GOOGLE admits staff will 'pick and choose search results'...
 

Interesting Read: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...ted/page2.html

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.

This week Marissa Meyer explained that editorial judgments will play a key role in Google searches. It was reported by Tech Crunch proprietor Michael Arrington - who Nick Carr called the "Madam of the Web 2.0 Brothel" - but its significance wasn't noted. The irony flew safely over his head at 30,000 feet. Arrington observed:

Mayer also talked about Google?s use of user data created by actions on Wiki search to improve search results on Google in general. For now that data is not being used to change overall search results, she said. But in the future it?s likely Google will use the data to at least make obvious changes. An example is if ?thousands of people? were to knock a search result off a search page, they?d be likely to make a change.
Now what, you may be thinking, is an "obvious change"? Is it one that is frivolous? (Thereby introducing a Google Frivolitimeter? [Beta]). Or is it one that goes against the grain of the consensus? If so, then who decides what the consensus must be? Make no mistake, Google is moving into new territory: not only making arbitrary, editorial choices - really no different to Fox News, say, or any other media organization. It's now in the business of validating and manufacturing consent: not only reporting what people say, but how you should think.

Who's hand is upon the wheel, here?

None of this would matter, if it wasn't for one other trend: a paralysing loss of confidence in media companies.

Old media is hooked on the drug that kills it
Today, the media organisations look to Google to explain what is really happening in the world. Convinced that they can't lead, the only option left is to follow. So they reflect ourselves - or more accurately, they reflect the unstinting efforts of small self-selecting pockets of activists - back at us. In the absence of editorial confidence, Google - the Monster that threatens to Eat The Media - now defines the purpose of the media. All media companies need do is "tap into the zeitgeist" - Google Zeitgeist?!

Take this example from a quality British broadsheet.

One journalist on the paper lamented that:

...it's becoming all too clear at The Telegraph, whose online business plan seems to be centred on chasing hits through Google by rehashing and rewriting stories that people are already interested in.
The digital director of the Telegraph recently suggested the newspaper could work even closer with Google... by subsuming its identity into the Ad Giant. Why couldn't The Telegraph run off a telegraph.google.com domain and allow Google to take care of all the technology? he mused.

Not all companies have the same suicidal lack of foresight as The Telegraph's resident guru - but many share the same apocalyptic conclusion.

Today, Google's cute little explanation of being "uniquely democratic" is no longer present on that page. A subtly different explanation has taken its place - one which acknowledges that in the new democracy of Web 2.0, some votes are more equal than others.

PageRank also considers the importance of each page that casts a vote, as votes from some pages are considered to have greater value, thus giving the linked page greater value. We have always taken a pragmatic approach to help improve search quality and create useful products, and our technology uses the collective intelligence of the web to determine a page's importance.

good read thanks Steve.

Bye Bye PR :321GFY

I've before seen sites with promos out of the blue be #1 on google on PPS promo days (An affiliate link listed)

Tony, what the heck you doing up this early? Making breakfast for Mandy?

Of course they do. The bigger question is how much are they doing it.

Interesting read.

People dont understand the massive amount of information google has stored on most internet users in the world. It's scary.

happening already. moving towards a wiki and digg type model of search.

yeah, they should blackmail everyone.

I guess those tinfoil wearing hat people may not be to far from the truth with the Obama Google connection and the future censorship of the internet, at least the search results of google.

in before wiredguy

They can do for popular stuff, how the fuck they will do with every prashe

Nice read.
:thumbsup

What got google to the place they are now was the lack of human manipulation on their part. They were not going though and judging. If they start that now, I think it may hurt them in the long run.

indeed kinda scary

not really surprising

Google has never been completely autonomous, you hear all the time about sites being banned. If it was truly computer detected democracy then the spam sites wouldn't magically disappear.

:thumbsup

Anyone know what this means to Google's Safe Harbor provisions in both the DMCA and 2257? Does this mean that they are now officially exercising editorial control over the content they display, link to, and display from Google Cache? And what about trademarks? What if you own a brand and now google decides that your trademark isn't really a trademark and manually bumps other competing sites ahead of you for your own marks?

This is huge.

I hope it does, fucking hate the cunts.

Interesting read, thanks for the info. So this change could be good for some of my sites, bad for others. I like it the way it is now. Oh well change is inevitable and its either adapt or die.

Agreed. This is no "revelation".

Time to start befriending some Google peeps for good listings

If they leave ranking up to select individual, it will turn into a DMOZ kind of bullshit. Whoever pays most to the editor under the table, will have their site moved up.

obviously the most financially lucrative search terms will get the most attention and human intervention


google is evil

people. this is not going to effect adult at all. in fact. this probably only effects 0.0001% of the websites listed on google.

seriously. they'd need to have half the global population employed to hand pick every key word result.

i think a lot of you are missing the point of the article.

interesting :thumbsup

I think that might be a little naive, think of how valuable having the number one and two positions for the word "porn" just as an example :2 cents:

LOL yeah I was just telling my chick that I would have to get some Google employees on the payroll. :winkwink:

I agree with this. I simply felt it was an interesting read for those in our business.

That's a good article. I predict google will only increase it's net domination and nobody will be able to do shit about it.

As long as Google delivers correct, relevant results, I don't care if they get them by hiring Bobonga the South African Shaman and having him perform rituals involving chickens and goats.

yes, but if they are editing shit then they can't hide behind listing cp anymore or other illegal shit they currently list.

I hate when google abuse search results and put his own services on top for specific keyword.

yeah, that peeves me too

they started doing that but it was obvious what was paid, then after awhile after that started to be accepted, they made those paid links blend in so well that the typical newbie wouldn't even realize that they were paid links

I'm starting to like Yahoo more and more.

good morning steve.

Awesome! I hear there is an anti-Google band wagon starting up in 20 minutes.

Youtube is also now teaming up with the Anti-Defamation League to weed out "undesirable" and "extreme" content.

Let the censorship begin!!


http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/free_dees1.jpg

It was about time ... Computer only can be manipulated, which is currently done by many.

Same .... and whats more they love me too!

Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line.

But phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers should share in their network costs, particularly with Internet traffic growing by more than 50% annually, according to estimates. Carriers say that to keep up with surging traffic, driven mainly by the proliferation of online video, they need to boost revenue to upgrade their networks. Charging companies for fast lanes is one option.

One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html

Cliff notes?

Touches on a few subjects. Print it out and take it with you next time you have to take crap.