Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Is Removing 'In the News' Section From Desktop Search After Criticism (businessinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on from the hands-up dept.

Google today confirmed that it is removing "In the news" section from the top of desktop search, and replacing it with a carousel of "Top stories," similar to what exists on mobile. From a new report on BusinessInsider: This move had been planned for quite some time, and is being rolled out globally, according to Google. The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product. Last month, Google faced scrutiny when one of its top results for "final election count" was fake news. The top result in Google Search's "In the news" section was a Wordpress blog named "70 News," which falsely claimed Trump won the popular vote by a margin of almost 700,000. (He didnâ(TM)t). Google's search results, in contrast to Google News, are not assessed for "truth."

13 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. planned for AFTER hillary's election by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    she won, right?

    1. Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election by anthony_greer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      thats not how it works. the rules were long standing and clear, its about electors in the states. Its like baseball - the Indians scored more runs than the Cubs in the World Series but who won?

    2. Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election by Obfuscant · · Score: 3

      Not in the only election that counts. "Add up all the individual votes from all the states" has never been the way the winner of the US presidential election has been determined.

    3. Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only election that counts has not occurred.

      I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.

      And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.

    4. Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election by oneiron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process? The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios. Therefore, they are following the process- not subverting it. Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

    5. Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?

      Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.

      The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.

      What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)

      Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

      What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?

      The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.

    6. Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election by oneiron · · Score: 2

      First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil. Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo... If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.

    7. Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.

      I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.

      The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.

      So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.

      And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.

      If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process

      I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.

      So "boohoo" yourself.

  2. Google's fix. Brilliant! by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *Google finds folder with kiddie porn*

    *Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*

    "There we go, that should do it."

  3. After Criticism by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on a search to current item of interest. For example, if I'm concerned about a particular recent earthquake I use the NEWS link to focus my search result to just recent news rather than encyclopedia like entries about earthquakes in general. It sucks if Google is removing this feature, and it sucks even more if it is being done because of "Criticism". And all this while fake news sites like CNN and the New York Times and the Washington Post continue to operate.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:After Criticism by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on a search to current item of interest. ... snip...
      It sucks if Google is removing this feature, and it sucks even more if it is being done because of "Criticism".

      They're not. They are removing the "news" stories you get as part of search results which are related to whatever the crawler picks up. The actual news button at the top will remain and the news search function will too as far as I can tell.

  4. Main Search Product by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

    The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product.

    Google's main product is advertising and user info (to better target advertising), not search.

  5. To those people who don't understand what this is by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google is NOT removing the "News" section. What they are removing (actually have removed) is "news" stories as part of the the search results. These were whatever relevant thing the crawler picked up. e.g. If you searched for "Brexit" you would invariably get some "news" stories at the top of your search results. Now you get a "Top Stories" section.

    You can still click "news" in the heading to get the normal Google News results which are vetted by a person rather than Google's standard crawler algorithm.