6 ms·

I totally get this. Back in the day when I was a kid, we went to the local library and read about the world. When the librarians weren’t serving me by “checking

I totally get this. Back in the day when I was a kid, we went to the local library and read about the world. When the librarians weren’t serving me by “checking out books” to me, they were busily putting new and improved titles on the books in receiving. /s Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stickfigure 5y ago
Given how site owners habitually attempt to distort reality with tag stuffing and other bullshit metadata, what do you expect? Reality is not what is printed on the tin.
- mdoms 5y ago
  I'd expect Google to downrank sites that are trying to manipulate the system. Not rewrite them.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    How could that work out? Low quality sites usually have more juicy ad spots? More seriously: incentives are stacked against search quality these days. Poor results means more trips into ad laden wastelands, and more returns to the ad laden search results page. Giving people the result up front and center would directly affect quarterly profit I am afraid. At least this is the model that makes most sense to me. The next most probably is machine learning is already out of control and the people who created it left. Edit: wild speculation of course.
- travisgriggs 5y ago
  Should I ask Walmart to kindly start relabeling products on their shelves because what’s on the tin is rarely as good for me as what the maker purports? Maybe that’s what we need. An FDA metadata label for every website served, kinda like the fav-icon, but useful. - Readable word count (protein) - Ad count (fats) - Image count (carbs) - Embedded script size (the list of nasty sounding chemicals it contains) - Average data transmitted (sugars) - etc Must be shown in black text on white background with a black border. Sorry dark mode guys.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    This might actually be the killer app for AR. Reviews of products as you look at them on the shelf.
    - imilk 5y ago
      Rather than showing the actual reviews, just lower the color saturation for lower reviewed products. So high reviewed products would pop in a sea of gray scaled items. Sounds like something out of Black Mirror, but could be interesting.
    - kokekolo 5y ago
      Vivino kinda does that but for wine only. You can scan any bottle with it and it shows you its rating based on user reviews.
    - krferriter 5y ago
      Sounds like it might either decrease sales, or increase the manufacturing of fraudulent or shill reviews.
    - skhr0680 5y ago
      I can’t wait for “This product is awesome 5/5 btw I don’t own it” and “My favorite 1/5” in AR
sjtindell 5y ago
It’s the ads. The way Brin and Page phrased it in their 1998 paper, they considered ad-oriented search engines to be lower quality. They were going to be more academic. They thought that there was lots of user data to mine in search…for academic purposes. Then innovation #2 at the actual startup was the ad auctions and that was the beginning of the end, all the way back at the beginning. I’ve recently read a lot about hedge funds, and it’s astounding how many scientists literally say, “I don’t think hedge funds add value to society, I wouldn’t work there.” And then the firm slides this check across the table, and they didn’t even realize a single check could have that many zeroes, and they join the firm and stay forever. That’s what happened with Google and all the rest.
- travisgriggs 5y ago
  Agreed. The industrialization of ad tech has been a loss for humanity. It’s a runaway mechanization at this point. What I don’t understand, is why we don’t tax it. If an industry generates lots of wealth, but has a questionable impact on society, the “f(r)ee market” west’s response has usually been to throw a stiff vice tax on it. It doesn’t make the vice go away, but it puts a governor on its excess and redirects some of the spoils for projects which hopefully are net positive.
  - biztos 5y ago
    Doesn't the tax usually come when the consensus about the societal harm carries more weight than the money produced by that harm? Or at least enough weight to be competitive. Sin taxes have a way of permanently tying the sin (at some reduced level) to the general budget. I don't think we're there yet. People can get plenty mad at "tech" without connecting the ad-tech dots.
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      Well, you should try to establish the societal cost of the negative externality and then tax at that level. The idea isn't to destroy the thing but to make it's price reflect its actual cost Edit: "then cost" => "then tax"
gnfargbl 5y ago
That's kind of the fundamental insight here though, isn't it? Carnegie developed his libraries as a philanthropic endeavor, with the aim of supporting meritocracy in society. Google developed their library with the aim of making a shit-ton of money from advertising. Google never was a suitable candidate for the world's authoritative librarian. Unfortunately, we'll probably need another Carnegie to displace them.
yardstick 5y ago
There’s a grain of truth here, in a bit of a tangent: librarians classify all books using a system like Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification. While not adjusting titles, librarians do have some influence on how a book is classified and thus filed/organised within the library. Check out the wiki article on Dewey[1] for the various options for homosexuality, which has numbers for it including under areas including mental illness! Depending on the library systems leanings you may still find it there or the section for sexual disorders or hopefully in the sexual relations area. (Disclaimer: I just used this as an easy example because it’s on Wikipedia) 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  The Dewey Decimal classification system is ridiculously flawed, and no self-respecting library uses it these days (unless it always has, and hasn't got around to re-organising). Even my school's little one-room library didn't, something I found annoying at first, but came to appreciate.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    "Libraries in the United States generally use either the Library of Congress Classification System (LC) or the Dewey Decimal Classification System to organize their books. Most academic libraries use LC, and most public libraries and K-12 school libraries use Dewey." [1] [1] https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit03/libraries03_04.phtml https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit03/libraries03_04.pht...
  - yardstick 5y ago
    Disagree that it’s ridiculously flawed. It has issues like any system, but it still works well the majority of the time. > no self-respecting library uses it these days (unless it always has, and hasn't got around to re-organising). The vast majority of library systems have been around long enough where Dewey was the defacto choice (or LCC). Just checked a few like the British Library, the French National Library, and all the other libraries I’ve looked up now in London, all Dewey.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sangnoir 5y ago
>...they were busily putting new and improved titles on the books in receiving. The book titles are unchanged (when you visit the site) - this is just the Librarians adding synonyms and/or simplifying titles in their catalog so that it is "Dr. Strangelove" rather than "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".
chiefalchemist 5y ago
Yes and no. Anecdotally, most of the SEOs and ppl who do SEO "part time" (e.g., ecomm store owner) still don't understand the foundation of modern SEO. 1. Google doesn't care about the sites. The sites aren't Google's customer. 2. More importantly, the person doing the search is the customer. Unfortunately, most sites believe SEO is about them. They can improve how they present themselves but the "transaction" is not about them. Google, serving ads aside, needs to maximize customer satisfaction or run the risk of losing a customer. It's worth repeating: Google doesn't care about rhe sites. If Google believes a site's content is a good fit for maximizing customer satisfaction, but the title isn't optimal then it makes perfect sense Google would want to optimize the title, if the title is the "gateway" to a happy customer. Whether that's right or wrong, IDK. Whether it actually helps, again IDK. But from a pure relationship / business perspective it makes sense.
- dorgo 5y ago
  1. Most SEOs don't care about what Google cares about. The sites are their customers. 2. SEO is about the sites and Google and other sources are just that: means to an end. It's all a matter of perspective.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    No actually it's not. You're (gravely) mistaken. The customer is the person doing the search. The sites aren't viewing the ads. The sites aren't clicking on the ads. *That* is Google's #1 source of revenue. Full stop. And thus, as originally stated and supported, too many practicers of SEO, with that wrong lens, continue to misunderstand Google. Put another way, Google doesn't change the title for the benefit of the sites. There's simply no biz model / source of revenue to support that idea. None.
ConceptJunkie 5y ago
> Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality. "Feels"? This has been the reality for many years.
dorgo 5y ago
>and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality. It should be more like an assistant: here are some boring tasks/questions, find out everything about them, summarize it for me and present me my options. I dont't really want to search or find something. I want to get things done, questions answered.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stickfigure 5y ago

Given how site owners habitually attempt to distort reality with tag stuffing and other bullshit metadata, what do you expect? Reality is not what is printed on the tin.

mdoms 5y ago
I'd expect Google to downrank sites that are trying to manipulate the system. Not rewrite them.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  How could that work out? Low quality sites usually have more juicy ad spots? More seriously: incentives are stacked against search quality these days. Poor results means more trips into ad laden wastelands, and more returns to the ad laden search results page. Giving people the result up front and center would directly affect quarterly profit I am afraid. At least this is the model that makes most sense to me. The next most probably is machine learning is already out of control and the people who created it left. Edit: wild speculation of course.
travisgriggs 5y ago
Should I ask Walmart to kindly start relabeling products on their shelves because what’s on the tin is rarely as good for me as what the maker purports? Maybe that’s what we need. An FDA metadata label for every website served, kinda like the fav-icon, but useful. - Readable word count (protein) - Ad count (fats) - Image count (carbs) - Embedded script size (the list of nasty sounding chemicals it contains) - Average data transmitted (sugars) - etc Must be shown in black text on white background with a black border. Sorry dark mode guys.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  This might actually be the killer app for AR. Reviews of products as you look at them on the shelf.
  - imilk 5y ago
    Rather than showing the actual reviews, just lower the color saturation for lower reviewed products. So high reviewed products would pop in a sea of gray scaled items. Sounds like something out of Black Mirror, but could be interesting.
  - kokekolo 5y ago
    Vivino kinda does that but for wine only. You can scan any bottle with it and it shows you its rating based on user reviews.
  - krferriter 5y ago
    Sounds like it might either decrease sales, or increase the manufacturing of fraudulent or shill reviews.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    I can’t wait for “This product is awesome 5/5 btw I don’t own it” and “My favorite 1/5” in AR

sjtindell 5y ago

It’s the ads. The way Brin and Page phrased it in their 1998 paper, they considered ad-oriented search engines to be lower quality. They were going to be more academic. They thought that there was lots of user data to mine in search…for academic purposes. Then innovation #2 at the actual startup was the ad auctions and that was the beginning of the end, all the way back at the beginning. I’ve recently read a lot about hedge funds, and it’s astounding how many scientists literally say, “I don’t think hedge funds add value to society, I wouldn’t work there.” And then the firm slides this check across the table, and they didn’t even realize a single check could have that many zeroes, and they join the firm and stay forever. That’s what happened with Google and all the rest.

travisgriggs 5y ago
Agreed. The industrialization of ad tech has been a loss for humanity. It’s a runaway mechanization at this point. What I don’t understand, is why we don’t tax it. If an industry generates lots of wealth, but has a questionable impact on society, the “f(r)ee market” west’s response has usually been to throw a stiff vice tax on it. It doesn’t make the vice go away, but it puts a governor on its excess and redirects some of the spoils for projects which hopefully are net positive.
- biztos 5y ago
  Doesn't the tax usually come when the consensus about the societal harm carries more weight than the money produced by that harm? Or at least enough weight to be competitive. Sin taxes have a way of permanently tying the sin (at some reduced level) to the general budget. I don't think we're there yet. People can get plenty mad at "tech" without connecting the ad-tech dots.
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    Well, you should try to establish the societal cost of the negative externality and then tax at that level. The idea isn't to destroy the thing but to make it's price reflect its actual cost Edit: "then cost" => "then tax"

gnfargbl 5y ago

That's kind of the fundamental insight here though, isn't it? Carnegie developed his libraries as a philanthropic endeavor, with the aim of supporting meritocracy in society. Google developed their library with the aim of making a shit-ton of money from advertising. Google never was a suitable candidate for the world's authoritative librarian. Unfortunately, we'll probably need another Carnegie to displace them.

yardstick 5y ago

There’s a grain of truth here, in a bit of a tangent: librarians classify all books using a system like Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification. While not adjusting titles, librarians do have some influence on how a book is classified and thus filed/organised within the library. Check out the wiki article on Dewey[1] for the various options for homosexuality, which has numbers for it including under areas including mental illness! Depending on the library systems leanings you may still find it there or the section for sexual disorders or hopefully in the sexual relations area. (Disclaimer: I just used this as an easy example because it’s on Wikipedia) 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification

wizzwizz4 5y ago
The Dewey Decimal classification system is ridiculously flawed, and no self-respecting library uses it these days (unless it always has, and hasn't got around to re-organising). Even my school's little one-room library didn't, something I found annoying at first, but came to appreciate.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  "Libraries in the United States generally use either the Library of Congress Classification System (LC) or the Dewey Decimal Classification System to organize their books. Most academic libraries use LC, and most public libraries and K-12 school libraries use Dewey." [1] [1] https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit03/libraries03_04.phtml https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit03/libraries03_04.pht...
- yardstick 5y ago
  Disagree that it’s ridiculously flawed. It has issues like any system, but it still works well the majority of the time. > no self-respecting library uses it these days (unless it always has, and hasn't got around to re-organising). The vast majority of library systems have been around long enough where Dewey was the defacto choice (or LCC). Just checked a few like the British Library, the French National Library, and all the other libraries I’ve looked up now in London, all Dewey.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sangnoir 5y ago

>...they were busily putting new and improved titles on the books in receiving. The book titles are unchanged (when you visit the site) - this is just the Librarians adding synonyms and/or simplifying titles in their catalog so that it is "Dr. Strangelove" rather than "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".

chiefalchemist 5y ago

Yes and no. Anecdotally, most of the SEOs and ppl who do SEO "part time" (e.g., ecomm store owner) still don't understand the foundation of modern SEO. 1. Google doesn't care about the sites. The sites aren't Google's customer. 2. More importantly, the person doing the search is the customer. Unfortunately, most sites believe SEO is about them. They can improve how they present themselves but the "transaction" is not about them. Google, serving ads aside, needs to maximize customer satisfaction or run the risk of losing a customer. It's worth repeating: Google doesn't care about rhe sites. If Google believes a site's content is a good fit for maximizing customer satisfaction, but the title isn't optimal then it makes perfect sense Google would want to optimize the title, if the title is the "gateway" to a happy customer. Whether that's right or wrong, IDK. Whether it actually helps, again IDK. But from a pure relationship / business perspective it makes sense.

dorgo 5y ago
1. Most SEOs don't care about what Google cares about. The sites are their customers. 2. SEO is about the sites and Google and other sources are just that: means to an end. It's all a matter of perspective.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  No actually it's not. You're (gravely) mistaken. The customer is the person doing the search. The sites aren't viewing the ads. The sites aren't clicking on the ads. *That* is Google's #1 source of revenue. Full stop. And thus, as originally stated and supported, too many practicers of SEO, with that wrong lens, continue to misunderstand Google. Put another way, Google doesn't change the title for the benefit of the sites. There's simply no biz model / source of revenue to support that idea. None.

ConceptJunkie 5y ago

> Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality. "Feels"? This has been the reality for many years.

dorgo 5y ago

>and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality. It should be more like an assistant: here are some boring tasks/questions, find out everything about them, summarize it for me and present me my options. I dont't really want to search or find something. I want to get things done, questions answered.