Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google to use TrustRank for News, Possibly More

Posted by Zonk on from the no-more-trusting-the-weekly-world-news dept.

mike slaven writes "In a follow-up to Tuesday's post about Google registering a trademark on the term TrustRank, an article on NewScientist explains how Google plans to track the credibility of news sources. The article also mentions that the patent on TrustRank is not limited to ranking just news stories: 'The patent also reveals that the same system could be roped in to rank other search results, not simply news. So sales and services could in the future be listed on the basis of price and the reputation of the company involved.'"

117 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by DeadSea · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From what I have read about trust rank, the basic premise is that they pick 200 or so "trusted sites". The trust rank for any page is then basically the number of link hops to the page from a trusted site.

    The problem I have with this is that there are many problems with identifying trusted sites and maintaining the trustworthiness of such sites after they have been chosen.

    From Google's point of view, a trusted site would have to have strict editorial standards and link to a lot of sites. I can think of a lot of sites with strict editorial content, but they generally do not link to a lot of sites. The open directory projects seems to me to be a candidate for a trusted site. It has editorial controls and links to a heck of a lot of sites.

    The first question to ask is: "After the trusted sites is chosen, how much would it cost to buy one?". I suppose dmoz itself would be hard to buy outright, but how much would it take to buy one of the editors, or to buy an editorial position? Probably not much. Dmoz alread has a lot of editorial fraud and it would make the problem worse. I'm not sure that its fair to expect trusted sites not to degrade to some extent.

    The second question to ask is: "How hard is it to buy links from trusted sites?". The answer has to be that it is pretty easy. Forget about corrupting the people as I discussed in the last point. Any trusted site that links to lots of pages is going to have a huge link management problem. Every day hundreds of domains that it links to may expire. You can snap those up and buy trust.

    All this doesn't even include folks who make sites look trustworthy with the sole intention of turning them to the dark side later. All of this happens currently with pagerank, but it will be much worse once the trust power is put into the hands of a few.

    --
    Exchange Rate Currency Calculator

    1. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by MankyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting points, but I find it hard to believe that Google, (or any other competent company implementing something like this,) hasn't had the forethought to avoid these pitfalls. We still don't know entirely how trust rank works, mind you.

      --
      -dave
      http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
    2. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Psiolent · · Score: 1

      The open directory projects seems to me to be a candidate for a trusted site.

      You know, that's exactly what I thought, too. In fact I can't think of a better site to use. Being an open directory editor myself, I'm pretty familiar with the rules and guidelines for editors, and, let me tell you, the open directory people take what they do very seriously. Of course, you'd really want to have multiple directories like this to really utilize Trust Rank.

    3. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Psiolent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it hard to believe that Google, (or any other competent company implementing something like this,) hasn't had the forethought to avoid these pitfalls.

      I don't know, it seems like making an assumption like that is not really a good idea. I think a company like Google certainly has shown competent decision making in the past, but we should never accept something at face value just because of an apparent pattern of competence. Question everything!

    4. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple solution, don't publish who you trust, just publish the results.

    5. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by twbecker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From what I have read about trust rank, the basic premise is that they pick 200 or so "trusted sites". The trust rank for any page is then basically the number of link hops to the page from a trusted site.

      I was gonna mod you down, but I'll post instead. If you'd have RTFA, you'd have seen that the above statement is totally false. There are lots of criteria they are using to generate the number, of which internet traffic is only 1. To quote TFA:
      he database will be built by continually monitoring the number of stories from all news sources, along with average story length, number with bylines, and number of the bureaux cited, along with how long they have been in business. Google's database will also keep track of the number of staff a news source employs, the volume of internet traffic to its website and the number of countries accessing the site.

      Google will take all these parameters, weight them according to formulae it is constructing, and distil them down to create a single value. This number will then be used to rank the results of any news search.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
    6. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful
      All Bullshit.

      It means that CBS News and MSNBC get a heavy "trust" rating, while Juan Cole, tomflocco.com or Scoop.nz get "Le Shafte".

      More coprorate sponsored media is not why I click. This is Google being used to "mainstream" the Internet as an information source - which is now a loose cannon in the world of controlled messages. Millions, just hearing about "'blogs on the Innernets" for the first time will now be safely served "more of the same" - while having alternative messages and analysis spun away with "low-trust".

      Don't Be Evil, my ass.
      You want the real truth on "trustworthy" news sources from Google? Search for "The Mighty Wurlitzer"+CIA or "Project Mockingbird".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You want the real truth on "trustworthy" news sources from Google? Search for "The Mighty Wurlitzer"+CIA or "Project Mockingbird".

      Lord knows I expect nothing but "the truth" from a guy called "The Mighty Wurlitzer".

    8. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Will the internet increase the turnover frequency, as all DBE sources go PHB, to be replaced by "untainted" ones?
      Or will the PHB outfits reach an Infinite Diabolical Regress (IDR), where TLAs are AFU, too?
      It's the Information Age, yet the Combine's fog machine obscures more and more...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    9. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I got TLAs OFA! (Out my F****** A**) ;-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, if the TLA is Obviously Fscked Up, does that make it TOFU?
      I worry about stuff like that...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    11. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      You will not be able to stay home, brother.
      You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
      You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
      Skip out for beer during commercials,
      Because the revolution will not be televised.

      The revolution will not be televised.
      The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
      In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
      The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
      The revolution will not be televised.

      The revolution will not be brought to you by the Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
      The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
      The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
      The revolution will not make you look five pounds thinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother.

      There will be no pictures of you and Willie May pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,
      or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.
      NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32 or report from 29 districts.
      The revolution will not be televised.

      There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down brothers in the instant replay.
      There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down brothers in the instant replay.
      There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
      There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
      Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving For just the proper occasion.

      Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
      women will not care if Dick finally gets down with Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
      The revolution will not be televised.

      There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock news and no pictures of hairy armed women liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
      The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb, Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare Earth.
      The revolution will not be televised.

      The revolution will not be right back after a message bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
      You will not have to worry about a dove in your bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl.
      The revolution will not go better with Coke.
      The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath.
      The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.

      The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised. The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    12. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is even worse that just picking 200 or so 'trusted sites'.

      Time and again, important news stories put out through blogs are ignored by the big companies with lots of 'reporters' and lots of stories regurgitated from the AP newswire.

      This is nothing more than an idiotic push for more 'corporate' news in an attempt to drown out the smaller people.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    13. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Eternally+optimistic · · Score: 1

      There seems to me a fundamental problem with a single number for this purpose. Some sources are low-trust because the are unknowns, others because the have an established agenda, still others because they are habitually dishonest. Even worse, say you have the number 1 quality source about disk drives, do you now trust them about gardening tips?

      --
      What keeps me going is my inertia.
    14. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by cybermage · · Score: 1



      If these factors (as mentioned in TFA) are the only factors, I think Google will placing a greater emphasis on (large|corporate) sites:

      average story length

      This one is probably most up for grabs -- although we'll have to see if the formula prefers longer or shorter stories.

      number with bylines

      This too is up for grabs. Certainly a willingness to put your name on a story helps for credibility.

      number of the bureaux cited

      This certainly favors (large|corporate) organizations. A news source that sites many sources will tend to either have staffed those themselves or can afford to pay for those sources.

      how long they have been in business

      Hopefully this won't be too great a factor. This will heavily favor giant print media and severly punish Web firms.

      number of staff a news source employs

      This will, by definition, punish the little guy. More good news for the print guys though.

      volume of internet traffic to its website

      Umm, can you say "the rich getting richer"? Should monkey-see, monkey-do really be a criteria? Plus, more traffic most likely means bookmarks. I have the BBC bookmarked and browse their headlines/articles sometimes four times a day. If I go searching for news, I'm not really interested in BBC results.

      number of countries accessing the site

      This is probably the most interesting criteria in terms of the effect it will have. It should have a really interesting impact on CNN. If this criteria is heavily weighted, CNN may have to rethink their whole policy of segregating visitors into different domains based on where they're reading the site from. Still, it can only serve to promote bigger sites at the expense of smaller ones.

      What I find interesting is the criteria they leave out:

      While news stories are too new to achieve much in terms of page rank, one indicator of Trust might be the factor in the number of links into the news source's domain from non-news sources.

      Editorial Bias is another interesting factor in news searches. It would be nice to see google track a source's leanings in this sort of fashion and include that information in the details about the results. Too many people take what they read from a single source as gospel. It would be nice to know which way sources lean before clicking through to them.

      --
      Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
    15. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. That's Gil Scott-Heron.

    16. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      They are gonna have to do something. The signal to noise ration has been steadily worsening as more and more people are figuring out how to game the pagerank system.

    17. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Gawd.
      I'm ashamed to say that I thought there'd be no doubt about the attribution.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    18. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      I could see problems if they simply rate each of these catagories, take an average, and *bam* produce a trust rank. But the key word I'm reading in the article is "formula." The statistics aren't weigted individually but rather how they work with each other. For instance, a newer organization with lots of traffic gets a higher score than an older organization with high traffic (representing perceived public trust). Or a new organization with staff 5,000 gets a lower score than a new organization with a staff of 100 (a new large organization probably has more loans out with greased palms and backs that need scratching). These are just quick guesses using two factors. You'll probably have to come up with your own to make any sense of it.

      My biggest curiousity is their definition of "trust." Are they are looking for trust in the truth of a story or trust in having the last word of the story, ala history is written by the victors. Are they looking at historical values of trustworthiness and how the hell could you even do that? I'd rather see that historical database then the results it produces.

      After having defended the idea I have to admit that my TrustRank in this whole idea is pretty low. It'll be interesting to see the results, but I expected more out of their news service... like an oracle that concentrated on developing news that would make the most impact tomorrow or next week rather than the "pop news" that every other swingin' dick has published to cover up the "real news," which the freemasons and whatnot don't want us to know about ;)

    19. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Any trusted site that links to lots of pages is going to have a huge link management problem. Every day hundreds of domains that it links to may expire. You can snap those up and buy trust.

      That's a good point, and it has happened that some of my relevant subject matter-related links have expired and then, uh, changed content. Given enough (I mean time, not money) resources it should be possible to validate links on a regular basis though.

    20. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by mrogers · · Score: 1
      Don't forget that the list of trusted sites can be changed at any time. The TrustRank paper describes how the seed sites were carefully reviewed for signs of spamming. The good seeds were chosen partly on the basis of "a clearly identifiable authority (such as a governmental or educational institution or company) that controlled the contents of the site" (page 9).

      From Google's point of view, a trusted site would have to have strict editorial standards and link to a lot of sites. I can think of a lot of sites with strict editorial content, but they generally do not link to a lot of sites.

      Good seeds don't need to link to a lot of sites. Check out the algorithm - trust is divided among the domains (or pages, depending on the version of the algorithm) that a seed links to, so if a seed links to many domains it will transfer less trust to each domain than a seed that's more selective with its links.

    21. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by dangitman · · Score: 1
      To quote TFA: he database will be built by continually monitoring the number of stories from all news sources, along with average story length, number with bylines, and number of the bureaux cited, along with how long they have been in business.

      Wow. That's a really bad idea. this means that those large media sources that run the most sensationalistic stories, from which they make the most money and get the most traffic - will be rated as more trustworthy than an honest reporter who doesn't work for a big company and posts detailed analysis that most people aren't interested in.

      How can this do anything but reward the most simplistic, sensational and popular journals with "trust," instead of those who spend time checking facts, rather than promoting sensationalism?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    22. Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      really? i'd imagine most slashdotters haven't even heard that before, much less know who it was... let's hope you're right :)

  2. Trustrank? by awhelan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we know this for sure? Has google confirmed it? What is the trustrank of newscientist.com ?

    1. Re:Trustrank? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Netcraft confirms".

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  3. Slashdot's News Rotation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Google
    2. Apple
    3. Firefox
    4. Your Rights are being stolen!
    5. Microsoft sucks.

    Rinse. Repeat.

    1. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by Taladar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot:

      6. Ask /. : I have an important question concerning the future of my career and I ask you, the /. experts what to do.

      --
      Linux is not Windows
    2. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rinse. Repeat.

      Estimated TrustRank: Zero.

    3. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by Phil246 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      also forgot the occasional sco-bashing story.

    4. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Hey, you forgot Star Wars! Star Wars!!!! STAR WARS! (well ok maybe HHGTTG or some other scifi movie).

      Rinse. Repeat.

      Goodness, is that before or after the hot grits?

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    5. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      Get 2 MicroATX motherboards, and 2 powersupplies and put them in 1 case, with gigabit network connection between the 2. Then set them up with a version of linux designed for grid computing. (I wish I had thought of this when I first saw the question)

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    6. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by roastedMnM · · Score: 1

      *nix

    7. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by MiKM · · Score: 1

      6. Dupes of previous stories.

    8. Re:Slashdot's News Rotation by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Rinse. Repeat.

      They probably should put the word, "stop" in there somewhere. My scalp is soggy and my brain is waterlogged.

  4. Trustranking Slashdot by lildogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll be fascinated to see how Slashdot articles get ranked.

    1. Re:Trustranking Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've never understood why Slashdot ever makes it on Google News. They rarely 'report' anything, just link to other articles.

    2. Re:Trustranking Slashdot by kniLnamiJ-neB · · Score: 4, Funny
      if (SlashdotPage.search("Google"))
      { return(BEST_RANK_EVAR); }
      --
      Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
    3. Re:Trustranking Slashdot by alexhs · · Score: 3, Funny
      if (SlashdotPage.search("Google"))
      { return(BEST_RANK_EVAR); }
      error: `BEST_RANK_EVAR' undeclared (first use in this function)
      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:Trustranking Slashdot by MarkByers · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot takes a lot of articles and stories from a large number of websites, the editors check them for errors and ensure quality. In theory at least. ;)

      It is a lot easier for Google to index one site than to hand pick articles from all over the web, and do the editing and quality control themselves.

      --
      I'll probably be modded down for this...
    5. Re:Trustranking Slashdot by Phil246 · · Score: 1

      +5 fanboyism Ofc
      ofc if microsoft copy the idea, it'll be -1 Troll for them.

    6. Re:Trustranking Slashdot by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Slashdot takes a lot of articles and stories from a large number of websites, the editors check them for errors and ensure quality. In theory at least. ;)

      You're new here, aren't you? :-)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  5. Good. by Telastyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now for the gamespy implimentation to see what servers are filled with lamers... Now that'd be useful!

    1. Re:Good. by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      Come on. That one is easy.

      grep "[Pp]ublic [Ss]erver" serverlist.lst

      Hordes of Lamers for your humiliation needs.

      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  6. Some points by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 4, Informative

    The basic ideas and principles of TrustRank:
    http://www.seobook.com/archives/000661.shtml

    I can see dangers in this becoming an elitist thing though, i.e Trusted Sites only linking to other trusted sites, or creating perceptions in surfer's minds. It will be interested to see how Google develop this one, that's for sure.

    --
    Business Voyeur
    1. Re:Some points by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      If the sites selected as parents are hand monitored well enough then google should be able to pick up on them, for example, selling off links for profit. Seeing as there shouldn't be too many, this could be entirely possible if spread across the workforce.

    2. Re:Some points by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      I can see dangers in this becoming an elitist thing though, i.e Trusted Sites only linking to other trusted sites, or creating perceptions in surfer's minds. It will be interested to see how Google develop this one, that's for sure.

      Well, they've gotta learned something from the orkut (sp?) mess.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:Some points by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      I like it when the featured article on a Google News topic is from some obscure publication in some distant part of the world. It broadens my consumption of journalism, often providing an interesting different point of view.

    4. Re:Some points by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      yeah, will there be something in this formula that downgrades organisations for anti competitive behaviour, bias, owning large percentages of the media etc to show that these are less trustworthy?

      --
      Not Free SF Reader
  7. This Worries Me... by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Basically what they patented (from what I gather) is the idea of taking many factoids about a news company and putting it into a balanced formula to create a "trust" number.

    However, they are not patenting the formula itself, but just the idea of using such a formula, it seems...

    This seems like another case of taking an obvious idea and trying to block the competition by patenting it.

  8. TrustRank? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yes, bow to Our skunk protocol. You will give us your food, or we'll raise git on Our handstand and point our tail at you as the O'reilly spotted skunk found only in the most dense Amazon.com forests of the United Nigerian estates of America.

    If anyone is willing to accept these money orders, may you send me a laptop computer? The one I am using is falling to peices. Please contact me at Muabobu Mitchel "MM20012127@gmail.com", and I'll send you the money orders after you send two DELL laptops to 342 Voodoo, Pignuts, Nigeria Republic.

  9. Re:Patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    algorithm (v, tr) - a sequence of operations to perform a task (modern, from "Al Gore, Rhythm", Albert Gore Jr (1946-?) being a popular politician and American Vice President (1992-2000) reknowned for his command of logic, co-joined with "Rhythm" to infer repetition.)

  10. So, now we know how to scam it by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    If you just get one link from a "trusted" site to some really un-trusted site, then POW! Down goes Frasier! I guess we'll know when that happens, because the top Google news stories will be teenage sluts, casinos, and cialis.

    --
    stuff |
  11. Astroturf by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Trust, but verify." - Ronnie "Rayguns" Reagan

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Astroturf by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, his speechwriter was clever enough to use a Russian proverb when writing lines for Bonzo's role as a negotiator with them. Much like Kennedy's script in opposing the Berlin blocade, without the reference to the donut.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  12. Idea vs. implementation... by TVmisGuided · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea isn't exactly new...refereed and peer-reviewed professional journals have been doing something along these lines for decades. Google, as I read it, is attempting to apply some basic scholarly principles to their listings.

    Now the bad news...I don't think it will work as described. Counting "number of bureaux cited" or hops from originator isn't exactly going to keep faked articles off their listings; as someone else already pointed out, it may be a matter of shucking out the cash for a domain that suddenly gets listed as "high trust level." Then that domain can be used to post pretty much whatever they want to make people think is accurate journalism.

    Sorry...I like the concept of automating the tedious task of fact-checking, but until Google can get their clusters' AI well beyond the Turing-test phase, it's not going to happen. Humans will still need to examine articles and references and make decisions as to whether a particular submission is, in fact, valid and accurate.

    Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a root beer or something...

    --
    All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
  13. The Mighty Morphin Slashdot Rangers??? by game+kid · · Score: 1

    Well as long as they don't take orders from a giant bluish face, or combine one day into a Megadupe, that's all right with me.

    Now to figure out how to equate trolls with Bulk and Skull and flamers with Rita and Zedd...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  14. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    foxnews.com just disappeared entirely from the Internet.

    1. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Along with whitehouse.gov and number-10.gov.uk.

    2. Re:In related news... by fossilstar · · Score: 1

      Just watch. When Dick Cheney returns as Halliburton's CEO in 2008, they'll buy Google :)

      --
      "Support our Oops."
  15. Google to tell you who to trust? by winkydink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you really need Google for this? Or is Google validation going to substitute for your own common sense?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Google to tell you who to trust? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 3, Funny
      your own common sense?

      Too much work. It's just easier to do what Google tells me to do.

    2. Re:Google to tell you who to trust? by 2short · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I don't intend to substitute Googles validation for my common sense. But when I go to Google for news, and click on one of the top few stories on a particular topic, I want to have some expectation that I'm probably getting a reasonably trustworthy news source.

      Currently I do this by scanning for one I've heard of. Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC News, hell, even Al Jazeera and CNN: All of these may have biases, but I have some idea what they are, and they can all be expected to try for accuracy about the basic facts.

      For more obscure stories, this doesn't necessarily work. So I'm perfectly glad to hear Google will be making some attempt to weed out those "news" sources which, to put it kindly, do not try for accuracy about the basic facts.

  16. Links And The Linking Links That Link To Them ... by rewinn · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... didn't Al Franken write that book already?

    --
    --- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
  17. Chickens by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 1

    I have heard that this time they are using chickens instead of pegions for the ranking system. Is it true?

    --
    fuvoo: watch something
  18. Yeah, but you forgot... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...the "A Fair and Balanced Search for Your Site" subtitle.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Yeah, but you forgot... by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      /me registers amifairandbalancedornot.com

  19. Is It in Beta? by lbmouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did they copyright "TrustRank" or "TrustRank Beta"?

  20. Already been done by costas · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, this is (half) a shameless plug but my newsbot has been ranking news sources and referring meta-news sources according to "trust" for over 3 yrs now. Findory (no affiliation) does something similar by ranking each individual news story.

    1. Re:Already been done by deutschemonte · · Score: 1

      I just checked it out and joined, shameless plug or not, it's a great idea.

      --
      The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
    2. Re:Already been done by Jett · · Score: 1

      Hmm, so is this prior art? Perhaps you can invalidate Google's patent...

  21. question by justforaday · · Score: 1

    How will this affect all those litigious bastards or miserable failures out there?

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  22. This can only be good by Bruha · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As long as the rankings are fair and handled in a responsible matter then Google stands to give consumers the power that they have lacked for a long time. Companies will take note that if their trust ranking suffers from bad consumer reports then they will begin to pay attention.

    Maybe when you search for DSL you'll see companies at the top that deserve that ranking and the companies that fall down who think they should be first would improve how they treat their customers.

    Peer pressure at it's finest.

  23. New York Times by hey · · Score: 1

    Well, the New York Times is one of the most trusted publications in the country. Oh, wait it isn't any more.

  24. Now Google is starting to go too far. by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So Google wants to be the web's authoritative source on what sites can be trusted? I don't think I like the sound of that. No one entity should have that job.

    Ideally everyone would use common sense, but so few people have that anymore that it's almost quaint to suggest it.

    1. Re:Now Google is starting to go too far. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Anymore?!

      "Common sense ain't all that common"
      -Samuel Clemmons

      (I probably screwed up the quotation, but it was very close to that.)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  25. Sooooo, what is the trust rank of CBS? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    Sooooo....

    What is the trust rank of CBS? Of 60 Minutes?

    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
  26. Trust in the eye of the beholder by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that ALL news sources or sites have some bias, isn't trust in the eye of the beholder in many cases? Although the objective facts of some situation may be undisputed (usually these are disputed, too), the interpretation of those facts is subjective and highly dependent on the viewpoint, world model, etc.

    Perhaps Google will need to introduce right-wing and left-wing versions of TrustRank. If it does not, then it will be an example of tyranny of the majority when Google asserts than the majority's bias is trustworthy.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Trust in the eye of the beholder by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a difference between biased presentation of facts, and insisting on the right to broadcast things you acknowledge are outright lies...

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    2. Re:Trust in the eye of the beholder by jaysmall · · Score: 1

      Everyone has biases, so news sources, naturally, do too. The only difference between "mainstream media" and some guy with a laptop reporting a car crash is how many people vet and filter the information before it is offered to the public. I'm a journalist of more than 20 years experience. I grew up in the business. And I've argued for years that the ease of making a message available on the Internet favors the rise of strong opinion leaders over news organizations that attempt to filter out their own biases (with admittedly varying degrees of success). It's already starting to happen. The tone of dialogue in mainstream media has started to take on characteristics of talk radio, which was the previous bastion of opinion leadership. With that trend well under way, I'm really afraid to see how Google's machines will assign "trust" values to anything.

      --
      -- Jay Small | Small Initiatives | Sensible Internet Design | smallinitiatives.com
  27. Trusted by whom by hey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reblicans trust The Free Republic but distrust The Nation.
    Democrates are exactly the opposite. What should TrustRank do about that? I don't see any way to reconcile stuff like that.

    1. Re:Trusted by whom by hamlet2600 · · Score: 1
      I think if "trust rank" was user specific sort of the way search history works that would be ideal. You clicked on the link from the news which means 1) the article interests you and 2) you trust or are interested in what the source has to say.

      For me thats the true power of google's massive database, what do I look at, and how can I find things I need faster. Give me USEFUL information from sources similar to those i have used before.

      --
      Sometimes I wish computers were less friendly.
    2. Re:Trusted by whom by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      think if "trust rank" was user specific sort of the way search history works that would be ideal. You clicked on the link from the news which means 1) the article interests you and 2) you trust or are interested in what the source has to say.

      The problem I see with self-selecting the news you get is that you're soon only going to be getting facts which validate your prejudices and confirm the decisions you've already made. Of course, we're already headed there with Air America, Fox News and soforth.

    3. Re:Trusted by whom by hey · · Score: 1

      No, I wasn't trying to slight either party.

    4. Re:Trusted by whom by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      Google will give the higher TrustRank rating to the site that the government tells them to give it to.

  28. whuffie by byrd77 · · Score: 1

    one step closer to whuffie...

    now where do I back myself up?

    ref is to here for those not down with the ad hoc's

    --
    - Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
  29. so no more /. by capoccia · · Score: 1

    so that means no more slashdot on news.google.com? with all the duplicate stories, inflamitory and incorrect analysis, and bogus stories, slashdot has to be near the bottom of the heap.

  30. Algorithm for Trust by wronski · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are two main ways of ranking news (as well as websites and whatnot): Popularity or Quality. Popularity can be easily quantified, but with news you will probably end up with big and well known media source dominating the ranking. Regardless of what one thinks about CNN or BBC, they are not what I look for in googlenews (or I would just type www.cnn.com). I want news sources that I was anware of, to give me a fresh perspective.

    Quality on the other hand is very hard to measure, and any definition will surely be controversial. The metrics they are proposing will also benefit large well knwown news sources.

    What I would really like though is a rank that gave the widest possible perspective. Some algorithm that would take a news event and define some broad categories of news sources (say, on news on Iraq, conservative american media, liberal american, iraqi, arab, etc.). Then one or two representatives of each category would be displayed in the ranks, choosen among the cotegory by the metrics described in the article. The trick of course is to define the categories, but I think one could do that by looking at how different sources 'cluster' together. Sources in one country link overwhelmingly among themselves rather than abroad. Conservative news sources tend to cite and link to other conservatives, ditto for liberals or any other category. This is even more true for blogs, which wouldn't be much cited in the rank itself, but are a sort of glue that binds ideological and national categories together, and thus provide useful information to help classify the news source.

    I hope I'm making sense here. Just my 2cents...

    1. Re:Algorithm for Trust by wronski · · Score: 1
      If you were searching for information about a story, you probably WOULD want a cnn article over some random blog opinion piece that may or may not have any real facts

      True, but in the Iraq exemple for instance Id like a view from a representative news source from, say, and Arab paper, an Iraqi paper and perhaps, say, a american soldiers blog taht mentions the incident first hand. Each of these sources would be identified automaticaly by google because they are each the most popular, and trusted acording to the criteria proposed by google, in a certain cluster of links. So, a random blog would never be high in the rank unless it was linked to by many other sources reporting the same event.

      Again, just my 2cents.
  31. Another Google Article? by Cheirdal · · Score: 1

    I use Google a LOT at work and at home. Google is a great search engine that most people use every day. We're going to read about the new functionality on their site when they implement it. I don't understand the obsessive need that some people feel to follow everything that Google does. This is like writing a new article every time a car manufacturer adds a new feature. "The New Corvette to feature a digital clock on the dashboard...".

    This kind of blind horn blowing for a company is why Google's stock is $220 a share even though the company isn't worth any where near $220 a share. I hope when the stock finally comes down to earth to a value that the company can back up (and it will) it won't cause another tech blowout like in 2000.

    1. Re:Another Google Article? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google is important because millions of people use it multiple times per day. Many people don't even type URLs into their browsers directly anymore... they just enter website names into the google toolbar or homepage.

      So in short, knowing about what makes a #1 result a #1 result is critically important. We are moving from a phase where relevance & the work of hucksters looking for higher rankings drove search ranks to a new era, where "credibility" and political considerations will drive the results.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:Another Google Article? by Cheirdal · · Score: 1

      It hasn't mattered much in the 10 or so years since AltaVista was at the top of the search engine heap. What troubles me most about Google is that they do accept pay for rankings in a lot of cases. This makes their rankings less trust worthy to me than AltaVista was 10 years ago when they were just indexing what their web spiders brought back. Of course any big search engine is going to be looking to make a profit and that's understandable.
      Money aside, I don't need to look up the credibility of my searches when I'm doing keyword searches for technical issues. I also don't need to look up the credibility when I'm looking up information on current movies, local restaurants, news articles on current events, or doing something like looking up a synopsis of "Othello" or "MacBeth". Everything I look up is very limited by the multiple keywords I use in my search.

  32. A dmoz editor, eh? by DeadSea · · Score: 1

    Is this you: http://dmoz.org/profiles/psiolent.html

    I wonder if you can find my editor profile? ;-)

    1. Re:A dmoz editor, eh? by Psiolent · · Score: 1

      Here you are: http://dmoz.org/profiles/deadsea.html

      You're certainly a more prolific editor than I am. I apologize for my arrogance. :)

  33. just boils down to by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

    how much you trust google

  34. You Want Prior Art? by lofi-rev · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got your prior art http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116588&cid=986 5259">right here.

  35. My Trustrank algorithms... by GPLDAN · · Score: 3, Funny

    IF author = 'Enderle' THEN TRUST=ZILCH AND BONEHEAD = 1.

    IF author = 'DiDio' THEN TRUST=NADA AND MICROSOFT_SHILL = 1

    IF topic = 'SCO' THEN RELEVENCE TO ANYONE = RELEVANCE TO ANYONE - 1000

    IF quoted_source = 'Marc Andressen' THEN WHO_FUCKING_CARES = 1

    IF news_organization = 'FOX' then BULLSHIT_IS_AFOOT = 1.

    1. Re:My Trustrank algorithms... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      IF news_organization = 'FOX' && subjec = 'CBS' then DAN_RATHER_LYING_AGAIN = 1.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  36. Isvestia nye Pravda, y Pravda nye Isvestia by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article I conclude that the old Soviet Union's news services would have ranked very high.

    Oh, well. Google News was nice while it lasted.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  37. we need something like this by Qwavel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The internet provides us with such unlimited info that the problem is no longer finding information, it is deciding who to trust.

    Everyone probably has some internal list of sources they trust, but maintaining such a list is very hard.

    If TrustRank could be done and done right (???) then it would be a wonderful service.

    But, can any corporation be trusted to do this? Surely they would eventually start to 'sell' higher trust ratings? I 'trust' google, but it is still a corporation and it's job is to make money.

  38. Political implications by Heraklit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There will be political implications of this new ranking system. I bet nobody has really thought this through...

    What "trust rank" would you give Al Jazeera, for example?

    It is a state-owned, but journalistically largely independent big satellite network with a lot of staff and a huge audience. Just from an area of the world that might have different views.

    1. Re:Political implications by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      more Chinese and Indian people, but fair chance that American sources going to be ranked higher than these you would think?

      --
      Not Free SF Reader
  39. Never Be Evil . . . by kingjosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this behavior outside their mission statement? If Google's just going to be another patent farm and start using geniuses to come up with obvious ideas, I'd hardly call that not being evil . . . but that's just me.

  40. Sites that I trust by sapped · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about over time Google learns which sites I trust and modifies the ranking according to that. We could give each site a thumbs up or down rating like you do on a TiVO.

    1. Re:Sites that I trust by rsborg · · Score: 1
      How about over time Google learns which sites I trust and modifies the ranking according to that.

      But that wouldn't solve the problem of people who just put out shite and are effectively unaccountable for it. Sure, YOU get your news from the sources you want and believe to be true, but I'd also like to be able to see what "TrustRank thinks is valid" as an indicator. Not that I'd trust it alone but it might be a good source among 2 or 3 to determine validity.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  41. Nice prediction! by MarkByers · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just two stories later, 'Your Rights Online: The SCO Trial Through A New Lens'.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/04/29/1950245.shtml ?tid=123&tid=136&tid=88&tid=155

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Nice prediction! by Phil246 · · Score: 1

      heh I think it was more through luck then prediction :D
      That said i suppose it was inevitable another SCO story would pop up again

  42. MOD PARENT UP. by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This will be a very interesting thing to watch.

    I always paid attention to which news sites does the Google algorithm chooses to use as a primary source to a news item, and they are, more often than not, American sites. Anyway, news.google.com has been an useful source, since you can click on "all 1,777 related" and browse through the headlines and see the varying oppinions around the world. Example: this one was picked as a headline:

    Bush Promotes New Plan for Social Security as Benefit to Young

    In the other headlines, you see other views:
    • Bush Speech Fuels Capitol Debate Over Social Security's Future
    • Bush on offensive as ratings hit floor
    • Bush Plan Would Cut Benefits
    • Bush pitches plan to fix Social Security finances
    • For first time, Bush backs benefit cuts to help bolster Social ...
    • Bush vs. The Press
    And from here you can read articles from the various dissenting views. To me, that's the main utility of news.google.com. I wonder if TrustRank is going to start favoring sites such as CNN... after all, they're "America's most trusted news source" (according to themselves, at least).

    In the end, nothing beats reading the news from a number of different news sources. Unfortunately, most people don't do that.
    --
    The filesystem is the package manager
  43. It's a great idea! by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1
    The number of times I have used Google News and clicked on the top link only to get some barely literate ramblings are too many to count.

    Recently it seems that some San Francisco Real Estate site was getting high ranks for its barely literate ramblings on news topics that had nothing to do with real estate. This isn't about squashing the small guy - this is about getting a news story that is literate. I, for one, will welcome a day when I don't have to scroll down to the 153rd link on a story to find something useful (the first 152 would contain 143 duplicates of the AP story and 9 illiterate pieces of junk).

  44. Parody news articles and trustrank by zoogies · · Score: 1

    I have concerns that trustrank will limit the variety of news we get from Google News search, but I'm wondering if it will get rid of parody search results at the top. A few weeks ago, I did a google news search on John Kerry, and got several parody articles near the top...with all due respect to their sense of humor, I think there are more important articles than that.

    Instead of only selecting news from the top 200 or so sources, wouldn't it be better if Google did the opposite and filtered out known unreliable sources? I think it's a given that we surf at our own risk and take information presented to us (even on trusted sites) with a grain of salt...why trustrank?

  45. Difference to Advogato's trust metric? by danpat · · Score: 1

    http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html
    Is Google implementing the same algorithm?

  46. Seriously bogus by zogger · · Score: 1

    The big fat corporate media news sites will get a 'trusted" rating. The same ones who are *not* covering the three trillion in countefeit cash haul the other day, the ones *not* covering the intense gannon/whitehouse coverup scandal, the ones *not* covering the sibel edmonds 9-11 coverup scandal, and etc. They will be "trusted". Sites covering important news, news that would tend to get people to think a little differently and offer a real difference, will get ignored or buried, same as they are now, just worse.

    Google dudes, you reading this? You are going to further entrench globalist medicority fluff crapola and governmental/corporate newsaganda. We've been trying to *get away from that*, it causes most of the problems by keeping people dumbed down and faked out with the "big lie" principle.

    We'll see how it shakes out, but on the surface I don't like it already. You click on a random google news story now, it might say "89 more", you go there and there's 89 variations of the same exact AP or Reuters release, and half of those requiring "registration" for your "convenience". Big hairy deal. Like why bother.

  47. Problem with Acknowledged 'Bad' Links by TomDalton · · Score: 1

    Scenario: Reputable news site 'A' posts a story about fake news site 'B' that includes a link to site B. Google sees site A linking to site B and improves the TrustRank of site B.

    A hundred other good news sites also post stories about how abominably bad site B is, and pretty quick site B is ranked the most trustworthy site in the world.

    Without any context sensitivity, TrustRank can be a dangerous thing.

    --
    Do good. Joy follows.
  48. Trust who? by dangitman · · Score: 1
    The things I trust in news sources are the things I trust, and I don't base that trust on what other people think. I certainly don't base that trust on the size or popularity of a media source.

    This is the worst idea I have ever heard from Google. The only thing I can see coming from this is increased media consolidation - and therefore a decrease in the diversity of different viewpoints and outlets for journalism. It seems designed to drive readers back to the old media monopolies that serve us so poorly.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  49. trust rank by js7a · · Score: 1

    Sheesh! I hope I will still be able to sort by date.

  50. bad !! by Riiz · · Score: 1

    is trastrank limited to news articles? I don't think so.. And that will be very bad.

    --
    Riiz
  51. Re:Google's webmonkeys are as liberal as libs get by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

    Good question, does posting on slashdot make you a webmonkey? If it does, then haven't you answered your own question?

    --
    Not Free SF Reader
  52. newscientists should RTFP by digiz · · Score: 1

    The Newscientist article fails to report an important change with the new plans to rank credibility of news sources. On their "About Google News" page, Google claims a main feature of their News service is that is "compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention". However the patent states "a human opinion of the news source" and "amount of important coverage that the news source produces" will be used along with a number of other factors mentioned in the Newscientist to determine the credibility of the source. Maybe Newscientist should actually read the patents themselves. http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/ifetch5?ENG+PCT- ALL.vdb+14+1135032-SCORE+256+4+-1+DECL-ENG+31+52+2 6+25+SEP-0/HITNUM,B,,SCORE+google