Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links 375
wabrandsma writes about Google's new system for ranking the truthfulness of a webpage. "Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them. Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. 'A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,' says the team. The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score. The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings."
YES (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time, but I really hope their 'factual accuracy' engine gets open sourced so we can be clear on exactly how they determine what are 'facts'
FEO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FEO (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fact optimization" is already behind more than one multi-billion dollar industry: advertising, political lobbying...
And this is why I fear this initiative, no matter how well intentioned, is doomed to failure. Just because something gets repeated a lot, that doesn't make it factually correct. Moreover, censoring dissenting opinions is a terrible reaction to active manipulation and even to old-fashioned gossip, because it removes the best mechanism for correcting the groupthink and promoting more informed debate, which is introducing alternative ideas from someone who knows better or simply has a different (but still reasonable) point of view.
Remember, not so long ago, the almost-universal opinion would have been that the world was flat.
Re:FEO (Score:5, Interesting)
My personal metric (Score:4, Funny)
My personal metric will be any web page that doesn't contain the string "silentcoder".
Re:My personal metric (Score:4, Informative)
You know you can append your search with "-silentcoder" to exclude all results that contain the string "silentcoder", right?
Re: (Score:3)
I did actually. Websites DEBUNKING pseudo-scientific nonsence shouldn't be getting downgraded !
Re:FEO (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, not so long ago, the almost-universal opinion would have been that the world was flat.
A good example of a wrong fact that too many people believe. As soon as people really started traveling, especially on the ocean, it became obvious that the Earth is not flat. Something like 2500 years ago a Greek used geometry to measure the circumference of the Earth though there were idiots like Columbus who were convinced the world was much smaller then the generally accepted size.
Re:FEO (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a certain amount of evidence that Columbus lied about how big he thought the world was, in order to convince the Spanish crown to finance his expedition.
It's not like the New World was completely unknown in Europe before Columbus - FLemish fishermen were drying fish in Newfoundland before Columbus was born. And it's quite possible that Columbus knew that.
If so, and in light of Spain's interest in breaking the Portugese monopoly on trade with the Far East, a little "creative interpretation" of the world's size might have been sufficient to convince the Spanish Crown that a trip west was a worthwhile investment....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FEO (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be daft, good vs bad are not facts. Facts are things like when the bank bailout happened, which laws were used, who signed the laws, which banks benefited, how big of bonuses were given out etc. Ideally you base your opinion about good vs bad based on facts rather then bullshit and good vs bad is always an opinion.
And how is it censorship if a private entity prints whatever it wants? You, I and Google are free to put whatever we want on sites we own. Everyone is free to visit which ever sites they want to visit and we're all free to stop visiting a site if we don't like/agree with its content. Google fucks up and they'll go the way of Alta Vista.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be daft, good vs bad are not facts. Facts are things like when the bank bailout happened, which laws were used, who signed the laws, which banks benefited, how big of bonuses were given out etc. Ideally you base your opinion about good vs bad based on facts rather then bullshit and good vs bad is always an opinion. And how is it censorship if a private entity prints whatever it wants? You, I and Google are free to put whatever we want on sites we own. Everyone is free to visit which ever sites they want to visit and we're all free to stop visiting a site if we don't like/agree with its content. Google fucks up and they'll go the way of Alta Vista.
OK, that was a bad example. "Who plotted 9/11". That's a question regarding a fact that is disputed. But there is an official status quo version that is more widely accepted than others. Will that become a fact? Regarding censorship - yes, Google is not the only search engine out there. Let's see if Bing makes an announcement in the nearest future saying that they're implementing a similar technology to become more "competitive" against Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those aren't facts though... In the popular sense of the word perhaps, but probably not what Google engineers are thinking. Chances are they are looking for common myths, commonly mis-attributed quotes, simple mathematical errors, typos and the like.
I'm thinking things like "glass is a liquid", "we only use 10% of our brains", getting famous people's birthdays wrong etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Fighting misinformation posted widely is the most important form of journalism there is.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/06/21/231250/uk-man-sentenced-to-16-months-for-exporting-e-waste-despite-91-reuse
CBS 60 Minutes, PBS Frontline, CNN, John Stossel, everyone unanimously republished a stat in 2002 about "e-waste" exports which stated that 75%-80% of these exports were dumped and recycled in primitive conditions. Science Daily even reported that Agbogbloshie (city dump in Accra) was the "most
Re:FEO (Score:5, Insightful)
If this ever happens, expect Fact Engine Optimization to become a new industry, and do exactly what SEO did to the reliability and utility of search engines.
Finally! It is the tautology club's moment to shine [xkcd.com]
Re:FEO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:YES (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time
Yes, automated groupthink is a wonderful idea. Doubleplusgood!
Re:YES (Score:5, Insightful)
DuckDuckGo has ranted for a while about Google's "search bubble", where it shows each user pages likely to confirm their biases. This twists that old habit, so now everyone will be presented with pages likely to confirm Google's biases. Disagree with the Google groupthink? Your page is filled with lies, and Google will do its best to hide it.
Your own good judgment is the only worthwhile filter, and you don't get or maintain that by seeing only pages that all say the same thing. You don't really understand any subject until you can argue both sides in detail, and see why those with the out-of-favor view believe what they do!
I don't expect it will take very many years before Google picks sides on politically contentious issues in their ranking. Is abortion murder? Don't worry, Google will decide for you! Is recycling actually helping the environment? Don't worry, Google will decide for you! Are the current Net Neutrality changes actually good for the consumer, or only for internet giants? Don't worry, Google knows where the facts are!
Whatever you do, don't spend the time to study issues in depth for yourself, no, don't rise above your station. Repeat what you've been told, and everyone will say how smart you are - well, at least everyone who shows up in a Google search.
Re: (Score:3)
Google sole arbiter of truth. Just what I need an MIC/advertisement company will define what is and isnt truth for me.
I trust google over random Anonymous Cowards pulling "facts" out of their ass, especially in political discussions. But, you can always choose to not use google. There are other search engines, you know.
Bad move (Score:4, Insightful)
That WILL be a bad move. There are a lot of facts out there that academics still debate over. Pretty much anti-free speech afaic.
Re: Bad move (Score:2, Interesting)
Quick question, websites that are deeply religious and contain thousands of, "there is a God," "and God said, let there..." Do these things get knocked way down or are those actual facts, or is there going to be a special clause for religion?
There are thousands of things people will swear are "facts" but it may not actually be the case.
Not only that but facts are different depending on who you ask. Example: "Palestine is a country that borders..." Wait a second, which countries/governments agree that Palest
Fiction is fiction (Score:2)
I don't see how religion should be treated differently from The Adventures of Pinocchio or The Lord of the Rings or The Time Machine or Gulliver's Travels or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
So you want google to passively block or filter into obscurity all references to religion or fiction? And do you believe anything that isn't a fact?
What about mercy? Is that a fact?
What about justice? Is that a fact?
What about kindness? Is that a fact?
You lack the wisdom to grasp what you're talking about.
Intelligence you can get from reading a book or sitting a class. Wisdom requires experience. It requires making mistakes and learning from them. It requires a depth of character. It requires regret.
Your un
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying that bunnies are made of chocolate?
See, I can ask stupid questions too. Your question is a sad rhetorical evasion.
Whether or not something is objectively true or contains objective facts is not justification for censoring it.
Do you only look for facts on line? When you go to a library is it only to find facts? When you turn on the tv or open a newspaper is it only to find facts?
What about someone writing reviews for books... are those facts?
Lets say we have a political campaign and the two si
Re: (Score:3)
actually, on the point of zoroastrianism and fire temples,
I think this could make google so much more useful. If I want to see the research (I mean real research) on human reaction to mercury , and maybe any studies or abstracts about it, I can't really use google now. The first 200 website are anti vaccine websites. Instead I use something like wikipedia and work my way toward some research from the citations, and then use those base studies to scan for references that cite it (or the other way).
some th
Re:Bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
It is seldom the veracity of facts that the debate is over; it is their significance. But that happens to be where this falls idea falls short, because misinterpretation of facts is where the most potent misinformation comes from.
Case in point, "vaccine injury" -- which is a real thing, albeit very rare. Anti-vaccine activists point to the growing volume of awards made by the US "Vaccine Court" (more accurately called "The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims") as proof that vaccine injuries are on the rise.
It is a verifiable fact that the volume of awards has grown since the early years of the program. That is absolutely and unquestionably true. However, that this is proof vaccine injuries is gross misinterpretation, because the "Vaccine Court" program is no fault. You don't actually have to show the defendant *caused* an "injury", you only have to (a) show the child got sick after being vaccinated and (b) find a doctor to sign off on a medical theory by which the child's illness *might* have been caused by the vaccination.
Since you don't have to actually prove injury in "Vaccine Court", the rise in cases and awards doesn't know vaccine injuries are on the rise. All that is necessary is that more people think that their child's illness was caused by vaccinations, and the low burden of proof will automatically ensure more awards.
And so there you have it. A perfectly factual claim can be cited in a way that leads people to preposterous conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't read the paper but I think that big debatable facts ("global warming is caused by humans", "vaccines cause autism") won't count as much as small unquestionable facts ("Barrack Obama is the president of the USA", "A marathon is 42.195 km").
For example : ... plenty of true facts ... plenty of true facts
site 1 : cell phone radiations are bad for your health because
site 2 : cell phone radiations are not a problem because
Because both sites are full of unquestionably true facts (such as frequencies, laws
can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score:4, Interesting)
It is an interesting algorithm, but who is to say the fact is correct? if many sites say the same information, the fact is more correct? if that is the case, then how much better is that from links. when there is more than one version of the truth (conflicts, spin vs fact)... plus not all information is facts... philosophical questions may have more than one answer etc... so I am definitely curious to see how this works out
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
that's a valid complaint
some scientific discoveries go against conventional wisdom and are originally ridiculed. for example, some australian scientists discovered stomach ulcers are caused by a certain species of bacteria in the 1980s. they were rejected, laughed at, people got angry at them. the belief at the time was acid and spicy food formed ulcers. wrong. eventually they won the nobel prize for medicine for their discovery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
but this proce
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile, we have antivaxxers, moon landing deniers, GM food ignorance, creationists, climate change deniers, fluoride fearmongers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists babbling about burning airplane fuel and steel, etc... assorted douchebag crackpots who are absolutely, undeniably factually wrong, and oftentimes dangerous (to public health, for example), but enthusiastically keep spreading their lies nonetheless
stupid shitbags like this for example are working very, very hard to kill children:
Then you have official misinformation like this site, which is put together by the American Heart Attack Association: .org/
www. goredforwomen
The American Heart Attack Association tells us that it is important to consume biodiesel instead of humanity's traditional fats (butter, tallow, lard, coconut oil). Official Science refers to nutritional biodiesel as the Omega-3 and Omega-6 "essential" fatty acids, but they always neglect to tell us how much "essential" fat is enough to meet our daily requireme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotally, I never share links directly to here because summaries and headlines are so often wrong.
Re:can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in science. A fact is an observation or evidence that has been repeatedly observed to be true. It doesn't mean always true or only true.
The problem is when existing theories compete. OR more precisely points within large theories compete. Take relativity for instance, gravitational waves help explain the big bang but not all observations support the big bang model. But gravitational waves are considered fact for the purpose of the theory even though it has never been directly observed because it can be explained in mathematical computations that explain observations.
So what happens when we actually detect them for real and they operate slightly different than we think? Does this new observation or fact get pushed to the front of the line or is it buried because the fact engine hasn't updated yet or the wikipedia article it is referencing is in a mod battle. How about if something else is found to explain the theory concerning gravitational waves but lives in the same limbo as gravitational waves in which it hasn't been directly observed but can explain observations with math also.
It reminds me in the 80's when (and I forget who) some doctor was claiming most stomach ulcers were the result of bacteria. Turns out that is a fact but he was originally ridiculed because the fact at the time was that no one believed that bacteria could survive in the stomach's acidic environment longer than it takes to pass through it. Now the fact is that it's cheaper to just giving a couple antibiotics and seeing if the ulcer disappears than to test if the ulcer is bacteria related or other. But it was indisputable at one time, then someone disputed it and now it is indisputable again. Facts change.
Re:can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score:5, Interesting)
The stomach ulcer thing was two Australia scientists, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren. They claimed, in 1982, that stomach ulcers were caused by H. Pylori but because that bacteria was common in the intestinal tract already the idea was shot down as incorrect. They spent 2 years trying to infect piglets with it then gave up and Barry drank a full petrie dish of the cultured bacteria. He suffered symptoms within 3 days, and had significant ulcers and gastritis after a week.
As a result of this test and the observed symptoms the medical community accepted their findings. They were awarded a nobel prize, in '96 I think.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But the doctors, who in the US are over 98% Republican because they hate us, still refuse to treat ulcers as something that can be cured. Instead, they use it as an opportunity to preach their beliefs. Mine hates alcohol so he demanded I stop drinking. The next doctor I went to hates Mexicans so he told me he wouldn't help me unless I pledged to not eat Mexican food. He claimed spicy food caused ulcers. The third guy wanted me to quit my job since I worked for a Thai restaurant. He lied and claimed th
Re: (Score:2)
First, bacteria not being the cause of ulcers wasn't indisputable, it *was* disputed, as you pointed out. It's just that the consensus was that bacteria weren't the cause. The consensus changed, not the fact that bacteria caused the ulcers.
By the way, Webster's for indisputable: "impossible to question or doubt : not disputable".
Re:can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: can't wait to see it work on fox news web site (Score:2)
Who decides what is indisputable? A crew of experts hand picked by google executives? A computer algorithm that does big data analysis of mob rule?
Once a thing becomes indisputable and thus factual, what happens when it is disputed in the future? When is dispute just crackpots and when is it valid? I remember 16mm films in school talking about how smog, particulates and so forth could block sunlight and bring about cooling that could trigger an ice age. Today clinate change is about heat trapping gasses he
Re:Wonder how they'll rate Global Warming discussi (Score:4, Insightful)
Q.E.D.
Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sell any stock before they launch this... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not envisioning a fact based result but a "your opinion" based result. Not really what is discussed here. Fox News for instance, gets more facts right then wrong even though they are selected to shill for the republicans. You have no facts stating that _ALL_religious_websites are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite so, obviously the First Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true. But I think that's widely enough known that it would rise to the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is true, you can even read about its creation or question its creator directly.
Or was you trying to be faceatious and your knee jerked so hard it hit you in the head and lowered your IQ to the point you think one specific example is all possible examples as was stated?
Well, maybe you are a true believer or is it posdible you are just a manga fan with a fetish for tenacle monsters?
Re: (Score:2)
it's slashdot! (Score:4, Interesting)
yaay, it's slashdot on steroids, yaay! with all the means by which true knowledge may be suppressed by misunderstandings, yaay! democracy at work to bubble up the sum of our ignorance rather than inconvenient and annoying truth. ahh gotta love it...
I can see how this might go wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fox Head | 2015
Fox Glacier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Search: Does life begin at conception?
Evolutionary biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New England Journal of Medicine
No - Merriam-Webster Online
Search: New World Order
Your search - New World Order did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
-Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
-Try different keywords.
-Try more general keywords.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is becoming useless (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds like a great improvement.
Some years ago if I searched for a data sheet for an Electronic Component, I could rely on a direct link to the PDF in the first hit or so.
Now however, any worthwhile result is often many pages down the list. The first page or two are full of "Are you searching for xxxx? We don't have that right now, but here's a great way to earn big dollars!!".
Google is so badly scammed that I usually don't bother. I hate to say it, but even Bing is better now.
Re: (Score:3)
Bing is also better on old hardware and marginal connections... even in Chrome. I have a 2009 Shuttle box and a megabit DSL link and Bing just kind of appears. Faster hardware improves things a bit but Google services just seem to assume infinite bandwidth - the lack of throttling on Google Drive makes it useless and OH GLOB I'M RANTING.
tldr; Bing is faster than Google - and loads immediately on those occasions when Chrome's address bar is horking like it has a hairball. It's not as drastic as the differ
Re:Google is becoming useless (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem the GP mentions is a real one, at least it was for me a few months back, and no it's not a malware issue. Fake answer link farm sites were completely gaming Google's search. Perhaps things have gotten better as Google tweaks their algorithms. Wish I could remember what it was I was searching for when I last encountered this frustrating problem months ago, but I remember being very frustrated.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I'm not looking for the phrase "Electronic Component". I'm looking for a specific data sheet for a specific component.
Re: (Score:2)
I have my doubts about this new algorithm improving things though.
Well (Score:2)
Follow the herd or vanish (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, if your web page contents do not agree to some arbitrary consensus as defined by the pages Google chooses to trawl, your web page will not be listed anywhere near the top of the search results.
This is idiotic, as this has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with conformance and not rocking the boat.
However, as a business plan, this might actually work: it will be easier to package the products to the advertisers, as all possibly controversial information is removed from the searches.
I for one welcome our Corporate Overlords!
Re: (Score:2)
By facts, not links? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:By facts, not links? (Score:5, Interesting)
It had come a long way, then it started being manipulated by ideology pushing extremists that have become very adept at abusing the hell out of labrynthian policies to the point that even when the author of a news article flat out says "They're lying, I never said that at all" it's the author that gets punished.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Go talk to David Auerbach over at slate.
Re: (Score:2)
Ta. I was actually curious :)
Ripe for snake oil salesman (Score:2)
The PBS snake oil salesmen that come out during the periodic beg-athons manage to lie while spewing out facts as half-truths that don't support their entire argument. A machine is unlikely to be able to distinguish these sort of lies never mind the hordes of gullible people that fall for them.
Re: (Score:3)
What universe are you from? I've never talked to anyone from that universe.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
While in theory the idea is great, the problem is that one person's facts are another person's propaganda.
Look at the crap storms on wikipedia for example with all sorts of various groups all fighting over who gets to edit some page. Can you honestly say that always ends with the people standing up for truth winning? I can think of a few situations where it was controversial and the people that were pushing bs just happened to win or nearly as bad force moderators to lock the listing in a pre crisis state. Thus basically white washing the whole incident out of existence.
Again, I think it is a nice idea in theory, in practice I'm sure assholes and trolls are going to fuck it up.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to hear a good explanation why this isn't just self-reinforcing groupthink. For every 10 genuine facts, you'll see some widely quoted falsehood like "1 in 5 women on college campuses is sexually assaulted" promoted by Google as a fact. These kinds of bogus statistics are very common.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that the stat you're referring to was spread by the US CDC despite being contradicted by the FBI crime statistics, you can see how it can lead to issues.
There are a lot of things you probably think are facts that aren't... they're often widely accepted by very educated people because for various reasons it greases a lot of axes that need to be ground.
Think of all the untrue things that are repeated by the media, the government, etc. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that is bullshit. Why would you
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
The simple fact that you see partisan advantage proves you agree it will be exploited. You just think it will be exploited to help you rather than hurt you.
The funny thing you're not getting is that google itself is far from indispensible. There are lots of other search engines and most of them are comparable in quality.
At best... assuming you're right... what would happen is that people that thought more like you would be even further echo chambered then you already are... protected from alternative view points and increasingly controlled by your ruling opinion makers... while the internet culture further fragments.
You're hardly going to win against your political rivals because they'll just use Bing or something. All that will happen is that YOU are aware of less. Will your opinions change? You weren't moved by sites that came up that you felt were pushing disinformation in the first place. No one really is at this point. We can smell our own and we treat with skepticism anyone outside our tribe.
You might argue that this would help you fight for the allegiance of the moderates and the middle. And you might have something there. But things are so social networked at this point that you'll have a hard time playing gatekeeper with any proficiency.
In any case... your opinion has merely validated my initial statement.
Re: (Score:3)
You're suggesting that truth be determined by majority vote. Want to hold a poll in Egypt about whether evolution is real or do you see the fucking the problem with putting that sort of thing to a vote?
Its a bad idea.
As to truth having a liberal bias, the truth has no bias what so ever. Presuming your ideology is the source of truth and all other belief systems are false... is what you'll hear from pretty much any fanatic.
Ask a fanatical evangelical christian and they'll tell you that the truth has an evang
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
While of course it would be politically convenient if your rival political factions in a democracy were shut out from any ability to coordinate, debate, or express themselves... there are a few problems with your fascist agenda.
First, you are admitting I'm right in that you agree it could or even should be used for propaganda purposes.
Second, in shutting out your rivals you're going to marginalize google in the first place. They'll just move to other systems. Look at Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or the Wallstreet Journal. Do you honestly think you're going to shut them down? They'll just create something else that will rapidly be just as effective. There are a dozen search engines besides Google. If google says "fuck you" to half of America then half of America will just start using Bing or something. So you'll have accomplished absolutely nothing besides google losing half its marketshare to its rivals by pointlessly pissing people off.
Third, your whole line about the "common good" is basically the same old "greater good" argument that the Nazis were fans of. You want your rivals silenced by force rather then meeting them in open public debate. This shows both that you're not actually a fan of democracy, that you're willing to impose your views by force against the wishes of others, and that you'll have that same blind faith in your own actions found in any fanatic while they do it. So... basically you're a terrible person. No offense intended. But the shit you're typing is indefensible. You can't possibly be a liberal because you don't believe in "liberty". What you believe in is the orthodoxy of your dogma and you're prepared to subvert democracy to get what you want. Here is a lesson for you, sport. The means ARE the ends. That is, the process by which you create something has a major influence on what you ultimately create. If you gain power through trickery, extortion, force, etc then your power will not be based on the truth or the will of the people but rather on your trickery, extortion, and free use of force. That will be the nature of the society you create. And that will furthermore justify your opposition to respond in kind. If you lock them out of debate then they will be entirely justified to respond by shutting YOU out of debate or just ceasing power or something.
I don't know what to tell you. I find posts like yours to be disappointing. You're basically saying you want a king or an oligarchy to cease power and rule with an iron fist... managing everything with some digital ministry of truth. You make me sad.
Comments? (Score:2)
So commentors on a news website spouting out opinions can de-rank it?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with news article comments is the mouthbreathing fucktards who inevitably make Youtube look like Mensa in comparison.
How will it rate http://dhmo.org ? (Score:2)
It is a liberal conspiracy (Score:2)
This shifts the weakness in Google's rankings (Score:4, Interesting)
from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.
Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.
The biggest lies are immersed in true facts (Score:2)
The mass media (aka 'infotainment complex') is a prime example that if you tell the facts all day about fires, robberies, weather, and (selectively) arrests... then you gain a certain credibility to use in starting a war, or to keep suggesting that everyone on the street is just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire (if only the government would stop this regulation stuff).
Its possible Google's new ranking idea could be a benefit to humanity IF they make the logic and the rankings transparent. That would at
So much for science (Score:2)
So every time science changes, google will ignore it -- or crash. I want to know what will happen to the site that say pluto is a planet. Then the ones that say pluto is not a planet. And then, I want to know about the next time pluto becomes a planet.
So google's going to ignore every site that says anything new that contradicts something old. climate change will be fun. so will vitamins, vaccinations, and any new religions.
But hey, google already doesn't believe my city, just because my city is 300 mi
There was a time before Google (Score:3)
WebCrawler, AlvaVista, etc. Remember those?
If Google search results start being useless, people will start using another search engine and Google will simply vanish like the others before it.
So who checks the fact checkers? (Score:2)
or is this going to be a digital galileo where unpopular fact is pushed to the bottom..
umm (Score:3)
off by one error (Score:2)
When Google Met Wikileaks the book (Score:2)
Looks like Eric Schmidt was paying some attention to what Julian Assange was explaining in the meeting back in June 2011.
Who decides as to what is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
But what about inconvenient facts, for instance the various western governments put out employment numbers that are pretty hard core "facts" yet other people will look at the same "facts" and realize that they have had massive amounts of spin put on them. For instance in my neck of the woods they desperately hide the fact that most jobs being created are really crappy. Thus these "facts" then become politicized.
Or what about someone writing about NSA evildoing? Those are facts that the government would love to go away. Or what if every stock analyst suddenly agreed that Google was doomed as a stock?
Then there is group think. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis there were some "crackpots" who called it exactly and made fortunes based on their predictions; yet those facts flew in the face of general consensus. The same in economics. One joke at many economics universities is that the questions never change on the final exam, it is the answers that change year to year. If you look at something such as to the best time to loosen monetary policy and every major economic school has its own "facts".
I don't think that Google's search engine problems come from facts it is more that SEO whores like huffpo or the various directories are driving all the results to their crap sites. I don't know how many times I have searched for a company that has a perfectly good site that has not been through an SEO pimping putting it on page 3 or more while the first many pages are all kinds of crap yellowpages that ask "Is this your site?" where they want to upsell the owners on crap services.
I got your "facts" right here ... (Score:3)
... in my advertiser's purchase order.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
So how many random facts to promote my page? (Score:2)
Won't this just encourage SEO sites to include a bunch of trivial facts but easily verifiable facts within page to get a good truth like quality as far as Google is concerned?
Echo chamber internet (Score:2)
Hm... not sure extending the reddit echo chamber effect to the entire effective internet is really a good idea, especially for diversity of ideas.
Then again, as someone else mentioned, there will always be other search engines. Back in the day, Yahoo only showed you the big, popular sites... and then a search engine called google which showed everything.
This Google focus has always bugged me. (Score:3)
I use Google regularly, but I never forget that it's a search engine. Nothing less and nothing more. People who rely on their Google rank for business are going to wake up some day to a big disappointment. A whole generation of users mistaking Google for the web, or even the internet is completely annoying.
If Google wants to change their system, it's their business. If Google can't find a site that I'm looking for, even though the searchterms are distinct and the site offers exactly what I want, it's Google fault, not the fault of the site builder.
We need to educate the ordinary people that Google is one of many search engines. The best perhaps and pretty good most of the time, but only a search engine. That internet traffic goes down by 60% whenever Google is offline simply because people don't get that is scary.
Re:Search Neutrality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe there should be a concept such as Search Neutrality.
Search is already neutral, it's the order of results that upsets people because by definition, ranking cannot be neutral. An intelligent search engine such as IBM's Watson gives a confidence rating on it's "facts", it can produce multiple answers each with a confidence ranking. They can also explain in excruciating detail how they arrived at the answer, and they can do it better than humans. Technology is a tool, a hammer that can be used to build or destroy a civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Only on Facebook and Fox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)