Thanks to a tip from Stuart we learned Google Health is now being integrated into health search results. For instance, if you Google search "hay fever," the top search result is Google Health. The health content is provided by A.D.A.M., an online provider of health content that is physician reviewed for consumers. Taking the number one spot for themselves, Google is making their move to be the source where consumers get their online health information and potentially dominate health search. I guess if you're Google, organic search results are whatever you want them to be.
This has just about reached the breaking point for me. The bottom line is that I longer believe that google can be trusted to return results that are most likely to be what i am searching for, but rather the results and rank of information displayed are being leveraged to further their market share.i agree completely. I also ranted about this just recently around here. I was talking about how you can't really find the right thing in Google anymore, unless you know exactly what you want. But if you know exactly what you want, what's the big benefit of google. I find I use google more along the lines of a spell checker than a true engine. For example, if I don't know if it's espn.com or espn.net, i'll just search for espn on google and go the the right site from there. but in that case, what did google really help with? I knew it was espn, so i was already 99% of the way there. But if you were to search for "sports news" and it gave you espn on top, then google helped. That was a poor example because sports news does go to espn, but that's obvious. but if you searched for normal things, google is not that helpful. you'll get a ton of nonsense sites that are purely seo optimized websites with vomit-worthy content.-mouser (May 01, 2010, 06:27 PM)
It's in Google's best interest to provide you something that is relevant to your search
What is interesting and - I think deserves recognition - about Google is that they do a pretty good job most of the time of balancing the profit with the information and quality of service.
Ok, so is Bing demonstrably and consistently better? If not, what is? Is this a systemic problem in the search market, or unique to Google?
- Oshyan-JavaJones (May 03, 2010, 12:02 AM)
Of course there's always the possibility that Google just doesn't have enough motivation to fix their results since they do in fact make money on these sites, so it could be an error of negligence rather than the even nastier explicit promotion of such sites, but regardless still a morally dubious approach to content ranking and product development/progress (or lack thereof).
That's the problem with SEO strategies. Most of them are based on some combination of common sense, deductive reasoning, and observation. Many also include a healthy dose of wishful thinking.That reminds me of my favorite response when the brass start asking (or pondering aloud) about what if any SEO we should start shoveling money at. I usually reply: How do you recon they get all 400 folks that paid for their services to fit in the Top Ten of the same category?-40hz (May 05, 2010, 04:36 AM)
This leads to a fundamental problem:Now there's one I never thought of, and it does indeed make perfect sense.
For Google, SEO is an exact science. For everybody else - it's an educated guess.
Small wonder Google can precisely place a 'hit' anyplace they want in their rankings.
that's a good point, i have no idea what share of their revenue comes from where. would be nice to know.-mouser (May 03, 2010, 01:36 PM)
The bigger question for me is what the revenue split is between various types of pages.-JavaJones (May 05, 2010, 11:58 AM)
I'm not sure what you're asking here. AdWords is where Google makes it's big money.Wasn't it the combination of AdSense and Analytics (which is actually not even legal in some countries but no-one really cares)?-40hz (May 05, 2010, 12:30 PM)
I'm curious whether there is conclusive evidence that the "scraped" sites that have Google ads on them are higher ranked because of the ads, or because they *aggregate* content from other sites.
"In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin made a promise: 'We believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.' Now, Micah White writes in the Guardian that the vast library that is the internet is flooded with so many advertisements that this commercial barrage is having a cultural impact, where users can no longer tell the difference between content and advertising, and the omnipresence of internet advertising constrains the horizon of our thought. And at the center of it all, with ad space on 85% of all internet sites, is Google. In the gleeful words of CEO Eric Schmidt, 'We are an advertising company.' The danger of allowing an advertising company to control the index of human knowledge is too obvious to ignore, writes White. 'The universal index is the shared heritage of humanity. It ought to be owned by us all. No corporation or nation has the right to privatize the index, commercialize the index, censor what they do not like or auction search ranking to the highest bidder.' Google currently makes nearly all its money from practices its founders once rightly abhorred. 'Now it is up to us to realize the dream of a non-commercial paradigm for organizing the internet. ... We have public libraries. We need a public search engine.'"
The danger of allowing an advertising company to control the index of human knowledge is too obvious to ignore
Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer.
BTW, as I recently have read something about "20 years of WWW":
The WWW (Google's reason to exist) was developed on a NeXT. So, maybe, we shall blame Apple?-Tuxman (November 12, 2010, 08:26 PM)
+1 CodeTRUCKER.
...Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer.
Well, let's just assume that human's are just very good at switching logical systems, and that's their core logical system. Problem solved. :)
...-Renegade (November 12, 2010, 08:20 PM)
If...A = B
and
B = C
then
A = C
... see anything wrong with this?
Maybe I'm not seeing everything (the emperor's new clothes, perhaps), but it seems ludicrous to me (and the man who originally brought this to my attention). It says nothing! The "then" is already contained in the equation. Nothing new is learned, nor proven at all. At best, it is redundant.-CodeTRUCKER (November 12, 2010, 08:43 PM)
Please refrain from double/tripple posting in the future :D-Stephen66515 (November 12, 2010, 09:18 PM)
* not trying to boost my post count, I swear!-tomos (November 13, 2010, 10:14 AM)
* not trying to boost my post count, I swear!-tomos (November 13, 2010, 10:14 AM)
* not trying to boost my post count, I swear!-tomos (November 13, 2010, 10:14 AM)
* not trying to boost my post count, I swear!-tomos (November 13, 2010, 10:14 AM)
@complearning123
Please refrain from double/tripple posting in the future :D-Stephen66515 (November 12, 2010, 09:18 PM)
The funny thing is I was pondering the subject of "logic" just yesterday and today [Cue Twilight Zone theme]. After some cogitation on the issue, I was struck that "logic" was illogical. :o Unfortunately, my post would be about twice the length of your missive, so I will try to distill it and get back to you. In the meantime, here is a smattering...
If...A = B
and
B = C
then
A = C
... see anything wrong with this?-CodeTRUCKER (November 12, 2010, 08:43 PM)
* not trying to boost my post count, I swear!-tomos (November 13, 2010, 10:14 AM)
I am! :eusa_dance:-CodeTRUCKER (November 13, 2010, 12:14 PM)
If...A = B
and
B = C
then
A = C
... see anything wrong with this?-CodeTRUCKER (November 12, 2010, 08:43 PM)
OK, I am definitely NOT schooled formally in logic or philosophy, but I do remember seeing this before - isn't that called syllogistic logic or syllogistic reasoning, something like that?-J-Mac (November 13, 2010, 01:20 PM)
...
Anyways, I do tend to get carried away with logic. It's just so much fun~! :D-Renegade (November 12, 2010, 09:25 PM)
Hard-Coding Bias in Google "Algorithmic" Search Results
Benjamin Edelman - November 15, 2010
I present categories of searches for which available evidence indicates Google has "hard-coded" its own links to appear at the top of algorithmic search results, and I offer a methodology for detecting certain kinds of tampering by comparing Google results for similar searches. I compare Google's hard-coded results with Google's public statements and promises, including a dozen denials but at least one admission.
It just goes to show that when a given company becomes this prominent in cornering any sort of market (could be automobiles, oil, etc., but in this case happens to be searches), it leads to abuses.-kyrathaba (November 19, 2010, 06:03 PM)
My apologies for double posting, but I did not want this to get lost.
Historical precedent demands that any discussion of information aggrandizement and control by an entity as large as Google must encompass the lessons of history. I am not prophesying this will occur within any specific time frame, but please consider the ramifications of the inevitable "what if" when the vast power and resources are usurped by a future non-benevolent government? This is the real "inconvenient truth."-CodeTRUCKER (November 19, 2010, 10:55 PM)
Unfortunately, this debate can only have two perspectives. There can be no neutral position, so take your pick...
(http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif) or (http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/ostrich.gif)
[Edit - Nice post, Renegade. I really hope history does not repeat itself. :( ]-CodeTRUCKER (November 20, 2010, 12:04 AM)
remember our no-politics policy.. let's not let this thread get too far down the politics hole.-mouser (November 20, 2010, 12:38 AM)
In the FWIW Department...
I spent all day trying to find some information on Google and never found it. Then I tried a search engine called...
(http://search.yippy.com/images/new/front_page_logo.png) (http://search.yippy.com/)
[Click on the graphic.]
And found what I needed the first try! Guess what was the search that was so difficult...
"Outlook 2010 next unread message"
No kidding, that's all it was and every other iteration I could think of to try. FYI - I have no affiliation with Yippy.-CodeTRUCKER (November 19, 2010, 11:34 PM)
I really don't understand why there can't be a neutral position. That's what I'm trying to take here. Trying to be objective and stick to facts, evidence, and reason. Like I said, I like what Google provides me, but I'm not blind to its issues nor the simple reality that it is a large corporation and, existing in the US capitalist system, it will naturally tend toward certain negative behaviors.
At the same time I don't want to take the position that big automatically equals bad, or that anyone (or anything) who is successful must be regulated, reduced, resisted, removed for fear of abuse. Excellence should be rewarded, and that's certainly how Google started out. If that's no longer the case, then things should change over time, but I still find Google's search and other services to be pretty much top of the heap. If nobody has solved the spam problem yet, it's hard to be mad at Google alone for that.
- Oshyan-JavaJones (November 20, 2010, 02:18 AM)
I really don't understand why there can't be a neutral position. That's what I'm trying to take here. Trying to be objective and stick to facts, evidence, and reason. Like I said, I like what Google provides me, but I'm not blind to its issues nor the simple reality that it is a large corporation and, existing in the US capitalist system, it will naturally tend toward certain negative behaviors.
At the same time I don't want to take the position that big automatically equals bad, or that anyone (or anything) who is successful must be regulated, reduced, resisted, removed for fear of abuse. Excellence should be rewarded, and that's certainly how Google started out. If that's no longer the case, then things should change over time, but I still find Google's search and other services to be pretty much top of the heap. If nobody has solved the spam problem yet, it's hard to be mad at Google alone for that.
- Oshyan-JavaJones (November 20, 2010, 02:18 AM)
Another example of the erosion of basic freedoms in in how current legislation is on the table to make it illegal for US residents to grow food or use seeds that their gardens produce (http://www.naturalnews.com/030418_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act_seeds.html).
You pretty much need to be brain-dead to not understand that making it illegal for people to grow food is bad. But that is what is happening right now...-Renegade (November 19, 2010, 11:51 PM)
in the US capitalist system, it will naturally tend toward certain negative behaviors.
At the same time I don't want to take the position that big automatically equals bad, or that anyone (or anything) who is successful must be regulated, reduced, resisted, removed for fear of abuse. Excellence should be rewarded, and that's certainly how Google started out. If that's no longer the case, then things should change over time, but I still find Google's search and other services to be pretty much top of the heap. If nobody has solved the spam problem yet, it's hard to be mad at Google alone for that.
- Oshyan-cmpm (November 20, 2010, 08:16 AM)
I think you could exchange 'Google' for multiple corporations in that post JavaJones.
Still have to watch out for the smaller companies as well, in any business
For more information see:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046268/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076740/-mouser (November 20, 2010, 10:44 PM)
It was synthesized by chemist Ascanio Sobrero in 1847, working under Théophile-Jules Pelouze at the University of Turin.
Maybe you can all try BING (Because Is Not Google) :)
Seriously, any business will seek to make a profit (thats the way they pay bills and employees). And the pressure is more on coporations (as they need to show profit to shareholders). Thus any company will have a conflict of interest, but, as long as there are alternatives, I do no think there is anything to worry about.-rxantos (November 23, 2010, 07:10 PM)
For about six months, I've pondered writing this post asking the dreaded Google question. Following yesterday's announcement that the European Union has opened a Google antitrust investigation, I can wait no longer. My life, and perhaps yours, is enmeshed in Google products and services. If there is a devil, a Great Satan of modern technology companies, Google is it. I sold my soul to Google for free services, which are disrupting -- some would say destroying -- businesses that produce valuable content and other intellectual property. In the 1970s, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates warned of the very problem Google is creating today: Making things that are inherently valuable nearly worthless.
The problem is simple: Google's business model is fundamentally about free. Someone else pays to produce content or other valuable intellectual property, around which Google wraps search keywords, adverts and services. The information giant doesn't produce content, but its entire business model is about cannibalizing others' valuable intellectual property.... content creators are compelled to give away their stuff for less and often for free. If not, the content becomes invisible to the Internet -- or at least to the majority of people who use Google search and other services.
Corporations are like drug dealers. They give you something for free in order to hook you up.
BTW: This is interesting. Google is next to useless when you are searching for something like a car.
The Incredible Stupidity Of Investigating Google For Acting Like A Search Engine (http://searchengineland.com/the-incredible-stupidity-of-investigating-google-for-acting-like-a-search-engine-57268)-rxantos (December 02, 2010, 12:37 PM)
If you step back from the rhetoric, the political jockeying, the concerns that Google is just too big so let’s use any argument to stop it — if you logically think about this argument from a user perspective — it makes no sense.
That’s a total of 23 links on that page, as it appears on a typical computer. Only one is a search result.
That all sounds real good and benign until you start factoring in other very serious items.+1 from me for pretty much all that you wrote there CodeTRUCKER. :Thmbsup:
...-CodeTRUCKER (March 05, 2012, 05:28 PM)
Keep in mind it is only the ability of a deceiver in using the lie to keep the deceived believing the deceiver is to be trusted which allows the deceiver to deceive the deceived with the lie. Once the truth is known by the deceived the power of the deceiver and the lie is nullified and the deceiver loses any credibility. In other words, a lie only has power while the deceiver can keep the deceived believing the deceiver is to be trusted. Google succeeds in continuing to keep the "searcher" believing "Google is your friend."-CodeTRUCKER (March 05, 2012, 05:28 PM)
We all generally tend by nature to be credulous (willing to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence), and tend to believe what we are told to believe or what we want to believe (confirmation bias) - often despite any inherent irrationality in the belief or any evidence which might contradict it.
This generalisation can be substantiated by, for example, the 2008/9 statistics/estimates which apparently showed that, out of the Earth's global population of 6 billion, 1.6 billion were Islamists, and 1.4 billion were RC/Christian. That's an estimted 50% of the world's population (us) that are apparently gullible/irrational enough to believe in an unsubstantiated myth - an invisible, omnipotent and omnipresent friend.
Additionally, Vedic philosophy teaches us that, once swallowed, we can tend to cling onto a belief because of Ahamkara (http://knol.google.com/k/slartibartfarst-anon/ahamkara/3twzpmiarr7la/3#). It becomes conjoined with our ego, and we have to defend it. Sometimes we will defend or enforce the belief with our lives, and even with lives of others. (QED.)
Is it justified to criticise Google for what it does or the way it does what it does?
As the marketing speak would put it, "It's all a matter of perception".
Keep in mind it is only the ability of a deceiver in using the lie to keep the deceived believing the deceiver is to be trusted which allows the deceiver to deceive the deceived with the lie. Once the truth is known by the deceived the power of the deceiver and the lie is nullified and the deceiver loses any credibility. In other words, a lie only has power while the deceiver can keep the deceived believing the deceiver is to be trusted. Google succeeds in continuing to keep the "searcher" believing "Google is your friend."
Basically, I think I am just too darned tired to understand any of what the heck you guys are talking about. :huh: :-\I don't blame you.-J-Mac (March 05, 2012, 09:09 PM)
Oh, and BTW - looks like Google is ending the whole "Knol" thing, unfortunately. You probably know that but I just found out. :(Yes. I was annoyed when I read that Google intended to close the Knol service. (I believed in Google, dammit!) :mad:-J-Mac (March 05, 2012, 09:09 PM)
'We've always suspected that Google might tweak its search algorithms to gain an advantage over its rivals — and, according to an FTC investigation inadvertently shared with the Wall Street Journal, it did. Quoting: "In a lengthy investigation, staffers in the FTC's bureau of competition found evidence that Google boosted its own services for shopping, travel and local businesses by altering its ranking criteria and "scraping" content from other sites. It also deliberately demoted rivals. For example, the FTC staff noted that Google presented results from its flight-search tool ahead of other travel sites, even though Google offered fewer flight options. Google's shopping results were ranked above rival comparison-shopping engines, even though users didn't click on them at the same rate, the staff found. Many of the ways Google boosted its own results have not been previously disclosed.'
From slashdot:
...
from: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/03/20/1639215/ftc-google-altered-search-results-for-profit-mouser (March 20, 2015, 10:31 PM)
Google is a leader, part of an oligopoly - if it isn't a monopoly - and can probably do whatever the heck it wants, with impunity.
Unfortunately, when one tries to address the apparent causal problem (i.e., Capitalism), one runs smack into the brick wall that other economic ideologies seem to have done - e.g., the Communist/Socialist "command economy" system.-IainB (March 21, 2015, 12:28 AM)
Just stumbled upon this as a good example of this sort of thing:
“Wall Street Firm Develops New High-Speed Algorithm Capable Of Performing Over 10,000 Ethical Violations Per Second” (http://www.theonion.com/articles/wall-street-firm-develops-new-highspeed-algorithm,38202/)-IainB (March 21, 2015, 01:47 AM)
That's rich!
Actually, while it is funny as hell, the Onion's usual tinge of truth makes it just a little painful to laugh much at it. And so my abject hate of all things Goldman Sachs grows ever stronger!-J-Mac (March 21, 2015, 06:14 AM)
In a Response to Spain Taxing the Sun, Italy Taxes Shadows
As Italian newspaper Leggo reports, store owners in Conegliano are now faced with the unfortunate (albeit comically absurd) proposition of paying taxes on shadows.
The rationale appears to go something like this: an awning casts a shadow on public property and therefore you must pay to use that property.
According to the report, for one example, Google took content from companies like Yelp, TripAdvisor, and Amazon. In the latter case, Google lifted product rankings and placed them in their own search results for those products. When the companies complained to Google about the process, Google threatened to remove them entirely from results. The Journal quotes this section of the report: "It is clear that Google’s threat was intended to produce, and did produce, the desired effect, which was to coerce Yelp and TripAdvisor into backing down." The Commission ultimately had Google agree to let websites opt out of the process.
With Apologies to Murphy.
If something can be abused, it will.
Google new motto should be in the lines of
"Do not GET CAUGHT while doing evil."-rxantos (March 31, 2015, 09:18 PM)
Lord Acton (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-dalberg-acton-1st-baron-acton) was right... "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."-CodeTRUCKER (November 19, 2010, 06:23 PM)