4 ms·
> which search engine do you trust to surface the most objectively ranked results? What exactly do you mean by "objective"? This is not cheap deflection. The c
by timoth3y 5y ago
> which search engine do you trust to surface the most objectively ranked results?
What exactly do you mean by "objective"? This is not cheap deflection. The core competence of a search engine is how they rank results. I suspect most engines are trying to return results that are "useful" or "accurate". I'm not totally clear on how you would measure an "objective" result or what the benefit would be.
> imagine you’re searching for vaccine side effects. Where do you search first?
Probably the CDC or WHO. A general search engine would probably turn up a lot cranks, scams, and misinformation. Although, any of the above search engines could probably point you to the right page on those sites.
It would be a pretty easy experiment to run if someone is so inclined.
- machinehermiter 5y agoI think flat earth is the best test case. What would an "ojective" flat earth search result look like? I would almost have to say that a flat earth search result should contain "evidence" that is pro flat earth. I hardly need to read evidence that the earth is not flat. I would want to know what these people are thinking to believe something so ridiculous. The last thing I want is for the engine to believe I am such an idiot that it would be harmful for me to read a narrative about the earth being flat so that information needs to be buried.
- justshowpost 5y agoCDC's layman tier texts shilling for vaccination are full of word «may», thus they are giving zero promises Both CDC and WHO pro tier texts, in turn, are full of contradictory statements, sometimes directly contradictory. Most infamous example is dime-worth face mask efficiency topic. In addition, CDC is being partisan despite 8 years of budget cuts under It's Bush's Fault rule, while WHO is known for helping Chinese Communist to hide virus outbreak probably in exchange for bribe.