3 ms·
I guess you're right, I'm being too loose. I should say, I expect google to at least give some consideration to the quality of the source it considers when rank
by mptest 3y ago
I guess you're right, I'm being too loose. I should say, I expect google to at least give some consideration to the quality of the source it considers when ranking results and giving me an answer, and for queries about pop culture stuff or news something it can access wolfram for, who am I trusting more there? Google? Or the sources it pulls from? I agree it's not magic but to waive liability of consideration for search results off under the guise of "don't trust a google search" seems reckless?
- logicalmonster 3y agoSay that somebody talks some trash about a random person online. This isn't the New York Times where there may be some link authority, or may Allah forgive me for even uttering these haram words, Buzzfeed News. Where should that random trash-talking rank? Doesn't it seem more relevant than a lot of the random links about random people from random data brokers online? Should random unsourced trash talk about some random person rank closer to the first page or closer to the last page? To me, it seems notable and should be close to the top. And I think one improvement (that will never happen) is that Google should be telling people some polite version of "Literally everything you read on the Internet should be considered bullshit until verified".