Slashdot Mirror
Google Wants To Rank Websites Based On Facts Not Links
wabrandsma writes about Google's new system for ranking the truthfulness of a webpage. "Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them. Google research team is adapting that model to measure the trustworthiness of a page, rather than its reputation across the web. Instead of counting incoming links, the system – which is not yet live – counts the number of incorrect facts within a page. 'A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy,' says the team. The score they compute for each page is its Knowledge-Based Trust score. The software works by tapping into the Knowledge Vault, the vast store of facts that Google has pulled off the internet. Facts the web unanimously agrees on are considered a reasonable proxy for truth. Web pages that contain contradictory information are bumped down the rankings."
It is an interesting algorithm, but who is to say the fact is correct? if many sites say the same information, the fact is more correct? if that is the case, then how much better is that from links. when there is more than one version of the truth (conflicts, spin vs fact)... plus not all information is facts... philosophical questions may have more than one answer etc... so I am definitely curious to see how this works out
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
yaay, it's slashdot on steroids, yaay! with all the means by which true knowledge may be suppressed by misunderstandings, yaay! democracy at work to bubble up the sum of our ignorance rather than inconvenient and annoying truth. ahh gotta love it...
This sounds like a great improvement.
Some years ago if I searched for a data sheet for an Electronic Component, I could rely on a direct link to the PDF in the first hit or so.
Now however, any worthwhile result is often many pages down the list. The first page or two are full of "Are you searching for xxxx? We don't have that right now, but here's a great way to earn big dollars!!".
Google is so badly scammed that I usually don't bother. I hate to say it, but even Bing is better now.
It had come a long way, then it started being manipulated by ideology pushing extremists that have become very adept at abusing the hell out of labrynthian policies to the point that even when the author of a news article flat out says "They're lying, I never said that at all" it's the author that gets punished.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
If this ever happens, expect Fact Engine Optimization to become a new industry, and do exactly what SEO did to the reliability and utility of search engines.
Maybe there should be a concept such as Search Neutrality.
Search is already neutral, it's the order of results that upsets people because by definition, ranking cannot be neutral. An intelligent search engine such as IBM's Watson gives a confidence rating on it's "facts", it can produce multiple answers each with a confidence ranking. They can also explain in excruciating detail how they arrived at the answer, and they can do it better than humans. Technology is a tool, a hammer that can be used to build or destroy a civilization.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.
Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The simple fact that you see partisan advantage proves you agree it will be exploited. You just think it will be exploited to help you rather than hurt you.
The funny thing you're not getting is that google itself is far from indispensible. There are lots of other search engines and most of them are comparable in quality.
At best... assuming you're right... what would happen is that people that thought more like you would be even further echo chambered then you already are... protected from alternative view points and increasingly controlled by your ruling opinion makers... while the internet culture further fragments.
You're hardly going to win against your political rivals because they'll just use Bing or something. All that will happen is that YOU are aware of less. Will your opinions change? You weren't moved by sites that came up that you felt were pushing disinformation in the first place. No one really is at this point. We can smell our own and we treat with skepticism anyone outside our tribe.
You might argue that this would help you fight for the allegiance of the moderates and the middle. And you might have something there. But things are so social networked at this point that you'll have a hard time playing gatekeeper with any proficiency.
In any case... your opinion has merely validated my initial statement.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Quick question, websites that are deeply religious and contain thousands of, "there is a God," "and God said, let there..." Do these things get knocked way down or are those actual facts, or is there going to be a special clause for religion?
There are thousands of things people will swear are "facts" but it may not actually be the case.
Not only that but facts are different depending on who you ask. Example: "Palestine is a country that borders..." Wait a second, which countries/governments agree that Palestine is a country and which don't? (I actually don't know but just used that as an example, there are many examples of this.)
There are a million monkey wrenches that can jam this supposed system.
I wonder what the Google staff's and consultants' philosophy of epistemology is. What do they mean when they say fact? What assumptions underly that definition? Are they naive positivists or social constructivists? Ultimately, it requires people to decide what constitutes truth, fact, and knowledge - machines are nowhere near being able to do that and perhaps never will. Do they expect to automate this ranking system with an algorithm? I can't wait to see it trip up over criteria-matching random string generators that regurgitate scraped "facts" off the web (by simply following Google's own "fact" ranking results) to push their porn, malware, and sales/scam/phishing sites up to the top of Google's page rankings.
This post was brought to you by Carls Junior, makers of Brawndo, the thirst mutilator. It's got electrolytes.