Comments on: Google Now Editing Search Results

By: Mama BoK

Mama BoK — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:40:25 +0000

I read about this too.. but you know how i feel about google.. so what if this person or staff of Google is having a bad hair day..?? But they are not called Lord google for nothing eh.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:37:04 +0000

Karen, I wish I could use Firefox, but I have so many problems with it that I got rid of it. I did love those addons!!

FYI: all blogs are generated as “no follow” by default. So it’s not like blogs are trying to kiss Google’s butt. But I do take delight in the plugins that make blogs “follow” because it continues to mess with Google’s plan to control linkage. I used the No Follow Free plugin for a while but it messed with some ajax functionality, and I never bothered to restore it.

I always appreciate your comments, especially because we now they are “no follow” and you are commenting just because you want to comment. So that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. :D

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:32:29 +0000

eam: Great comment! Thanks for this. I think you hit the nail on the head on this.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:43:17 +0000

Aldon, thanks for your input. I’m still not convinced that this move of Google is the best for the search engine world; it seems best for Google. Which, since they are a business, is understandable. But it must be remembered that they are a business, and do things for their bottom line, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Therefore, I am highly suspect of this. Plus, they have a pretty bad track record of censoring things (searches in China for the Chinese, etc).

By: eam

eam — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:54:01 +0000

this is huge. there’s one thing about Google assuring internet users: “The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.” but admitting now that they will actually have a staff of people manually ‘altering’ search results is a totally different story. that is just one more step away from democracy if we have one in the internet…

i understand what aldon is saying about computer algorithms- humans wrote them sure, using specific guidelines and tweaks to even change results and outcomes but no one’s standing by to monitor the results whether accurate or not because you just “entrust” the whole process to the computer. with computer advancements, it’s very unlikely they will be prone to error.

Placing humans to monitor, “pick and choose what appears in its search results” is more likely to cause errors because humans are more prone to misjudge. humans have biases. computers don’t (regardless of it being set to work initially by humans). humans are self-serving. it will continue to PICK AND CHOOSE what serves its company better or who pays them more… such is the case of the (paid) search results appearing not only in Google but elsewhere.

Search using computer generated algorithms is imperfect as it is, to have people editing the results will just make it worse. It’s hard for me to believe that Google and other search engines for that matter, are really doing its best to serve its users objectively and accurately- they are running a business after all, and in reality of business- they are all prone to serving their interests firsts before its users…

By: aldon @ orient lodge

aldon @ orient lodge — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:02:36 +0000

Rebecca,

A few different thoughts on this. First Google is constantly trying to adjust its algorithms to as effectively return useful information as possible. As sites, like spam blogs, try to take advantage of current understandings of how the algorithms work, the algorithms become less effective as spam rises to the top. Hence, if they are going to return good results, they really need to constantly change the way their algorithms work. This is compounded by Web 2.0 type changes which affect the way people interact with websites, and a lot of other changes in how the web is used.

So, I think your assumption about Google and spam blogs might be a bit off. As I see it, they are adjusting their algorithms to try and make it so very smart spam bloggers don’t completely dominate searches. In doing so, some spam bloggers are very smart and manage to stay high in rankings. Some good blogs end up slipping, even though they aren’t spam.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:12:04 +0000

I’m with you on your thoughts about this whole thing. I wish Google would return to where their main objectives were at the very start. Obviously they “own” the Internet in some ways, and I do rely on them for many many of my online needs, but it seems that as of recent times, they care more about certain sites and less about those that are honestly creating content that is worth something.
And I’m totally with you about the splogs. It makes me SO mad when I go to a site, and everything on the first page is dietpills, eyeglasses and insurance stuff and they have a PR3 or 4. Whatever. I have worked hard to get my PR and if they take it away, there would be no real reason for it except they are being stingy.

I love your blog.

By: Karen

Karen — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:48:22 +0000

It figures. Hey, I found a fun add-on for firefox. It lets you see links in blogs that are do follow or not. Kinda interesting. Like, this comment doesn’t give me link juice. Which is ok because that is not why I comment. Just kind of fun to see what does and what doesn’t especially on blogs that are so “trying to kiss Googles butt”.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:54:43 +0000

Aldon, you make a good point. But if the algorithm has served so well for so long, why does Google suddenly feel compelled to manually edit their searches, now?

And I do have to contend with your point:

Google’s goals, as best as I can tell, have always been to return search results that most closely match what the searcher is looking for.

Google’s goals have been to return search results that they feel is relevant to what the searcher is looking for, I believe.

By: aldon @ orient lodge

aldon @ orient lodge — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:49:53 +0000

I’m not sure that the article in the Register is particularly accurate or informative. As a person who has written numerous computer algorithms, I’ve always wondered where people thought that these computer algorithms come from. They come from people writing programs to achieve specific goals.

Google’s goals, as best as I can tell, have always been to return search results that most closely match what the searcher is looking for. How do you tune these algorithms to be as effective as possible? Humans have to pick and chose how the algorithms should work.

As far as I can tell, the algorithms are at least as objective, fair, and accurate as any news article which has written and edited by humans.