if it's not transparent about what it actually does.