3 ms·
The "worse results" probably stem from the part of the law about changes in pagerank algorithms: If search engines are required to notify about changes in algor
by corty 6y ago
The "worse results" probably stem from the part of the law about changes in pagerank algorithms: If search engines are required to notify about changes in algorithm and provide mitigations for those changes, the easiest way to provide this would be: Keep the algorithm as it is, never change it again (for Australia) and accept the degradation that will result from that.
- zrm 6y agoNot only that, it would allow SEO companies to sign up as "news organizations" and then use the knowledge gained about the ranking algorithm to fill everyone's search results with SEO spam even more than it already is.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoAlso, what does this section even mean in the context of ML models? How do you communicate that you trained an interest-estimation model on more data and will now be using the upgraded version? I’m sure Google uses many such models for producing personalized results, and probably several are updated in production every day. Does Google have to share the inner workings of their search stack with these news companies? Do they have to share the models? Does Google have to explain to these news companies how the newly trained model might treat their content differently than the previous iteration? Any of these things I expect would cause Google to throw up their hands and abandon the country. Exposing a live feed of all their trade secrets to the employees of random news companies is obviously not going to happen, and explaining why ML models do what they do is an active research area.
- mthoms 6y agoThese are excellent points about the ML aspect that I haven't seen mentioned so far.