His term was indistinguishable from someone who tried to do the right thing but was easily swayed by propaganda (or maybe partly by classified info that we don't have). I don't know how much was malice or incompetence or just naivete. Donald Trump is clearly NOT trying to do the right thing. That's the difference.
Not really relevant when you're talking about relative weighting. Something has to be at the top of the search results.
If you link to the original research source, you'll also see that it's mostly independent/left-leaning people that actually try to find out the veracity of what they read. Just claiming that something is not factual without actually trying to look into it at all is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
The policies that help a huge cosmopolitan area typically not that well thought out for people in the less populated areas. Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas.
handful of retrograde hicks
You really don't know that many rural people. I grew up in a rural area and the split is nearly as wide there as it is in the cities. Just because a city goes blue doesn't mean that much more than 50% of the population is on that side.
Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.
This was started with Bill Clinton playing Sax on late night TV. It carried through to Camera loving Obama and his zealousness for being a Pop Culture icon along with Beyonce and Oprah.
I agree with you on this.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it? Convenient.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I think all of it's horrible. Voters don't want someone they don't adore as an icon. Forget someone who will put the time and effort into working and doing a good job. Unfortunately, that's the main reason Hillary didn't get elected rather than thinking she wouldn't do a good job. I thought she was both unappealing as a person AND probably wouldn't do a good job. Donald Trump was ONLY elected because of the spectacle.
Well, the fact is that Google only trusts big names in news, like CNN and Fox, never mind how ridiculous they may be.
As they should. They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites. Giving equal weight to a random conspiracy theorist web site with 5 followers makes no sense for very good reason.
I kind of wonder if Google shows exactly the same news to all users.
They probably don't. They've already said as much for their regular search results. I don't think that's the supposed bias being claimed here. Especially since it goes against the biases of the person "researching" the article.
That listing doesn't show how many of those inbound links are to Trump articles. You really don't understand how Google's search algorithm works, do you?
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and shared (increasing the linkback count).
Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.
Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.
OK, let's stop moving the goalposts here (sounds like some "collusion" argument I heard lately). What they're doing, neutral or not, is legal. It's fine. The question is whether they're doing it so that a reasonable person can set their expectations accordingly.
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.
But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.
Prolific is not a useful metric (the plague was prolific). Also, Facebook shares are not usually indexable by Google. Even though it's "only" a magazine, The Atlantic has been publishing for over 150 years.
Being a number 1 rated news channel is not a prize to be proud of. There are only two large enough to be in the running and both are extremely sensationalist and should not serve as a primary news source to anyone with a rational mind.
Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.
There are a lot of reasons this can happen. Google ranks pages higher when they are shared / linked to more often. Google is not "neutral" in the fact that they let more popular pages rise to the top. Not being neutral in that respect is what made them what they are vs. search engines that only rank on keywords - it weeds out spam. But not being neutral is not the same as intentional bias.
Slashdot Mirror
His term was indistinguishable from someone who tried to do the right thing but was easily swayed by propaganda (or maybe partly by classified info that we don't have). I don't know how much was malice or incompetence or just naivete. Donald Trump is clearly NOT trying to do the right thing. That's the difference.
Not really relevant when you're talking about relative weighting. Something has to be at the top of the search results.
If you link to the original research source, you'll also see that it's mostly independent/left-leaning people that actually try to find out the veracity of what they read. Just claiming that something is not factual without actually trying to look into it at all is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
The policies that help a huge cosmopolitan area typically not that well thought out for people in the less populated areas. Many of the social safety nets that are there to help people in overpopulated areas do not properly help people in lower cost of living areas.
handful of retrograde hicks
You really don't know that many rural people. I grew up in a rural area and the split is nearly as wide there as it is in the cities. Just because a city goes blue doesn't mean that much more than 50% of the population is on that side.
Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.
The only thing mainstream conservatism conserves is the wealth of the wealthy.
This was started with Bill Clinton playing Sax on late night TV. It carried through to Camera loving Obama and his zealousness for being a Pop Culture icon along with Beyonce and Oprah.
I agree with you on this.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you don't like it? Convenient.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I think all of it's horrible. Voters don't want someone they don't adore as an icon. Forget someone who will put the time and effort into working and doing a good job. Unfortunately, that's the main reason Hillary didn't get elected rather than thinking she wouldn't do a good job. I thought she was both unappealing as a person AND probably wouldn't do a good job. Donald Trump was ONLY elected because of the spectacle.
Well, the fact is that Google only trusts big names in news, like CNN and Fox, never mind how ridiculous they may be.
As they should. They aren't analyzing the credibility of web sites, they're analyzing the credibility that the public assigns to these web sites. Giving equal weight to a random conspiracy theorist web site with 5 followers makes no sense for very good reason.
I kind of wonder if Google shows exactly the same news to all users.
They probably don't. They've already said as much for their regular search results. I don't think that's the supposed bias being claimed here. Especially since it goes against the biases of the person "researching" the article.
That listing doesn't show how many of those inbound links are to Trump articles. You really don't understand how Google's search algorithm works, do you?
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and shared (increasing the linkback count).
This is not the first time I've thought of Donald Trump as Zaphod. It is absolutely the closest we've ever come.
name calling and the childish whining
I thought that was his platform.
Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.
Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.
Citation found:
https://www.alexa.com/topsites...
The news outlets I mentioned are ranked amongst the top on the web
citation needed.
Even if it's true that Google is rigged, so what?
OK, let's stop moving the goalposts here (sounds like some "collusion" argument I heard lately). What they're doing, neutral or not, is legal. It's fine. The question is whether they're doing it so that a reasonable person can set their expectations accordingly.
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.
But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.
95% of the country is urban or suburban.
Have you been to most of this country?
Prolific is not a useful metric (the plague was prolific). Also, Facebook shares are not usually indexable by Google. Even though it's "only" a magazine, The Atlantic has been publishing for over 150 years.
Being a number 1 rated news channel is not a prize to be proud of. There are only two large enough to be in the running and both are extremely sensationalist and should not serve as a primary news source to anyone with a rational mind.
Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.
There are a lot of reasons this can happen. Google ranks pages higher when they are shared / linked to more often. Google is not "neutral" in the fact that they let more popular pages rise to the top. Not being neutral in that respect is what made them what they are vs. search engines that only rank on keywords - it weeds out spam. But not being neutral is not the same as intentional bias.
First item I see is their web site. You're the one making up fake news.
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Compared to what was on US TV at the time, I'm pretty sure it was.
That was in the "took more risks" category.