Slashdot Mirror
Hard-Coded Bias In Google Search Results?
bonch writes "Technology consultant Benjamin Edelman has developed a methodology for determining the existence of a hard-coded bias in Google's search engine which places Google's services at the top of the results page. Searching for a stock ticker places Google Finance at the top along with a price chart, but adding a comma to the end of the query removes the Google link completely. Other variations, such as 'a sore throat' instead of 'sore throat,' removes Google Health from its top position. Queries in other categories provide links to not only Google services but also their preferred partners. Though Google claims it does not bias its results, Edelman cites a 2007 admission from Google's Marissa Mayers that they placed Google Finance at the top of the results page, calling it 'only fair' because they made the search engine. Edelman notes that Google cites its use of unbiased algorithms to dismiss antitrust scrutiny, and he recalls the DOJ's intervention in airlines providing favorable results for their own flights in customer reservation systems they owned."
But I believe it'd be better if their own services didn't display as a result and more as a "hey look your favorite search engine has something for that" kind of thing
The article is inaccurate. Google does not bias search results, the results which appear on top aren't regular search results, they are more like services.
If I search for "the social network" as the article provides as proof of bias, I am happy to see a service presenting me with additional info which is certainly NOT a search result, but rather dynamically generated content. No search result can provide that, only google can because after all its their site.
Besides, how awful would it be to have that special "generated" information not showing up first?? why would it be displayed in the 3rd, 4th, 6th position? It makes no sense! Because it ISN'T a web search result. It would also be an awful user experience.
If I wasn't new here I would ask: "Why is this even news in slashdot land?" :P
On Google, Yahoo, Bing, and even WolframAlpha the "top link" for stock quotes is actually a widget that shows current stock info. Google's widget is the only one of the four that has links to all their competitors' finance sites.
The same is true of health searches, travel searches, you name it... Google's widgets give you choices, the rest shuffle you to their sponsored site.
Mod article troll.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Fact: Google expanded rapidly also because they claim that every website is equal, you all have a chance just make a good website.
I don't recall Google ever suggesting that every Web site is equal. In fact, the whole point of the PageRank algorithm is that every site is not equal, and most people are going to want to go to the site that everybody else goes to. This puts an automatic bias toward established players -- if someone else has the best XYZ site today, and you start a "good" XYZ site, you have very little chance of bumping the other guy's site out of first place. Your site will have to be significantly better than the other guy's site, which is kind of how it works in real life, most of the time.
As far as competing directly with Google, Google's services are largely information-based. The weather, medical advice, stock prices ... these are the kind of things a reference librarian could point you to, which are arguably the sort of things that a good information search engine should provide. If all your site is providing is factoids that can be screen scraped from someone else's site (like the National Weather Service), then you're doing it wrong, and you shouldn't expect to get top ranking on Google anyway.
And it's worth noting that if I go to Google.com, type in "cancer" and click "I'm Feeling Lucky," the page that comes up is ... the American Cancer Society. Not Google Health. If I do the same for "sore throat" I get MedicineNet.com. If I do it for "AAPL" I get Yahoo Finance (no joke, try it).
On the other hand, people who specifically ask for a page of search results from a specific search engine shouldn't be surprised if the search engine tries to offer information instead of just URLs. It's just part of the ongoing evolution of what a search engine can/should be.
Breakfast served all day!
Read the article. Its stupid. Seriously.
Sure, and if you want to make an argument that their actively promoted, publicly announced, documented Universal Search feature is inconsistent with those statements, there may be a legitimate argument to be made about that.
OTOH, most of TFA was an attempt to "prove" that Google was doing something secret and underhanded by pretending that Universal Search wasn't a publicly disclosed, widely promoted, well-documented feature and pretending to "discover" the feature.
It's completely intellectually dishonest.