4 ms·

>EDITOR’S NOTE 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us foll

by r721 3y ago

>EDITOR’S NOTE 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, "How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet," and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed. https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/ https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37740425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37740425 (4 days ago, 119 comments)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
buran77 3y ago
> relevant material provided to us Sure would be nice if the material was provided to us too. Or write an article explaining clearly how the original info was misconstrued. Simply deleting it (edit: instead of replacing it with a clarification so anyone who goes to read the wrong info gets the corrected one) really sends a wrong message, both about Wired and Google.
- pierat 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ludwik 3y ago
    Or maybe simply "the information is demonstrably untrue and we can prove it"?
    - pierat 3y ago
      That's the nice way to cheat with AI. It takes a probabilistic set of inquiries to discern the truth. And right now, I'm in my states capitol, looking for a restaurant... Using Google maps. And when I searched for restaurants, was given an advertised 'optimized' curated set of restaurants. And within walking distance, they're missing easily half of the restaurants. Now, which half are they missing? The small one-off places just aren't here on a search. HOWEVER, if you zoom in all the way, then those less-indexed restaurants FINALLY show up. I'm sitting in 1 of those deindexed eateries right now. So yeah, the article's true and has been for a while now.
- r721 3y ago
  Maybe they meant a longer version of this tweet: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302)
  - tyingq 3y ago
    "The organic (IE: non-sponsored) results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems." Uh, other than being pushed off the visible page, I guess?
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Yep. It's obvious that they design for you to click ads, but it was fairly rocky suggesting that the backend reaches out to the ad system. This wouldn't just destroy results, but also run afoul of FCC Ad disclosure requirements.
      - zo1 3y ago
        So is no one questioning that maybe the search subsystem talks to the "website score" (or whatever it's called in Google-speak), to determine if it's relevant? And perhaps that score is influenced by how many valid ads there are. Maybe the score is simply highly-correlated with a site that shows many google ads? Think about it, someone that shows Google ads happens to also be very very keen on optimizing everything that affects their rankings in Google searches. Hey Google, perhaps "displaying many Google ads" should be a negative on page-rank?
        judge2020 3y ago
        Regardless, the Wired piece had no evidence and didn't make a claim on the same basis as what you're suggesting. The opinion author mistook this feature by thinking it applied to organic results: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10286719?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10286719?hl=en
    - 3y ago
- granzymes 3y ago
  The relevant material was almost certainly the slide that the article was mischaracterizing: https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 I wish WIRED had included this context in their retraction statement…
1270018080 3y ago
The relevant information: Google’s legal team
spondylosaurus 3y ago
For context, the WIRED op-ed was written by a DuckDuckGo executive. I can certainly imagine the incentive there for DDG to misrepresent Google's behavior (and as I was reading the article, most of it struck me as speculation more than anything). ETA: Okay, weird. The op-ed itself made it sound like she was a current DDG executive, but her LinkedIn profile states that she no longer works there (and is more or less self-employed now). No idea how to interpret that. In any case, she was DDG's legal counsel and VP of policy for three years.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yegg 3y ago
  This person is not employed by DuckDuckGo. They formerly worked there, and not for a couple of years. We had nothing to do with this op-ed.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    Mere employment does not negate that the person might still have financial incentives tied to DDG. If anything, they might be concealed better and are MORE likely they can publish with conflict of interest, without legal risk.
    - whycome 3y ago
      You're right. And on the other hand, someone with passion and knowledge about the domain will likely be working for one of its major players at some point.
    - Angostura 3y ago
      Are claiming that the author still does have financial links to DDG? That's quite an accusation.
      - frde 3y ago
        Is it such a ridiculous idea that a former executive might have stock options or some kind of lingering financial stake? Worth at least investigating.
jeroenhd 3y ago
> It has been removed Okay, but where is its correction? If you, as a professional publication that considers itself to publish news, unintentionally spread misinformation, you shouldn't just take down the old links, you should put out a new piece with the correct information (and give it just as much attention, don't hide it away). The news came out, everybody got mad, and not half the people who read the original article (or headline) will revisit the articles and see the retraction. Maybe the correction will come later, but I'll stay sceptical of anything Wired has to say until the correction comes out.

by r721 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

buran77 3y ago

> relevant material provided to us Sure would be nice if the material was provided to us too. Or write an article explaining clearly how the original info was misconstrued. Simply deleting it (edit: instead of replacing it with a clarification so anyone who goes to read the wrong info gets the corrected one) really sends a wrong message, both about Wired and Google.

pierat 3y ago
[flagged]
- ludwik 3y ago
  Or maybe simply "the information is demonstrably untrue and we can prove it"?
  - pierat 3y ago
    That's the nice way to cheat with AI. It takes a probabilistic set of inquiries to discern the truth. And right now, I'm in my states capitol, looking for a restaurant... Using Google maps. And when I searched for restaurants, was given an advertised 'optimized' curated set of restaurants. And within walking distance, they're missing easily half of the restaurants. Now, which half are they missing? The small one-off places just aren't here on a search. HOWEVER, if you zoom in all the way, then those less-indexed restaurants FINALLY show up. I'm sitting in 1 of those deindexed eateries right now. So yeah, the article's true and has been for a while now.
r721 3y ago
Maybe they meant a longer version of this tweet: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1709726778170786297 (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302)
- tyingq 3y ago
  "The organic (IE: non-sponsored) results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems." Uh, other than being pushed off the visible page, I guess?
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Yep. It's obvious that they design for you to click ads, but it was fairly rocky suggesting that the backend reaches out to the ad system. This wouldn't just destroy results, but also run afoul of FCC Ad disclosure requirements.
    - zo1 3y ago
      So is no one questioning that maybe the search subsystem talks to the "website score" (or whatever it's called in Google-speak), to determine if it's relevant? And perhaps that score is influenced by how many valid ads there are. Maybe the score is simply highly-correlated with a site that shows many google ads? Think about it, someone that shows Google ads happens to also be very very keen on optimizing everything that affects their rankings in Google searches. Hey Google, perhaps "displaying many Google ads" should be a negative on page-rank?
      - judge2020 3y ago
        Regardless, the Wired piece had no evidence and didn't make a claim on the same basis as what you're suggesting. The opinion author mistook this feature by thinking it applied to organic results: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10286719?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10286719?hl=en
  - 3y ago
granzymes 3y ago
The relevant material was almost certainly the slide that the article was mischaracterizing: https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 https://twitter.com/adamkovac/status/1710041764910846061 I wish WIRED had included this context in their retraction statement…

1270018080 3y ago

The relevant information: Google’s legal team

spondylosaurus 3y ago

For context, the WIRED op-ed was written by a DuckDuckGo executive. I can certainly imagine the incentive there for DDG to misrepresent Google's behavior (and as I was reading the article, most of it struck me as speculation more than anything). ETA: Okay, weird. The op-ed itself made it sound like she was a current DDG executive, but her LinkedIn profile states that she no longer works there (and is more or less self-employed now). No idea how to interpret that. In any case, she was DDG's legal counsel and VP of policy for three years.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yegg 3y ago
This person is not employed by DuckDuckGo. They formerly worked there, and not for a couple of years. We had nothing to do with this op-ed.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  Mere employment does not negate that the person might still have financial incentives tied to DDG. If anything, they might be concealed better and are MORE likely they can publish with conflict of interest, without legal risk.
  - whycome 3y ago
    You're right. And on the other hand, someone with passion and knowledge about the domain will likely be working for one of its major players at some point.
  - Angostura 3y ago
    Are claiming that the author still does have financial links to DDG? That's quite an accusation.
    - frde 3y ago
      Is it such a ridiculous idea that a former executive might have stock options or some kind of lingering financial stake? Worth at least investigating.

jeroenhd 3y ago

> It has been removed Okay, but where is its correction? If you, as a professional publication that considers itself to publish news, unintentionally spread misinformation, you shouldn't just take down the old links, you should put out a new piece with the correct information (and give it just as much attention, don't hide it away). The news came out, everybody got mad, and not half the people who read the original article (or headline) will revisit the articles and see the retraction. Maybe the correction will come later, but I'll stay sceptical of anything Wired has to say until the correction comes out.