Posted on 12/14/2008 6:11:18 AM PST by slnk_rules
Google this week admitted that its staff will pick and choose what appears in its search results. It's a historic statement - and nobody has yet grasped its significance.
Not so very long ago, Google disclaimed responsibility for its search results by explaining that these were chosen by a computer algorithm. The disclaimer lives on at Google News, where we are assured that: The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.
A few years ago, Google's apparently unimpeachable objectivity got some people very excited, and technology utopians began to herald Google as the conduit for a new form of democracy. Google was only too pleased to encourage this view. It explained that its algorithm "relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. "
That Google was impartial was one of the articles of faith. For if Google was ever to be found to be applying subjective human judgment directly on the process, it would be akin to the voting machines being rigged.
For these soothsayers of the Hive Mind, the years ahead looked prosperous. As blog-aware marketing and media consultants, they saw a lucrative future in explaining the New Emergent World Order to the uninitiated. (That part has come true - Web 2.0 "gurus" now advise large media companies).
It wasn't surprising, then, that when five years ago I described how a small, self-selected number of people could rig Google's search results, the reaction from the people doing the rigging was violently antagonistic. Who lifted that rock? they cried.
But what was once Googlewashing by a select few now has Google's active participation.
(Excerpt) Read more at theregister.co.uk ...
There have been a number of complaints about Google. Enough that I had no doubts that some censorship was going on. However, having worked in large organizations, I knew that “unofficial” censorship can happen, even when it is frowned upon. When you get a clatche of the uber-hip together, I expect some of that, whether management approves or not.
However, the interesting thing about this is that Google has just come out and admitted it, and stated they are a part of it. This cannot be good for google itself.
I am not one of those who is constantly screaming about the cultural biases we have, nor do I have much respect for the constant petulant whininess of conservatives about it. I happen to believe that the militant atheistic hatred of Christian values by elements of our culture make for wonderful evangelistic opportunities, and great chances to argue for freedom, liberty, and a rollback of federal power.
My purpose in posting the article was not to alert freepers to the fact that goog is biased (in your words “DUH”). It was a notice that things are out there and above board in the bias.
Thanks for the coment, anyway.
Ty for the tip.
I used to work across the parking lot from one of Google’s original office buildings. Al Gore was a very frequent visitor. That was all I needed to know.
Thanks for the tip, I just tried it and I like it I searched for info on my Polish Radom and got some nice hits.
I tend to view their “admission” as Yeah, we cheat, and....
I rarely rant on the subject and I said I haven’t used it in over a year, it’s been longer than that. It became blatantly obvious when I searched for “anti-global warming” and got articles on flat earthers.
Their admission is akin to the MSM reporting that there is corruption in Illinois politics.
bump 4 later
I like it's search results paragraph format. It reminds me of summaries on library cards we used to search at the public libraries under the dewey decimal system.
It claims to search more than 124 billion pages - ALL of the Internet.
I found pages relating to one search subject that I had never found with google.
Correction: I like its (not it’s) search results....
[s_r] Could not agree more. ...
Disagree. "Rule the information world" is malum in se as it presupposes an agenda of monopolistically limiting other people's freedom of choice in order to extract rents or impose a vision, or both.
.
Touché sir, the achillies heel of capatalism, is that if unchecked, and completly unregulated, leads to less freedom of choice. But I stand by my comment that “Corporations are not inherently evil” when considering the true motive of pure uncorrupted capitalism.
We all see examples of capitalism devolve into corruption, as we see the same in politics. True capitalism means the right to make a buck without breaking the rules (laws), and having “Integrity”.
To be abolished soon from a dictionary near you, the word that comes after “integration”, and before “inters”, Integrity!
And Sir, we do see little, if any, of that anymore.
clusty.com is looking good. I’m hanging onto that one.
I checked out cuil.com and find it excellent. I changed my home pages on both my laptop and desktop to cuil.com
I like it’s search results paragraph format. It reminds me of summaries on library cards we used to search at the public libraries under the dewey decimal system.
It claims to search more than 124 billion pages - ALL of the Internet.
I found pages relating to one search subject that I had never found with google.
__________________________________________________________
I don’t know about ALL of the Internet.
I did this search yesterday in Google
‘vzaccess manager updating numbers’
I got 2100 results, one of which in the first 10 anwered my question.
When I just did this in CUIL, I got zero, zip, results.
I agree, they aren't. The original function of corporations, as joint-stock companies, was to spread risk and make larger trading expeditions possible, in order to mitigate and abate "gambler's ruin".
Nothing wrong with that.
As for gain, well, anyone who ever reaped a crop has "taken a gain" on his labor and original (seed) investment.
Well, not always, if Microsoft does it, it is unquestionably evil.
You will not get any argument from me, as I told lentulusgracchus, as soon as any entity violates thier integrity they become disingenuous, Google, Wiki, YouTube, most of the MSM, are left of center, and therfore are responsible for misleading the masses. As far as your point on any thing slightly “Right Wing” being in the same camp, I respect that on its basic principal, but reject it in practice because the definition of pure objectivity is mostly adhered to by what the left calls “Right Wingers”.
I reject most of Jerry Falwell, and some of what Doc Mike says, I respect and admire Mark L, Rick R, Rush and the insatiable Laura I, and Michelle M. These are folk that the MSM defines as being to the right of center, so the question is - what is the “center”, and who or what defines it? PBS?
No, Every pundit, host, and whatever, has an agenda, My listenersihp/viewiership is garnerd, granted, and geared, toward the agenda of the so called “right wing”, because I see the world slipping fast to the left.
Am I evil?
Yeah, it’s a poor fix.
Careful, the last time I said exactly that, I was severely chastised by many here...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.