3 ms·
>One commenter said, "It's an algorithm. Get over yourself." Typical, orthodox devotion to the Almighty Google Algorithm and its Infallible Wisdom. That's a pr
by vectorpush 15y ago
>One commenter said, "It's an algorithm. Get over yourself." Typical, orthodox devotion to the Almighty Google Algorithm and its Infallible Wisdom.
That's a pretty disingenuous take on his comment. He's actually suggesting that algorithms are not perfect and that it's silly to infer intention from an arbitrary search result.
- eCa 15y agoOn the other hand.. An algorithm exists to reduce arbitrarity, and until recently there wasn't much question about Google's success in that department. Now though, they are a competitor against other search results and - since the algorithm is in Google's possession - it is not too big a leap to suspect that the algorithm might be tweaked just enough in Google's favour.
- vectorpush 15y agoit is not too big a leap to suspect that the algorithm might be tweaked just enough in Google's favour No, it is not a "big leap", but that doesn't mean it's true. It is conceivable that the search results are organic, especially given the content. It is also conceivable that an impartial query could determine that a G+ page (or any other page) is more relevant than the source article.