3 ms·

I kind of see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. It sounds like you want search engines to modify results so that activist

I kind of see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. It sounds like you want search engines to modify results so that activists can't create meanings like Obamacare or Santorum. In order to do that they would need to control the way language changes over time to keep that from happening. How do you feel about terms less mean-spirited like the "Arab Spring?"

tptacek 15y ago
You don't get it. Google routinely modifies search results. There isn't a coherent "algorithm" that determines all SERPs. The whole site is carefully calibrated to adjust to user expectations. I think that gives you a choice of two conclusions: (a) Google believes that most of its users really are looking for Dan Savage's prank when they search for the name of one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years. (b) Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism. Please understand that I could give a rats about Rick Santorum. I find him odious. I firmly hope he does win the GOP nom so that Obama can win 2012 in a walk. But [santorum] does not return that particular SERP because the word "Santorum" organically became associated with that particular idea. A group of people decided to rewire, well I guess the Internet, to force that association. If they can do it, anyone else can too. Google's search results should be more credible than that.
- statictype 15y ago
  Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism Not sure I believe that all the people at Google involved in deciding how search results get tweaked lean the same way politically and are interested in having their ideology reflected in Google results. That's kind of what you're implying here isn't it? I think the overall argument we're seeing here is fundamentally the same as those questions about sexism in the tech industry. Some believe its just a reflection of the fact that most people in that group happen to fit into a certain demographic and that nothing is really broken. Others believe there's a fundamental underlying problem that needs to be fixed.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  The answer is obviously (a). But Rick Santorum is hardly "one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years." I'd put on that list people like Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Cheney, Powell, McCain, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc. That fact that you'd even think to put Sen. Santorum in that company inclines me to question your judgment. Santorum is a 2-term Senator who ran poorly for president a couple times, and who was made mildly more famous due to a minor controversy. He's like the Gary Hart of the GOP.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You think that of all the searches across the country for [santorum], most of them are for the prank? That strains credibility. I get that virtually no HN'ers are naturally interested in ultra-right wing conservative Republican politics, but let me assure you that approximately half the whole country is, and even the most conservative among them have net access. Meanwhile, Google most assuredly does have signals as to which of the results on that first SERP are the ones users are actually looking for.
    - tptaceksucks 15y ago
      Seriously, what is wrong with you? I've been reading HN for 3.5 years now, and you, specifically, are the reason I've never created an account and participated. You seem completely unable to reason about anything more complicated than simple arithmetic, and yet you are so consistently sure of yourself, and your correctness, and so quick to tell everyone how wrong they are. You, for some reason, see it your responsibility to police not just the whole of society, but take extra pleasure in policing HN with the cocky douchebag demeanor of a real cop, flagging and hellbanning as you see fit, etc. Seriously, you are a child. You've changed your argument several times in the comments on this page. Initially, it was that Google has specifically chosen, for political reasons, not to move down the current top result. Then, instead of admitting that you are wrong, you imply that what you actually meant is that they don't do it for a variety of reasons, not really political. Yet that post is the top post, because you're Tommy Ptacek, HN royalty, right? The vast majority of your comments on this page, and many others, are so completely devoid of thought and reason, it is literally too painful to continue reading them. Take this one, for example. Really? Half the country is interested in ultra-right wing conservative politics? So much so that they need to do internet research on the social conservative who has only in the last couple of weeks had any poll percentage worthy of finding out who he is? Barely half of the adult population of this country cares enough about politics to even vote. Half of those are moderates. Probably half of those realistically would not go researching candidates on the internet. Before two months ago, for 95%+ of the population, if they knew the word santorum, it was not Rick Santorum. As for myself, the only two times I've ever searched for santorum were to see what the joke was, and what the origin was. In another two months, Rick Santorum will again be forgotten for history, but the word will live on. And you want Google to manually drop the current top result in the rankings for a few months to help out poor Rick Santorum, so nobody need remember why that word originated? And, in your mind, that is the reasonable and non-political thing to do? Because you just can't believe that most people would be searching for anything so crass? Really? Just stop...please! Admit you're wrong! Stop being such a douche! [1] "But Google's overall politics happen to be the same as my politics, so Santorum gets unequal access to the 2012 Internet."
- gammarator 15y ago
  There's also c) No one at Google with the power to change this judged Rick Santorum an important enough figure to modify the results. Here's Google's response on this issue from back in September, after Santorum requested the result be removed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html "Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web."
  - tptacek 15y ago
    So, "no comment".

tptacek 15y ago

You don't get it. Google routinely modifies search results. There isn't a coherent "algorithm" that determines all SERPs. The whole site is carefully calibrated to adjust to user expectations. I think that gives you a choice of two conclusions: (a) Google believes that most of its users really are looking for Dan Savage's prank when they search for the name of one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years. (b) Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism. Please understand that I could give a rats about Rick Santorum. I find him odious. I firmly hope he does win the GOP nom so that Obama can win 2012 in a walk. But [santorum] does not return that particular SERP because the word "Santorum" organically became associated with that particular idea. A group of people decided to rewire, well I guess the Internet, to force that association. If they can do it, anyone else can too. Google's search results should be more credible than that.

statictype 15y ago
Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism Not sure I believe that all the people at Google involved in deciding how search results get tweaked lean the same way politically and are interested in having their ideology reflected in Google results. That's kind of what you're implying here isn't it? I think the overall argument we're seeing here is fundamentally the same as those questions about sexism in the tech industry. Some believe its just a reflection of the fact that most people in that group happen to fit into a certain demographic and that nothing is really broken. Others believe there's a fundamental underlying problem that needs to be fixed.
snowwrestler 15y ago
The answer is obviously (a). But Rick Santorum is hardly "one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years." I'd put on that list people like Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Cheney, Powell, McCain, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc. That fact that you'd even think to put Sen. Santorum in that company inclines me to question your judgment. Santorum is a 2-term Senator who ran poorly for president a couple times, and who was made mildly more famous due to a minor controversy. He's like the Gary Hart of the GOP.
- tptacek 15y ago
  You think that of all the searches across the country for [santorum], most of them are for the prank? That strains credibility. I get that virtually no HN'ers are naturally interested in ultra-right wing conservative Republican politics, but let me assure you that approximately half the whole country is, and even the most conservative among them have net access. Meanwhile, Google most assuredly does have signals as to which of the results on that first SERP are the ones users are actually looking for.
  - tptaceksucks 15y ago
    Seriously, what is wrong with you? I've been reading HN for 3.5 years now, and you, specifically, are the reason I've never created an account and participated. You seem completely unable to reason about anything more complicated than simple arithmetic, and yet you are so consistently sure of yourself, and your correctness, and so quick to tell everyone how wrong they are. You, for some reason, see it your responsibility to police not just the whole of society, but take extra pleasure in policing HN with the cocky douchebag demeanor of a real cop, flagging and hellbanning as you see fit, etc. Seriously, you are a child. You've changed your argument several times in the comments on this page. Initially, it was that Google has specifically chosen, for political reasons, not to move down the current top result. Then, instead of admitting that you are wrong, you imply that what you actually meant is that they don't do it for a variety of reasons, not really political. Yet that post is the top post, because you're Tommy Ptacek, HN royalty, right? The vast majority of your comments on this page, and many others, are so completely devoid of thought and reason, it is literally too painful to continue reading them. Take this one, for example. Really? Half the country is interested in ultra-right wing conservative politics? So much so that they need to do internet research on the social conservative who has only in the last couple of weeks had any poll percentage worthy of finding out who he is? Barely half of the adult population of this country cares enough about politics to even vote. Half of those are moderates. Probably half of those realistically would not go researching candidates on the internet. Before two months ago, for 95%+ of the population, if they knew the word santorum, it was not Rick Santorum. As for myself, the only two times I've ever searched for santorum were to see what the joke was, and what the origin was. In another two months, Rick Santorum will again be forgotten for history, but the word will live on. And you want Google to manually drop the current top result in the rankings for a few months to help out poor Rick Santorum, so nobody need remember why that word originated? And, in your mind, that is the reasonable and non-political thing to do? Because you just can't believe that most people would be searching for anything so crass? Really? Just stop...please! Admit you're wrong! Stop being such a douche! [1] "But Google's overall politics happen to be the same as my politics, so Santorum gets unequal access to the 2012 Internet."
gammarator 15y ago
There's also c) No one at Google with the power to change this judged Rick Santorum an important enough figure to modify the results. Here's Google's response on this issue from back in September, after Santorum requested the result be removed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html "Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web."
- tptacek 15y ago
  So, "no comment".