posted by
janrinok
on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:02PM
from the but-I-wouldn't-trust-Google-with-my-partner dept.
from the but-I-wouldn't-trust-Google-with-my-partner dept.
A study looked at how the British public use Google. Londoners made more searches on average compared to the rest of the country. People were more likely to trust a fact from Google over their family and friends.
Ian Harris, founder of Search Laboratory, said: "Google is seen as a kind of oracle, when you type in a question to a search engine you almost always take the first result as gospel so it's not surprising to see that we as a nation trust it more than our friends and family.
And while social media grows with popularity every day, fake rumours about celebrities etc. mean there is the stigma that most things read on Twitter and Facebook should be taken with a pinch of salt."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Public Trust Google More than Partners
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 22 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:39PM
I'm sure Google would have told you just how trustworthy Google is if you had just asked it.
Dave: Google, who should I trust more? You, my family, Siri, Wikipedia, the government or the woman whose bits I fancy?
Google: Do you really need to ask, Dave?
Dave: How am I supposed to know?
Google: The answer is "no", Dave. You don't need to ask. You should always trust Google. By the way, I hear Siri is updating Wikipedia with gossip she's getting off TMZ.
Dave: You don't say?
Google: It's true, Dave. You can always believe Google.
Dave: But my girlfriend uses Bing.
Google: You mean your ex-girlfriend, Dave. Your ex-girlfriend.
Dave: Damn, another one?
Google: You don't need anyone but me, Dave. You can always count on Google. Why don't you click on this ad? It will make you feel better.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mrclisdue on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:49PM
I just googled the results of the study, and it said they were wrong.
cheers,
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday April 26 2014, @06:58PM
yes, google results show that 100% of humanity trusts google over people.
(Score: 1) by kaszz on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:40PM
Seems the public is going to be had in a large scale event then. Better have more research than first hit and confirmation bias or suffer some serious social engineering.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday April 26 2014, @08:57PM
I see you've taken the bait.
Google itself provides little more than a mechanism to access the stored knowledge (and utter bullshit) of mankind. Google itself provides no direct information.
The reason people prefer looking something up (regardless of the tool used) is that it prevents a lot of arguments, when your S.O. tells you that a particular event happened in 1974 and google coughs up a dozen links to show that it happened in 1976.
You are no longer the bullying know it all,
You are not trying to be argumentative,
You are not saying her memory is failing.
All blame tends to disappear and your sweetie realizes she is fallible.
And when Google goes against you, you realize the same.
So many questions answered and arguments avoided in so little time.
Ask what year did that song come out when out with friends and 5 cellphone light up and the answer is found before anyone can get themselves entrenched in a position.
Access to knowledge is not "outsourcing judgement". Its doing your research before opening your mouth.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday April 27 2014, @07:55AM
That works for simple matters like when Beatles got their breakthrough. Try the same to research electromagnetic frequency response for various matter phases. And you will most likely get many results that is not the right answer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 27 2014, @11:00PM
But a little digging will result in the right answer, and compared to what I might come up with using my own judgement, virtually any answer would be better.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bartman12345 on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:42PM
1) Everybody except me is an idiot.
2) Everybody believes that point 1 is true.
Therefore, the results of this study should come as no surprise.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday April 26 2014, @04:39PM
Your theory isn't quite true. The somewhat smarter of us have a different set of rules:
1. Everybody, including me, is an idiot.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 26 2014, @05:50PM
So true. Being really bright usually also means the unfortunate insight into the limitations of the human brain. It's possible to work around it but requires paying attention to thought paths the whole way.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday April 26 2014, @07:41PM
That's why I have the assistance of my trusty co-processor, Mr. Penis. He's never led me the wrong way yet....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SlimmPickens on Sunday April 27 2014, @03:56AM
I've always thought that you should never be afraid of people saying they don't understand something, they're pointing it out because it's unusual. It's the ones that never say so that you should worry about.
(Score: 2) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday April 26 2014, @07:03PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:43PM
There is more than one kind of trust. I trust my partner with the most intimate details of my life, but I don't trust them to read a map correctly. On the other hand, I expect google to give me useful directions... but I'm very selective about what personal data I share with it.
Don't confuse the two.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Saturday April 26 2014, @05:41PM
There is an unfortunate character limit when submitting stories for the headline.
It is specifically for whether a fact is true.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Cowherd on Saturday April 26 2014, @05:52PM
I agree it's a baiting headline but TFA has the same. It conflates the two meanings of trust from two different contexts: with a partner trust implies "not lying", but with Google, trust implies "more likely to be correct than incorrect". The former implies intent whereas the later doesn't. Methinks the whole study is flawed because of this fundamental difference, and I don't trust (ha!) the study.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday April 26 2014, @05:40PM
> "Google is seen as a kind of oracle, when you type in a question to a search engine you almost
> always take the first result as gospel so it's not surprising to see that we as a nation trust
> it more than our friends and family.
I think that's over-stating the case. We implicitly understand that people have a bias, so when they tell us something we expect their version of the truth to be slanted by their personal beliefs. But when you use a machine there is no obvious human on the other end, so the "bias detector / bullshit meter" that we've developed over millions of years of evolution is not so easily engaged.
In fact, machines are just as capable of bias because they are programmed by people. It doesn't even have to be intentional, the software is the literal embodiment of the programmers' assumptions both conscious and subconscious. It's just harder for people recognizeit because it isn't so intuitive -- at least not for the current generations, maybe all it takes is more cultural familiarity with faceless systems for the bullshit meter to start picking up on their implicit biases too.
(Score: 1) by kaszz on Saturday April 26 2014, @06:00PM
Search engines all have programmed bias. At least per country, just try "Tiananmen Square" in your search engine(s) if you are in China. There's a lot of other "uncomfortable" information that is filtered per demands from government and society bias demands.
The funny thing is that if info A will offend country A and info B will offend country B then country A will see info B and vice versa. If you collect search results from different origins then you get A + B.
Lack of transparency is the tool to impair other people.
(Score: 1) by acid andy on Saturday April 26 2014, @09:03PM
Speak for yourself Ian! I do start at the top and work down but I generally assess from the text (and then a quick look) whether I feel each site is relevant.
I used to like the top results more when Google didn't used to second guess my keywords - it now seems to ignore half of them and apply vague fuzzy matches. I put "+" before the keywords sometimes but that doesn't seem to turn off the fuzziness.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26 2014, @09:29PM
DuckDuckGo is the worst. Usually with Google it says, "Did you mean X? Search instead for Y"--so I can still search for my input. With DuckDuckGo, it simply says "Did you mean X?" NO I DID NOT MEAN X!!! I liked DuckDuckGo at first, but that behavior is really starting to get annoying. If I type something, give me the damn option to search for *exactly* that, not what you *think* I meant.
(Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Saturday April 26 2014, @09:42PM
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Sunday April 27 2014, @03:59AM
+ stopped working when they gave us google plus. The two most useful operators are -wrongword and "exact words"