4 ms·

> Google has become a card catalog that is constantly being reordered by an angry, misinformed mob. Ever heard of PageRank? Google was literally founded on an

by cmckn 7y ago

> Google has become a card catalog that is constantly being reordered by an angry, misinformed mob. Ever heard of PageRank? Google was literally founded on an algorithm that uses the endorsements of "an angry, misinformed mob" to determine importance/relevancy. Obviously this is only one factor in search results (and may not even be used anymore), but this approach is what has made Google successful. I don't disagree with the general point that the amount of content in today's Web makes the job of a search engine much harder. Perhaps some of Google's techniques lower the result quality for some users, for some queries. That's a much more boring title for a blog post, I guess.

midef 7y ago
The web wasn't mob-like at all in the beginning. Most of the content was created by reasonably educated people who were publishing because of passion, not profit or other motives.
blahedo 7y ago
> founded on ... the endorsements of "an angry, misinformed mob" I started grad school at Brown in 1997 and I remember a talk there, by someone from Google or connected to it, about PageRank. PageRank was still new, Google was still in beta. Free swag from dotcoms was literally growing on trees. But I digress. I remember that the narrative about PageRank at the time was not about popularity, but about expertise. I really remember that the presenter brought up a possible threat to validity—what about gaming the system?—and pointed out that if you wanted to persuade the system that you were an expert on a thing, you could get lots of people who talk about the thing a lot to point a link at your site. BUT, he says: that shows the system works! If you can get that many people who are at least mini-experts on the thing to point to you, the only way to do that would be if you, too, were persuasively an expert on the thing. (These were... naïve times in many ways.) Twenty years ago this was highly persuasive. It was an un-game-able system, because "gaming the system" meant the system changed you. I can be pretty cynical about a lot of things, including and especially Google, but I really do think that even Google itself believed this. The company was founded on an algorithm that rewarded expertise. It turned out that the algorithm also rewarded angry, misinformed mobs, so cmckn isn't exactly wrong here. But I think it's important to be clear that to the extent that Google's algorithms have always done this, they a) weren't meant to, and b) actually didn't in the very earliest days, because the WWW link structure really did, in the 90s, work like they thought it did. (Then the measure became the target, etc etc)
- jandrese 7y ago
  I wonder if in the fight against SEOs Google didn't accidentally punish actual experts. SEO organizations will relentlessly hound changes to Google's algorithm in ways that regular users do not. In the old days it was cost prohibitive to setup a massive network of interconnected fake hosts to boost your rank, but these days with cheap VPSes this is entirely possible and probably even profitable. I'm certainly not the only person who has searched for something and found a ton of differently styled blogs all hosting exactly the same content stolen from some legitimate website and clogging up pages of Google results.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  PageRank is not how Google tanks pages now. It's not the reason Google serves so much junk.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Links are still the super-major-almost-100% factor in determining ranking though, whether you call it PageRank or some other algorithm. It's why buying expired domains and throwing your totally unrelated content on them works great. It's why subdomain/folder leasing is a thing where affiliate sites will pay "high PR" sites to reverse proxy a subdomain or folder to them and (that's the important part) link to it from their main site. And boy, does that work. The same content that would be > page 100 suddenly is in the top 3. There are other factors, but they don't matter nearly as much as Google's "we have 200 factors that contribute to the ranking" stuff makes it seem. You can throw the most atrocious low quality content on a site with lots of incoming links and it will rank at the top.

by cmckn 7y ago

midef 7y ago

The web wasn't mob-like at all in the beginning. Most of the content was created by reasonably educated people who were publishing because of passion, not profit or other motives.

blahedo 7y ago

> founded on ... the endorsements of "an angry, misinformed mob" I started grad school at Brown in 1997 and I remember a talk there, by someone from Google or connected to it, about PageRank. PageRank was still new, Google was still in beta. Free swag from dotcoms was literally growing on trees. But I digress. I remember that the narrative about PageRank at the time was not about popularity, but about expertise. I really remember that the presenter brought up a possible threat to validity—what about gaming the system?—and pointed out that if you wanted to persuade the system that you were an expert on a thing, you could get lots of people who talk about the thing a lot to point a link at your site. BUT, he says: that shows the system works! If you can get that many people who are at least mini-experts on the thing to point to you, the only way to do that would be if you, too, were persuasively an expert on the thing. (These were... naïve times in many ways.) Twenty years ago this was highly persuasive. It was an un-game-able system, because "gaming the system" meant the system changed you. I can be pretty cynical about a lot of things, including and especially Google, but I really do think that even Google itself believed this. The company was founded on an algorithm that rewarded expertise. It turned out that the algorithm also rewarded angry, misinformed mobs, so cmckn isn't exactly wrong here. But I think it's important to be clear that to the extent that Google's algorithms have always done this, they a) weren't meant to, and b) actually didn't in the very earliest days, because the WWW link structure really did, in the 90s, work like they thought it did. (Then the measure became the target, etc etc)

jandrese 7y ago
I wonder if in the fight against SEOs Google didn't accidentally punish actual experts. SEO organizations will relentlessly hound changes to Google's algorithm in ways that regular users do not. In the old days it was cost prohibitive to setup a massive network of interconnected fake hosts to boost your rank, but these days with cheap VPSes this is entirely possible and probably even profitable. I'm certainly not the only person who has searched for something and found a ton of differently styled blogs all hosting exactly the same content stolen from some legitimate website and clogging up pages of Google results.
lonelappde 7y ago
PageRank is not how Google tanks pages now. It's not the reason Google serves so much junk.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Links are still the super-major-almost-100% factor in determining ranking though, whether you call it PageRank or some other algorithm. It's why buying expired domains and throwing your totally unrelated content on them works great. It's why subdomain/folder leasing is a thing where affiliate sites will pay "high PR" sites to reverse proxy a subdomain or folder to them and (that's the important part) link to it from their main site. And boy, does that work. The same content that would be > page 100 suddenly is in the top 3. There are other factors, but they don't matter nearly as much as Google's "we have 200 factors that contribute to the ranking" stuff makes it seem. You can throw the most atrocious low quality content on a site with lots of incoming links and it will rank at the top.