SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Last week an article from the BBC said:
Google has said it is 'thinking deeply' about ways to improve search, after criticism over how some results - including ones discussing the Holocaust - were ranked.
[...] Google - which processes five billion searches a day - was keen to come up with a solution that was broadly applicable across all searches, rather than just those that have been noticed by users.
"It's very easy to take a search here and there and demand Google change something," explained Mr Sullivan, "and then the next day you find a different search and say, 'why didn't you fix that?' "
This week we see the results of their efforts: Google has modified PageRank to surface "more high-quality, credible content on the web":
Google's technology was changed again after people spoke out about how typing in "are Jews evil" in the autocorrect function resulted in offensive terms. Also, when people searched "who runs Hollywood?" the result, "Jews," was scrubbed last year. Google said its algorithm incorrectly gave "authority" to a site that suggested so because it was linked to over and over again.
But Heidi Beirich, intelligence project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said Tuesday that Google has a long way to go to "clean up its act." While searching for "did the Holocaust happen?" no longer shows one white supremacist site at the top, searching for "is the Holocaust real?" still provides a site up high that claims it's a hoax.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday December 31 2016, @07:01AM
Exactly how do you know what you are looking for, such that you can identify biased results? If you can recognize "biased results", you already knew what you were looking for, so you were not in fact looking for something, you were looking for confirmation, as in "confirmation bias".
While I understand what you're getting at, you have to admit that Francis has a point here too. Things called filter bubbles [wikipedia.org] do exist.
And the way I knew it was happening to ME was not by reading a Socratic dialogue, but because in 2012 I got interested in following the Ron Paul fiasco for a while. NOT because I was a Ron Paul supporter, but because I found the whole thing interesting (and while the Paul folks certainly behaved unfairly in some ways, the RNC's suppression of them was also quite a bit crazy at times).
Anyhow -- for several months back then I did a Google search for "Ron Paul" probably every other day or so to check in and see if any news appeared. Eventually, I started seeing lots of Ron Paul headlines showing up. After having a conversation with a friend, I realized when we both did searches that we were seeing DIFFERENT results, due to our search histories.
So, pace Meno, it IS possible to realize that someone is messing with your "reality," or at least your search results.
Since then I have never done a Google search from a browser where I'm logged into a Google account. But that's still not sufficient to get you out of Google's crappy system, which personalizes your results based on where it thinks you are (even if you don't tell it), etc. Yes, in some cases this can be a feature, but eventually in the past few years I quit Google as my primary search engine because I was spending more time "fighting" it to get it to search for what I actually want, rather than what it THINKS I want.
Back in the early 2000s, Google was fantastic, because you could actually do a full-text search on basically the entire internet. It was AWESOME. You could come up with a set of four search terms that you knew could uniquely identify what you wanted, and you could get a handful of predictable hits. That's just not possible anymore. "Verbatim" search is broken. (See the Google forums, if you don't believe me -- it's been broken ever since it was introduced after Google deprecated the + operator.) You can try "allintext:" as an operator, which works much better than verbatim, but it still fails in all sorts of cases. If you start using search tools, be prepared to discover all sorts of weirdness -- if you limit results to 1990 to 2000 vs. 1999 to 2000, be prepared to get different lists of results for the period 1999 to 2000, even though both should give you the same results. It's a MESS.
I know it's mostly because there are AI algorithms trying to "give people what they want" rather than what they literally search for. But it drives me crazy. And yes, it can also significantly distort the results you get.
I get that you are arguing with Francis because you are concerned he just wants to be able to see his favorite political news all the time, and he doesn't want people arbitrarily deranking it. But the larger issue here is that Google does reshape search results all the time to "personalize" them for people, and that's a huge problem that actually makes your concerns WORSE... whatever Socrates might say about it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 31 2016, @07:29AM
While you are quite correct,
While I understand what you're getting at, you have to admit that Francis has a point here too.
No, Francis has no point, other than to be Francis, Francis who does not know things. In fact, does not know any things, but still has an opinion he must post here. So, please, spare me, and the rest of us Soylentils.
So, pace Meno, it IS possible to realize that someone is messing with your "reality," or at least your search results.
My point is, that it is not possible. It is only desireable. You get one search result. Your friend gets another. And I, of course, as a 2400 year old philosopher, get the real results. Not. You may suspect that someone is messing with your search results, but I suggest that if you have to suspect something like this, you are already beyond the Pale, you have no idea what actual evidence and facts and reality are, and since you are AthanasiusKircher, one of the few rational voices here on SoylentNews, I despair. The Francises are taking over.
But the larger issue here is that Google does reshape search results all the time to "personalize" them for people, and that's a huge problem that actually makes your concerns WORSE... whatever Socrates might say about it.
Of course. The question is what you do about it. From the beginning search engines have been suspect. Real scholars know how to do real research. I am just suggesting that Plato, through his dramaticae personae of Socrates, is still correct. Sophistry actually gains nothing by technology, and in fact may lose more than it gains. Nazis, damn nazis!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2016, @09:32AM
I see, so you admit that you're not a scholar. This is an internet forum, not a research paper. I am not going to waste time looking up every possible thing that people could disagree with just because aristarchus has a small penis and a large ego.
Doubly so since you can't even be bothered to do more than rudimentary word mining.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 31 2016, @09:58AM
Triply so: what the fuch are you talking about? Are you a complete idiot? Or an incomplete idiot? Either way, I recommend, as usual, more education. Evidently you need help to realize how profoundly ignorant you are. Nothing to be ashamed of, we all have to start somewhere. Oh, why is it that internet forums are not held to the same standards as research papers? Is not what we are doing here peer review? Of course, the peers are somewhat less knowledgeable, so not sure that works out. But, we can aspire.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday December 31 2016, @08:57AM
Let's say you do a lot of Ron Paul searches. Now Google has to show you some Ron Paul results. What should Google show you?
Should Google show you what it thinks you want, or should Google show you something you don't want ("the truth")? Which is more ethical? Does Google have the right to decide what "the truth" is? But on the other hand, is it ethical for Google to perpetuate your bubble of ignorance?
Ethics is a bitch, but complaining about Google is easy, because whichever choice Google makes there's room for an attack. Finding a solution? Nah, that's too hard, much easier to complain on the Internet.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Saturday December 31 2016, @09:21AM
Google should show you what you ask for plain and simple. If that's not what you want, you can always refine your search criteria. But if google of some other engine makes those decisions for you, now what, the only way to know something has gone wrong is if you stumble on different results with a different browser.
To make matters worse since they do it behind the scenes it's much harder to know how to refine the search as you don't really know exactly what tgey did to the results. Ever try googling for an older article? Chances are you can't get it unless you know exactly what to type and it isn't the same as the new stuff. Knowing roughly the title doesn't cut it either.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday December 31 2016, @10:48PM
Chances are you can't get it unless you know exactly what to type and it isn't the same as the new stuff. Knowing roughly the title doesn't cut it either.
Why would you expect it would? Have you even done old school, hard-copy, card-catalog research in a thing called a "library"? Knowing "roughly" is not knowing, Francis! You have to know how to search, and not rely on algorithms. You collect clues, you process leads, you narrow it down. If you can't find something, it means one of two things: either it doesn't exist, or you are not very good at searching.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday December 31 2016, @10:57PM
How does Google know what you are asking for? Humans aren't very good at being unambiguous and explicit. Maybe Google could gather lots of personal data to try to improve their algorithms, but then people complain about privacy (and even then, it's hard to tell what humans want. Have you TRIED understanding a woman? (a joke, if your sensors are broken)) But if Google tries to not be all-knowing, people complain about Google not showing you what you want.
Keep complaining, maybe that will fix everything.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @01:01AM
Or, they could implement things that we used to have back in days of yore, like, you know, the near operator. I see no evidence that they have that operator at all, they certainly don't list it with their other operators.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @04:09AM
Given modern search capabilities, we are probably just going to have to accept that these "bubbles" exist.
But the point of the main story is that there needs to be a way to let users know they are in a bubble and have some way to get out of that bubble.
Just a couple of generalized examples, if I click through 12 pages of search results to get to the one I want, a modern search engine should go "oh, THAT is what you were looking for, I'll try to do better next time".
And if the bubble is as big as described above, I would hope to see some indication that I am getting personalized results and have an option to search without or perhaps "pop" that bubble.
Usually Google SEEMS good about alerting users when links have been censored (such as by DMCA), but when they don't, that is a big problem.