Thanks dude. Although Hobbseian Choice might have been a better phrase even if it is a neologism - since Thomas Hobbes believed that abuse of power by the state (TSA in this case) was just an inevitable part of the price for the social contract of government.
I know the slashdot crowd has this belief that openess and data are a good idea,
Don't confuse good with perfect. Releasing the information is no panacea, just as the principle of "no taxatation without representation" was not a panacea either. But the alternative is much worse.
As probably the strongest congressional proponent of net neutrality (or at least the most acerbic) I am really disappointed to see his name on this list. Yeah, he was a actor/comedian working for the MAFIAA before, but he was able to overcome that bias and see the danger the MAFIAA poses to freedom of expression with their anti net-neutrality stance, so why did he cave on this one?
Education is the answer. I would like Judges and Jurors to have to take a quick quiz on the basic technology in use in these types of trials. Fail the test, you're not qualified to make a judgment.
That's just moving the problem of ignorance to some other entity. Chances are the MAFIAA would end the author of the test.
Seems to me the defense is responsible for educating the judge and jury during the trial.
Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing complaints about facebook as credible any more - surely by this point they've already driven away everyone who really cares about these sorts of things.
That's like saying that the people bitching about the TSA's hobsian choice between nudie photos or a rub-and-tug have no credibility because the TSA's been ratcheting up the crazy for almost a decade now and if they aren't taking the train they deserve what they get. Because of the network effect, facebook is the only practical game in town for a lot of people who want that kind of service.
So tell me, what is it that an internet savvy user like yourself uses to consistently and clearly distinguish between links to special google-services and other links?
Thats the point, those are NOT google's web pages! Its information which as been inlined that does NOT contain cached web pages (like regular search results), much less google's cached pages or google-specific services. (since when does google offer cinema ticketing?)
I dunno what you are talking about with ticketing. The absolute first link that comes up in your own example is to another google service with showtimes, theater addresses, mapping links and movie info. Probably somewhere deeper in that is ticketing, but it is by no means a direct link to ticketing. It is a direct link to yet another google product.
So what? My claim - and the article's - is that when google lists their own service they always list it first. All you've done is demonstrate exactly that phenomenon. It doesn't really matter if 2nd, 3rd and 4th are 12 pixels or 12 lines later, first is first.
Their ranking order is algorithmically unbiased. If the search has an answer that google can provide inline (movie showtimes, stock prices, math), it shows that result first.
Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. That's a textbook example of an algorithm that is biased. Just because it is an algorithm doesn't mean it isn't automatically unbiased.
And why do you have a bug up your ass about bing? It's like you can't write a post without making up some meaningless tangent about bing. What bing does or does not do is irrelevant in determining whether or not google is true to its word.
You're a moron if you can't see the content difference.
Really? I think you are the moron because it doesn't look noticeably different from the first hit in this search or the first hit in this search both of which are differently formed from "regular" search results but do not link to google services.
Furthermore, there's even an additional (unnecessary) magnifying glass next to the actual search results.
So if it doesn't have a quick preview option, then it isn't a true search result? You think overloading the meaning of tiny faded icon counts as an obvious differentiator? I never realized google fanbois were as mindlessly rabid as apple fanbois.
Search for 'GOOG'. Top of the page is the finance service result for GOOG, with links to Google Finance, Yahoo, MSN, and etc., with the fancy graph underneath. The first search result is the Yahoo Finance page for GOOG, and the second is the Google Finance page for GOOG, both of which were linked in the list of sites in the finance service result at the top of the page.
I dunno what YOU see, but what I see has the very first link to a google service - the blue underlined GOOG in "GOOG - Google Inc. (NASDAQ).
They claim that the search results portion is based on a formula. Not the whole page - and specifically not the "smart" stuff like calculator, stock prices, flight status etc.
Dude, what part of "forest for the trees" do you fail to understand?
Let me spell it out for you - you keep arguing that a specific case proves the general point, it does not. The general point is that when google puts their own services in the results list, they always put them first. That is textbook bias.
To computer savvy people, it's pretty obviously a different, discrete "section" of the page than the actual search results, but to people like my grandma (and apparently the author of this article) it appears to simply be the first search result.
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.
Your distinction is arbitrary and meaningless, a fancy search result is still just a search result.
Besides, how awful would it be to have that special "generated" information not showing up first??
Just as awful as having it show up first when what you are really looking for is further down the list. When I searched on "the social network" I got showtimes time sand links to full-blown cinema listings on google's own web pages - what if I just wanted to read some reviews? Or check out the cast list? What makes google's own web pages automatically more relevant than any other web pages?
That's called checkpoint/restart and it's been around on 32-bit machines for decades. Its not commonly used, maybe internet ubiquity might change that, but 64-bitness isn't even close to necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks dude. Although Hobbseian Choice might have been a better phrase even if it is a neologism - since Thomas Hobbes believed that abuse of power by the state (TSA in this case) was just an inevitable part of the price for the social contract of government.
I know the slashdot crowd has this belief that openess and data are a good idea,
Don't confuse good with perfect. Releasing the information is no panacea, just as the principle of "no taxatation without representation" was not a panacea either. But the alternative is much worse.
and the courts can set aside things as unconstitutional.
What? You mean those damn activist judges!!?!
Al Franken -- Minnesota
As probably the strongest congressional proponent of net neutrality (or at least the most acerbic) I am really disappointed to see his name on this list. Yeah, he was a actor/comedian working for the MAFIAA before, but he was able to overcome that bias and see the danger the MAFIAA poses to freedom of expression with their anti net-neutrality stance, so why did he cave on this one?
Education is the answer. I would like Judges and Jurors to have to take a quick quiz on the basic technology in use in these types of trials. Fail the test, you're not qualified to make a judgment.
That's just moving the problem of ignorance to some other entity.
Chances are the MAFIAA would end the author of the test.
Seems to me the defense is responsible for educating the judge and jury during the trial.
Sorry, but I have a hard time seeing complaints about facebook as credible any more - surely by this point they've already driven away everyone who really cares about these sorts of things.
That's like saying that the people bitching about the TSA's hobsian choice between nudie photos or a rub-and-tug have no credibility because the TSA's been ratcheting up the crazy for almost a decade now and if they aren't taking the train they deserve what they get. Because of the network effect, facebook is the only practical game in town for a lot of people who want that kind of service.
Guess you're not very internet savvy then. :( You probably download a lot of trojans.
Really? Is that the best you can do? How about you describe why you think it is so clearly differentiated.
Here's why I say it is not any different:
1) Spacing is identical to the other search results
2) No separator from the other search results
3) No difference in back ground color from the other search results
4) Other searches like thisa and have non-google results that are just as variable in their formatting as the example.
So tell me, what is it that an internet savvy user like yourself uses to consistently and clearly distinguish between links to special google-services and other links?
So, I guess I proved you wrong, but I'm sure you'll find some bullshit reason to ignore this information.
You are right, there is indeed a basic unadorned link to news.google.com as the fourth hit.
Thats the point, those are NOT google's web pages! Its information which as been inlined that does NOT contain cached web pages (like regular search results), much less google's cached pages or google-specific services.
(since when does google offer cinema ticketing?)
I dunno what you are talking about with ticketing. The absolute first link that comes up in your own example is to another google service with showtimes, theater addresses, mapping links and movie info. Probably somewhere deeper in that is ticketing, but it is by no means a direct link to ticketing. It is a direct link to yet another google product.
Here's the algorithm:
if {query results can be shown inline} {show inline}
No, that is your deliberately misleading redefinition of the algorithm. The real algo is:
if {google services can be shown inline} {show google services first}
{show other links, sort by pagerank}
you're just being excessively pedantic about everything google says.
Absolutely nothing pedantic about saying "if it quacks like a duck..."
So what? My claim - and the article's - is that when google lists their own service they always list it first. All you've done is demonstrate exactly that phenomenon. It doesn't really matter if 2nd, 3rd and 4th are 12 pixels or 12 lines later, first is first.
Their ranking order is algorithmically unbiased. If the search has an answer that google can provide inline (movie showtimes, stock prices, math), it shows that result first.
Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. That's a textbook example of an algorithm that is biased. Just because it is an algorithm doesn't mean it isn't automatically unbiased.
And why do you have a bug up your ass about bing? It's like you can't write a post without making up some meaningless tangent about bing. What bing does or does not do is irrelevant in determining whether or not google is true to its word.
Isn't that kind of like getting mad at Sears for trying to sell you a Kenmore (their own brand) appliance before offering you an LG?
Only if Sears promised the FTC they wouldn't do that in order to keep the FTC from more thoroughly scrutinizing Sears's marketing tactics.
What angers me is that people actually think websites do and should have the right to be treated equally, on another entity's service.
So, you are angry at google? Because this entire topic is about google saying exactly that, but then not keeping their word.
You're a moron if you can't see the content difference.
Really? I think you are the moron because it doesn't look noticeably different from the first hit in this search or the first hit in this search both of which are differently formed from "regular" search results but do not link to google services.
Furthermore, there's even an additional (unnecessary) magnifying glass next to the actual search results.
So if it doesn't have a quick preview option, then it isn't a true search result? You think overloading the meaning of tiny faded icon counts as an obvious differentiator? I never realized google fanbois were as mindlessly rabid as apple fanbois.
Search for 'GOOG'. Top of the page is the finance service result for GOOG, with links to Google Finance, Yahoo, MSN, and etc., with the fancy graph underneath. The first search result is the Yahoo Finance page for GOOG, and the second is the Google Finance page for GOOG, both of which were linked in the list of sites in the finance service result at the top of the page.
I dunno what YOU see, but what I see has the very first link to a google service - the blue underlined GOOG in "GOOG - Google Inc. (NASDAQ).
I want a search engine to obscure my results.
Google is the one who claimed their ranking order was algorithmicly unbiased.
Are you saying the Google wants their own results to be "obscure?"
Actually, google does not *always* put their results first.
Again - "when google puts their own services in the results list, they always put them first."
Want to prove me wrong? Give me a google URL that puts a non-google result first and a google service in any other position on the list.
The closest you can come to that is the occasional youtube video.
They claim that the search results portion is based on a formula. Not the whole page - and specifically not the "smart" stuff like calculator, stock prices, flight status etc.
When that stuff is undifferentiated from the rest of the results it is not another portion.
Dude, what part of "forest for the trees" do you fail to understand?
Let me spell it out for you - you keep arguing that a specific case proves the general point, it does not.
The general point is that when google puts their own services in the results list, they always put them first.
That is textbook bias.
To computer savvy people, it's pretty obviously a different, discrete "section" of the page than the actual search results, but to people like my grandma (and apparently the author of this article) it appears to simply be the first search result.
Looks just like the first search result to me too.
Except that they claim it is a scientific formula. That's what the article claims google said to the antitrust people at least.
> what if I just wanted to read some reviews?
In addition to the show times appearing as part of the first result are the words blahblablah
Forest for the trees dude.
So far, none of the 3 responses, yours included, have been able to explain why google's own services are always the most relevant.
And the answer is they are not, google is putting them at the top of the list because they are google's own products.
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.
Your distinction is arbitrary and meaningless, a fancy search result is still just a search result.
Besides, how awful would it be to have that special "generated" information not showing up first??
Just as awful as having it show up first when what you are really looking for is further down the list. When I searched on "the social network" I got showtimes time sand links to full-blown cinema listings on google's own web pages - what if I just wanted to read some reviews? Or check out the cast list? What makes google's own web pages automatically more relevant than any other web pages?
That's called checkpoint/restart and it's been around on 32-bit machines for decades. Its not commonly used, maybe internet ubiquity might change that, but 64-bitness isn't even close to necessary.