4 ms·
We all know that Google Search doesn't have an algorithm as such, it has hundreds of signals that weight results for the positive or negative. All we're seeing
by buro9 15y ago
We all know that Google Search doesn't have an algorithm as such, it has hundreds of signals that weight results for the positive or negative.
All we're seeing here is that Google have determined that Plus is a good signal since they assume that their knowledge of that data can be trusted and verified more than the data held by a third party.
They are probably right on that, so you can imagine that they would class it as a very strong signal, such that against another resource with many weaker signals the other resource loses and the Plus page ranks higher.
The only question is whether this is in some way a bad thing.
Is it bad to place a strong signal on one of your own properties?
To not place a signal would be equivalent to negatively placing a signal as they most likely do have signals against other identity services (LinkedIn and Facebook), but to place an equal signal is to say that you only trust your own data as much as a third party - which is probably not the case, you trust your own more.
To place a strong signal is probably correct in terms of your trust of the data, but does raise the spectre of being questioned about whether this is fair behaviour.
- cupcake_death 15y agoEric Schmidt: “Senator, may I simply say that I can assure you we’ve not cooked anything".
- magicalist 15y agoexactly. I don't see this as that different than the unit converter or whatever that best guess thing was recently (or including a map on a location-like query, or a row of image thumbnails for popular celebrity names)...google thinks you're looking for a person, and they have a person lookup service. moreover, that service contains information populated by the people that you can look up, which makes it more likely to be exactly what you are looking for. as buro9 said, the interesting questions have nothing to do with the (stupid) doped horse analogy or whether this upsets some platonic ideal of a page-ranked search index (in reality, they don't exist and no one would want to use one). the interesting questions are if google including this information is harming competitors that would bring innovation to the market, whether that's even a bad thing, long term, and if (somehow) preventing google from including this would just hobble a mostly good product or would actually materially improve things for consumers. those are really hard questions, and asking them like this just diminishes the level of debate that can be had about them.
- cupcake_death 15y agoWe, (http://www.explore.to http://www.explore.to) recently were penalized by Google for having thin content. That is, we have business profiles that are yet to be claimed and enriched by business owners, (As do lots of Google Places listings, (That appear above the fold)). Yet, thin content via Google's own properties is fine? http://www.google.com/search?q=Mark+Zuckerberg&pws=0&adtest=on&hl=en&gl=US&ip=24.38.160.0&pws=0 http://www.google.com/search?q=Mark+Zuckerberg&pws=0&... Zuckerbergs profile is adding nothing to the Google users experience, except for visibility of G+.