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: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2016, @03:51AM
You mean sort of how nothing intelligent can pass through your thick skull?
The greater risk here is in filtering out material in reality. If nobody is doing any filtering then there's at least some way of addressing the situation. But, if there's filtering going on, then there's no way of knowing what is and isn't being kept from the public and there's a very big problem about who draws what lines where.
Seriously, I've had to re-evaluate my views on several posters here as you've set a new all time low for lack of intellectual capacity. I'm not positive, but I think you might actually be a cucumber. Probably the one crammed up your mother's cunt.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday December 31 2016, @05:05AM
Seriously, I've had to re-evaluate my views on several posters here as you've set a new all time low for lack of intellectual capacity.
The first step is to admit you have a problem. Have you noticed that a lot of comments here just go over your head? Do posters use words you do not know? Can you tell me why you want to be a cucumber? What was your relation with your father like? Do you miss the interuterine state? I prescribe education! Even Community College! Not a bad place to start. You will be exposed to evidence verification, inferential reasoning, the scientific method, and if you take some philosophy, the "massively mistaken" hypothesis. Worth a shot. Better than hanging around on SoylentNews and trying to beat up on 2400 year old philosophers, where you are quite clearly, to everyone, out of your league. We're coming for you, Francis!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2016, @05:31AM
The greater risk here is in filtering out material in reality. If nobody is doing any filtering then there's at least some way of addressing the situation. But, if there's filtering going on, then there's no way of knowing what is and isn't being kept from the public and there's a very big problem about who draws what lines where.
Oh, yes, since clearly you would be able to detect unfiltered reality, because of it's "truthiness". No, there is no reality, there are no objective facts, and there is no way to know whether anything lines anywhere taco bravo indulges kumquat. Ant this goes doobie for Califiorina. There are several (two) songs you should listen to:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126289/ [imdb.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KThlYHfIVa8 [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xEwbzEBw14 [youtube.com]
'
Satan is the source.