4 ms·
> such that even auto-completing it is considered 'problematic'. We don't know what the auto-complete would be. It's hard to know how problematic those auto-co
by seadan83 3y ago
> such that even auto-completing it is considered 'problematic'.
We don't know what the auto-complete would be. It's hard to know how problematic those auto-complete suggestions are.
> Are you suggesting that search results are determined by the quantity of videos are served up based on the number of videos on the same topic?
Not quite. Though I do really appreciate the clarifying question =D
To clarify what I'm trying to convey, as a premise - SEO rankings can be an adversarial game. Auto-complete and search results are a pretty similar side to the same coin.
As an example, I once worked for an online retailer that sold shoes (a lot of them). 80% of those shoes were Crocs! If you searched by "popular", without any curation then the first 200 results would have been the various styles and different colors of crocs. Nobody really wants this, so the algorithm was tweaked (to include manual weights) to not give undue visibility to that excess volume. That same kind of tweaking happens all over the place by google. In part, Google does that to improve results, to reduce "noise". That is a very subjective activity, one persons 'noise' is another persons censorship.
Further, SEO can be an adversarial game. Lots of AI generated videos are being pushed with various networks to up-vote those videos and then give them undue weight. That is to say, curation activities are a necessity (and how that curation is done is not transparent, which is concerning!)
Thus, Google has clearly decided that the auto-complete for 1776 results is problematic, perhaps leading to what they would consider "fringe" videos. I suspect the actual search results have a lot of manual weights added to them as well so that they display as they do.
My point is that kind of activity, with manual weights, is intrinsic to a search engine. At the same time it is also subjective - and in the case of Google, opaque.