6 ms·

Google's search rankings are based on opinions held by other credible sources. This isn't really blowing the whistle when, as you admitted, Google admits this o

Google's search rankings are based on opinions held by other credible sources. This isn't really blowing the whistle when, as you admitted, Google admits this openly. And maybe your site doesn't get ranked well because it's directly tied to project veritas. I don't like being too political, especially on hn and on an account tied to my real identity, but project veritas and it's associates exhibit appalling behavior in duplicity and misdirection. I would hope that trash like this does get pushed to the bottom.

leereeves 7y ago
In a political context, "credible" is often a synonym for "agrees with me". Anyone ranking "page quality" should be conscious of and try to avoid that, and yet the word "bias" doesn't even appear in the linked guidelines for Search Quality Raters. Of course Google's own bias (and involvement in particular political campaigns) is well known, and opposed to Project Veritas, so it's quite possible that you are right and Google is downranking PV. Would that be good? Well, that's an opinion that depends mostly on the bias of the commentator.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas I doubt this affected search rankings but Project Veritas does have a ton of credibility issues.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    I see some claims that PV edited videos, selectively removing portions to give a particular impression, which may well be true. But when CNN did that[1,2], changing "take that shit [violence] to the suburbs" into "a call for peace", the left wing media ignored it. Wikipedia editors didn't add it to CNN's page[3] or add a message that CNN has a history of deceptively editing videos. That's why it's so important to get information from many sources, because every source (including Wikipedia) is selectively edited to favor an agenda. At the very least, by choosing what stories to cover, but sometimes more blatantly. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA 2: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for-not-airing-full-clip-of-milwaukee-sister#.wkb8J8Ganx https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN
    - skosch 7y ago
      Two wrongs don't make a right – but more importantly, Project Veritas deliberately uses lies and deception to obtain its footage, which it then edits to remove context. That crosses a line far beyond run-of-the-mill reporting bias.
      - wavepruner 7y ago
        Michael Moore films and edits his documentaries in a similar fashion.
        jjeaff 7y ago
        I agree. I watched one of his newer docs and anytime I heard something that just seemed too crazy to be true, I researched it. And in all cases, I found that important context was missing and in some cases, the evidence for the point being made was almost completely fabricated.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        The point of that story isn't "two wrongs make a right", but that the left wing still accepts CNN just as the right wing still accepts PV. "Gotchas" and "gaffes" are taken out of context all the time. And when reporters lie to go undercover and obtain a story, they're usually hailed as heroes. These objections are only used to "discredit" opposing viewpoints. People don't object when sources they agree with use the same tactics.
        lostcolony 7y ago
        I'm sorry, whataboutism doesn't actually lend credence. You're free to select the occasional time when a news agency gets it wrong (and apologizes and issues a correction)...but to try and compare it to an intentionally biased organization that always, intentionally gets it wrong (by willfully setting up people, then editing their responses, to paint things in a particular light), and never backs down, never apologizes, well...at best, your bias is showing.
  - burfog 7y ago
    They are getting slammed hard by the powerful people and corporations that they have been exposing. Wikipedia edit wars often do not converge on the truth. Project Veritas is highly reliable. The worst you could legitimately accuse them of is a bit of overexcited promotion when an upcoming video is mundane. They are more trustworthy than all of the big-budget news programs.
  - qbaqbaqba 7y ago
    And so does wikipedia.
  - zackees 7y ago
    Project Veritas does not have credibility issues. They have never issued a single retraction. If this surprises you, then welcome to the systematic bias of wikipedia.
- wwweston 7y ago
  > In a political context, "credible" is often a synonym for "agrees with me". Not among credible sources.
skosch 7y ago
His website contains gems like "Things got political in June 2017 when Google deleted "covfefe" out of it's arabic translation dictionary in order to make a Trump tweet become nonsense." (No, covfefe doesn't mean anything in Arabic.) Here is someone who believes that a private company's open attempts to rank websites by quality amounts to "seditious behaviour" deserving of criminal prosecution, and the only people willing to pay attention were Project Veritas. Google has plenty of ethics issues, but this guy's claims are absurd.
- zackees 7y ago
  Not only is it a word, but Google had to delete the word twice. https://www.zachvorhies.com/covfefe.html https://www.zachvorhies.com/covfefe.html
pjc50 7y ago
Meta-comment, but this is partly why search and the internet is so bad now; there are a large number of political disinformation campaigns which are getting increasingly blatant, and getting better at finding believers on the internet. People have a vested interest in destroying the idea that anything can be a non-partisan "fact". Anything can become a smear. Only the most absolutely egregious ones can be reined in by legal action (e.g. Alex Jones libelling the Sandy Hook parents). (This is not just internet, of course; the British press mendacity towards the Royal family is playing out at the moment.)

leereeves 7y ago

In a political context, "credible" is often a synonym for "agrees with me". Anyone ranking "page quality" should be conscious of and try to avoid that, and yet the word "bias" doesn't even appear in the linked guidelines for Search Quality Raters. Of course Google's own bias (and involvement in particular political campaigns) is well known, and opposed to Project Veritas, so it's quite possible that you are right and Google is downranking PV. Would that be good? Well, that's an opinion that depends mostly on the bias of the commentator.

JamesBarney 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas I doubt this affected search rankings but Project Veritas does have a ton of credibility issues.
- leereeves 7y ago
  I see some claims that PV edited videos, selectively removing portions to give a particular impression, which may well be true. But when CNN did that[1,2], changing "take that shit [violence] to the suburbs" into "a call for peace", the left wing media ignored it. Wikipedia editors didn't add it to CNN's page[3] or add a message that CNN has a history of deceptively editing videos. That's why it's so important to get information from many sources, because every source (including Wikipedia) is selectively edited to favor an agenda. At the very least, by choosing what stories to cover, but sometimes more blatantly. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-8Cn6boqcA 2: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for-not-airing-full-clip-of-milwaukee-sister#.wkb8J8Ganx https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN
  - skosch 7y ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right – but more importantly, Project Veritas deliberately uses lies and deception to obtain its footage, which it then edits to remove context. That crosses a line far beyond run-of-the-mill reporting bias.
    - wavepruner 7y ago
      Michael Moore films and edits his documentaries in a similar fashion.
      - jjeaff 7y ago
        I agree. I watched one of his newer docs and anytime I heard something that just seemed too crazy to be true, I researched it. And in all cases, I found that important context was missing and in some cases, the evidence for the point being made was almost completely fabricated.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      The point of that story isn't "two wrongs make a right", but that the left wing still accepts CNN just as the right wing still accepts PV. "Gotchas" and "gaffes" are taken out of context all the time. And when reporters lie to go undercover and obtain a story, they're usually hailed as heroes. These objections are only used to "discredit" opposing viewpoints. People don't object when sources they agree with use the same tactics.
      - lostcolony 7y ago
        I'm sorry, whataboutism doesn't actually lend credence. You're free to select the occasional time when a news agency gets it wrong (and apologizes and issues a correction)...but to try and compare it to an intentionally biased organization that always, intentionally gets it wrong (by willfully setting up people, then editing their responses, to paint things in a particular light), and never backs down, never apologizes, well...at best, your bias is showing.
- burfog 7y ago
  They are getting slammed hard by the powerful people and corporations that they have been exposing. Wikipedia edit wars often do not converge on the truth. Project Veritas is highly reliable. The worst you could legitimately accuse them of is a bit of overexcited promotion when an upcoming video is mundane. They are more trustworthy than all of the big-budget news programs.
- qbaqbaqba 7y ago
  And so does wikipedia.
- zackees 7y ago
  Project Veritas does not have credibility issues. They have never issued a single retraction. If this surprises you, then welcome to the systematic bias of wikipedia.
wwweston 7y ago
> In a political context, "credible" is often a synonym for "agrees with me". Not among credible sources.

skosch 7y ago

His website contains gems like "Things got political in June 2017 when Google deleted "covfefe" out of it's arabic translation dictionary in order to make a Trump tweet become nonsense." (No, covfefe doesn't mean anything in Arabic.) Here is someone who believes that a private company's open attempts to rank websites by quality amounts to "seditious behaviour" deserving of criminal prosecution, and the only people willing to pay attention were Project Veritas. Google has plenty of ethics issues, but this guy's claims are absurd.

zackees 7y ago
Not only is it a word, but Google had to delete the word twice. https://www.zachvorhies.com/covfefe.html https://www.zachvorhies.com/covfefe.html

pjc50 7y ago

Meta-comment, but this is partly why search and the internet is so bad now; there are a large number of political disinformation campaigns which are getting increasingly blatant, and getting better at finding believers on the internet. People have a vested interest in destroying the idea that anything can be a non-partisan "fact". Anything can become a smear. Only the most absolutely egregious ones can be reined in by legal action (e.g. Alex Jones libelling the Sandy Hook parents). (This is not just internet, of course; the British press mendacity towards the Royal family is playing out at the moment.)