5 ms·

The dissonance is between Google's native perception and external reality: reality 1: The www exists. Google indexes it, analyzes it and delivers it to users.

The dissonance is between Google's native perception and external reality: reality 1: The www exists. Google indexes it, analyzes it and delivers it to users. Users like certain things, like original content. reality 2: Google's ranking policies/algorithms influence the web. The "original content" that exists in a world without Google is different to the content that exists in a world where Google ranks such web pages more highly. Google refuse to see or present themselves in the role that they actually occupy. They avoid thinking of the search algorithm as encouraging or discouraging anything. It's just analyzing. On youtube, This mindset is even more loopy, because on youtube they actually own the platform. The recommendation engine or whatnot implements what is clearly a new policy, Youtube pretends that there was no policy to change in the first place.

jasode 4y ago
>Google refuse to see or present themselves in the role that they actually occupy. They avoid thinking of the search algorithm as encouraging or discouraging anything. It's just analyzing. Can you clarify what you mean by this? As an outside observer, it seems that Google recognizes that their search engine does have a "Heisenberg" effect akin to "measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system" E.g. the Google search ranking causes the rise of content farms. Google then fights back with a new revision to the algorithm to downrank them. That constant arms race between various blackhat SEO and Google's new algorithms was commented on many times by Matt Cutts (Google former head of search quality): https://hn.algolia.com/?q=matt+cutts https://hn.algolia.com/?q=matt+cutts Another example is the RapGenius punishment by Google to discourage content that tries to game the algorithm: https://www.google.com/search?q=rapgenius+penalty+google+rankings https://www.google.com/search?q=rapgenius+penalty+google+ran... Google often makes manual human intervention e.g. M Cutts team telling HN they're looking into RapGenius SEO hack: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6956658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6956658 Are those are not examples of Google understanding its effect on internet content that tries to game their algorithm? I think the issue is that Google's algorithm isn't perfect -- and therefore it appears like they don't discourage bad content.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  OK.. In a sense, I am overstating. Having an anti-spam team is obviously a recognition that SEO/Spam exists and that Google is trying to discourage or mitigate. But Google is well beyond just attracting spam. Success in Google search rankings is, for many sites, the better part of online success. If Google ranks needlessly wordy recipes more highly than concise & useful recipes... then wordy recipes get written. It's not about ranking recipes anymore... it's about the effects google has on recipes. The recipes get written in a wordy fashion, because of the ranking system... not just ranked because of the writing style. Google is dictating the nature of online recipes with their rankings. A few years back, Google made changes to youtube's recommendation engine in a way that really "encourages" frequent, regular videos. Viral hits became much less common. The result has been to send many professional youtubers into a frantic grind. There's no point in taking time with a video, or trying weird ideas. It won't go viral anyway. A week off or a couple of flops is harshly punished. There are tens of thousands of these youtubers, basically small businesses. There's never any reckoning with 2nd order effects. It's always communicated as it is here. I believe this is how Google execs actually think about the issues. As a quasi-spam problem to be mitigated with the next “helpful content update.”
  - jasode 4y ago
    >There's never any reckoning with 2nd order effects. Can you articulate what concrete actions Google could take that would address these 2nd order effects? >, Google made changes to youtube's recommendation engine in a way that really "encourages" frequent, regular videos. [...] A week off or a couple of flops is harshly punished. I've seen this repeated many times (especially from Youtubers making videos about "burnout") but the analysis about cause & effect seems incomplete. As one counterpoint, Ben Krasnow "Applied Science" channel slowed down from weekly uploads to a video every few months and yet his views and subscribers went up not down: https://www.youtube.com/c/AppliedScience/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/AppliedScience/videos Another yt channel that had a year between uploads and the views went up : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX7katl3DVmch4D7LSvqbVQ/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX7katl3DVmch4D7LSvqbVQ/vid... My pet theory on the contradictory anecdotes: the Youtubers making videos on a topic with lots of competition from other Youtubers uploading every week -- such as fast fashion clothes shopping -- are the ones that seem to suffer if they slow down. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zara+haul https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zara+haul However, if you're making videos in niche topics with originality (maybe "weird ideas" as you put it), you won't be penalized by infrequent uploads. Many examples including Technology Connections, Applied Science, etc So a different conclusion can be reached... if one makes a high quality videos, one can even upload just once a year and the Youtube algorithm won't penalize you.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Goodharts law
jwie 4y ago
I think it’s more that nobody knows the policy. It’s all ML changes few people understand or can even communicate. I don’t expect google would explain if they knew how it worked, but they also cannot explain how their technology works.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  IDK. I suspect this is less true than most acknowledge. Black box or not, google are creating these systems, analyzing, optimising and implementing them. It's indeed hard or impossible to trace back individual examples and their whys. But the macro effects are visible and choices are made. It's just easier to "blame the computer," internally or externally. It's just like bank employees merge always blame "regulations." In fact, whatever they are blaming is a policy created to implement that bank's compliance framework which exists to satisfy the regulator's goals and the bank's goals." Most of the time, the underlying regulation is distantly removed from whatever piece of bureaucracy is annoying the customer or employee. But, if it can be blamed on the regulator, it will be. It's just easier, if at all possible, to blame an immovable and mysterious force rather than the more likely culprit: humans doing a bad job.

jasode 4y ago

>Google refuse to see or present themselves in the role that they actually occupy. They avoid thinking of the search algorithm as encouraging or discouraging anything. It's just analyzing. Can you clarify what you mean by this? As an outside observer, it seems that Google recognizes that their search engine does have a "Heisenberg" effect akin to "measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system" E.g. the Google search ranking causes the rise of content farms. Google then fights back with a new revision to the algorithm to downrank them. That constant arms race between various blackhat SEO and Google's new algorithms was commented on many times by Matt Cutts (Google former head of search quality): https://hn.algolia.com/?q=matt+cutts https://hn.algolia.com/?q=matt+cutts Another example is the RapGenius punishment by Google to discourage content that tries to game the algorithm: https://www.google.com/search?q=rapgenius+penalty+google+rankings https://www.google.com/search?q=rapgenius+penalty+google+ran... Google often makes manual human intervention e.g. M Cutts team telling HN they're looking into RapGenius SEO hack: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6956658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6956658 Are those are not examples of Google understanding its effect on internet content that tries to game their algorithm? I think the issue is that Google's algorithm isn't perfect -- and therefore it appears like they don't discourage bad content.

dalbasal 4y ago
OK.. In a sense, I am overstating. Having an anti-spam team is obviously a recognition that SEO/Spam exists and that Google is trying to discourage or mitigate. But Google is well beyond just attracting spam. Success in Google search rankings is, for many sites, the better part of online success. If Google ranks needlessly wordy recipes more highly than concise & useful recipes... then wordy recipes get written. It's not about ranking recipes anymore... it's about the effects google has on recipes. The recipes get written in a wordy fashion, because of the ranking system... not just ranked because of the writing style. Google is dictating the nature of online recipes with their rankings. A few years back, Google made changes to youtube's recommendation engine in a way that really "encourages" frequent, regular videos. Viral hits became much less common. The result has been to send many professional youtubers into a frantic grind. There's no point in taking time with a video, or trying weird ideas. It won't go viral anyway. A week off or a couple of flops is harshly punished. There are tens of thousands of these youtubers, basically small businesses. There's never any reckoning with 2nd order effects. It's always communicated as it is here. I believe this is how Google execs actually think about the issues. As a quasi-spam problem to be mitigated with the next “helpful content update.”
- jasode 4y ago
  >There's never any reckoning with 2nd order effects. Can you articulate what concrete actions Google could take that would address these 2nd order effects? >, Google made changes to youtube's recommendation engine in a way that really "encourages" frequent, regular videos. [...] A week off or a couple of flops is harshly punished. I've seen this repeated many times (especially from Youtubers making videos about "burnout") but the analysis about cause & effect seems incomplete. As one counterpoint, Ben Krasnow "Applied Science" channel slowed down from weekly uploads to a video every few months and yet his views and subscribers went up not down: https://www.youtube.com/c/AppliedScience/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/AppliedScience/videos Another yt channel that had a year between uploads and the views went up : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX7katl3DVmch4D7LSvqbVQ/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX7katl3DVmch4D7LSvqbVQ/vid... My pet theory on the contradictory anecdotes: the Youtubers making videos on a topic with lots of competition from other Youtubers uploading every week -- such as fast fashion clothes shopping -- are the ones that seem to suffer if they slow down. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zara+haul https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zara+haul However, if you're making videos in niche topics with originality (maybe "weird ideas" as you put it), you won't be penalized by infrequent uploads. Many examples including Technology Connections, Applied Science, etc So a different conclusion can be reached... if one makes a high quality videos, one can even upload just once a year and the Youtube algorithm won't penalize you.

nonethewiser 4y ago

Goodharts law

jwie 4y ago

I think it’s more that nobody knows the policy. It’s all ML changes few people understand or can even communicate. I don’t expect google would explain if they knew how it worked, but they also cannot explain how their technology works.

dalbasal 4y ago
IDK. I suspect this is less true than most acknowledge. Black box or not, google are creating these systems, analyzing, optimising and implementing them. It's indeed hard or impossible to trace back individual examples and their whys. But the macro effects are visible and choices are made. It's just easier to "blame the computer," internally or externally. It's just like bank employees merge always blame "regulations." In fact, whatever they are blaming is a policy created to implement that bank's compliance framework which exists to satisfy the regulator's goals and the bank's goals." Most of the time, the underlying regulation is distantly removed from whatever piece of bureaucracy is annoying the customer or employee. But, if it can be blamed on the regulator, it will be. It's just easier, if at all possible, to blame an immovable and mysterious force rather than the more likely culprit: humans doing a bad job.