3 replies to this topic

[Dave]

google blog

"Recently, we improved our algorithms to process new information faster, and the result is quite tangible -- you should now see fresher suggestions for queries on current topics of interest.

Because information on the web is constantly changing, we think this improvement will help you find relevant information faster.

If you search for tomatoes, you'll see suggestions around the recent salmonella outbreak.

If you search for us open, you'll get a direct lead to the ongoing U.S. Open golf tournament.

If you're interested in kung fu, you will be told of the new Kung Fu Panda movie!"


This...is...horrible. No time now, but will reply to this thread later.

[Dave]

Let's take these one at a time.

If you search for tomatoes, you'll see suggestions around the recent salmonella outbreak.

No, if I search for tomatoes disease or tomatoes salmonella I should get that.

If you search for us open, you'll get a direct lead to the ongoing U.S. Open golf tournament.

No, us open 2008 should lead to this year's U.S. Open.

If you're interested in kung fu, you will be told of the new Kung Fu Panda movie!"

No, kung fu should return the martial art. Kung Fu Panda should return the movie.

Google is replacing the more general term (which has its own context) with a more commercial context. This is beyond selling sponsored links to certain keywords and phrases. This is altering the search itself based on what Google thinks you should see...what Google thinks is relevant at this date.

This is what's bothering me: I've come to suspect that an internet search engine falls under the public trust. A search engine undergirds the internet. Without it, much of the information becomes isolated and unnecessarily difficult to reach.

A private endeavor (like publicly-listed Google) can choose to write its algorithm any way it wants. This is a problem. It is not the business of a search engine to determine the commercial context of what people are searching. (You might argue, "okay, so then let market forces play out and if enough people leave google to search elsewhere, then Google will alter its algorithm to bring people back." Leave Google and go *where* exactly?)

You can't understand Google's logic here unless you view it in a commercial context. I search 'kung fu' and Google thinks, "well, there's this movie out call Kung Fu Panda, and you probably want that. Because, you know, there's a huge multi-million dollar ad campaign across major media ensuring that we, Google, will return Kung Fu Panda when you search 'kung fu.'" Really? Because that's retarded. What's next? Let's say I want to search 'film criticism,' will Google think, "you know, there's this film, The Hulk, that made the most money last weekend and will probably make the most money next weekend, and it's a huge move and, I guess, there's some film criticism about the Hulk so we'll return 'film criticism The Hulk' instead of what you were really searching for...which was stupid anyway."

Surely this is not what a search engine is for. If I want Kung Fu Panda, I will frickin type 'Kung Fu Panda.' If I type 'kung fu,' I want kung fu as it's defined, which is the martial art.

Some people have an instant negative reaction to suggesting that the government take over something. Sometimes the concern is censorship, and that's legitimate. Sometimes the concern is that big government is inherently bad and incapable of managing anything properly, and this is not legitimate. It's mostly partisan politics and commits the specific-to-general error (if one part of the gov't is a bureaucratic nightmare, then all of it is). Well, naked market forces aren't intrinsically trustworthy to handle this. So if not the private sector and not the gov't, then who? Can a not-for-profit org create effective, neutral search engine? Given how the flow of information is crucial to dissemination of political news, should the United Nations have a large role?

[Meathe]

Surely this is not what a search engine is for. If I want Kung Fu Panda, I will frickin type 'Kung Fu Panda.' If I type 'kung fu,' I want kung fu as it's defined, which is the martial art.

I just tried it out. And its not quite as bad as you're thinking, it seems to be a variation on news searches - they've been doing it for a while.  The difference is that they're shuffling it in to their search results.  Google stuff (news/blogs/cinema) seem to be fairly clearly marked.

The link at the top for 'Kung fu panda' is below suggested/related searches and above the search results.  If you put in 'kung fu' and hit "I'm feeling lucky" you get taken to the Wikipedia page on Kung-Fu-Martial-Arts. Kung Fu Panda has been in the news more often lately than any particular style of kung fu.  This isn't likely to change until the movie is out of cinemas or Tai Chi gets another run as a foil for aging.

Likewise, if you put in tomatoes, at the top the tomato salmonella story is listed under 'News Results'.  The first actual search result is (again) the Wikipedia page on the fruit.

I would like a clearer deliniation between web and movie/news/blog search results, like they do with the sponsored ones off to the right, perhaps just bounding each one in its own box would suffice.

Given how the flow of information is crucial to dissemination of political news, should the United Nations have a large role?

Err... No. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't trust the U.N. to run a chook raffle, why would you want a political organization full of diplomats having anything at all to do with the dissemination of political news?

[Dave]

The difference is that they're shuffling it in to their search results.

Right. If I remember correctly, 'news' results used to be separated by a thin line. These shouldn't be 'shuffled' in.

But the larger point is: Google shouldn't be making these types of hypotheses on my searches. (I'm curious how the searches will look two or three months from now.)

I would like a clearer deliniation between web and movie/news/blog search results, like they do with the sponsored ones off to the right, perhaps just bounding each one in its own box would suffice.

Agreed. They should be under sponsored searches or just left as "related searches" which they already do. (And because they already have "related searches" they should not be tweaking the algorithm like this.)

Err... No. Aside from the fact that I wouldn't trust the U.N. to run a chook raffle, why would you want a political organization full of diplomats having anything at all to do with the dissemination of political news?

The current system in which Google and Yahoo cower to totalitarian states doesn't work. I'd prefer not to have a political organization in this role, but private enterprise has less place here, as they've so clumsily demonstrated. I'll gladly grant that the UN needs serious reform, but I still want to reserve sympathy for the spirit of the UN if not its application.