Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Friday December 30 2016, @11:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the meet-the-google-police dept.

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.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 31 2016, @07:29AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday December 31 2016, @07:29AM (#447790) Journal

    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!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2016, @09:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2016, @09:32AM (#447803)

    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

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday December 31 2016, @09:58AM (#447809) Journal

      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.