Google manual proves suspicions that Google downranks content that doesn't fit the consensus of experts. (x-post via /r/googlecensorship)
52 2012-12-09 by [deleted]
Recently The Register wrote an article about the secret manual that Google's human raters use to rate content. The bombshell revelation from that document is that it requires that all pages be ranked as "low or lowest quality" depending on their "reputation" and standing with a "consensus of experts. Pages that go against a "consensus of experts" are considered low or lowest quality regardless of whether a user intends to find information that is outside an established "consensus".
From The Register:
Raters are invited to infer a website's reputation. For example, Google asks Raters: "What kind of Reputation Does the Website Have? ... negative or malicious reputation ... Mixed reputation ... Positive or OK reputation ... little or not information found ..."
It goes on to explain:
"Reputation research in Page Quality rating is very important. A positive reputation from a consensus of experts is often what distinguishes an overall Highest quality page from a High quality page. A negative reputation should not be ignored and is a reason to give an overall Page Quality rating of Low or Lowest."
Here is a useful image from Searchengineland.com that shows how quality raters are directed to rate sites that don't match the consensus of experts as low or lowest quality.
There has been speculation that Google makes it difficult to find information that goes against the "consensus" on climate change.
A letter from Yale asked Google if "search engines do a better job of pointing the public toward credible sites?" and a Google spokesperson seemed to respond in the affirmative.
From wattsupwiththat.com
"A Google spokeswoman, who insisted on anonymity because she is not a Google executive, said the company is always looking for ways to improve results."
update: Here is a statement that shows that this manual does not abide by Google's own written statements. Some people claim that Google doesn't pretend to be unbiased. http://www.google.com/explanation.html
"The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results."
I suppose you could say "experts" are not opinions from the General public but that would simply mean Google is using especially weaselly language in order to make people think that it's search engine is neutral when it is not. Furthermore Google is using there own beliefs and opinions when determining which people who aren't from the general public can influence the results of its search engine.
27 comments
4 [deleted] 2012-12-09
So... what's the problem here? The fact that Google appears to give less credence to less reputable sources?
8 NSojac 2012-12-09
The obvious problem is how google determines which sources are disreputable and by what criteria and by what experts. Does this only apply to sites about the hard sciences whose factuality is easily verified? News as well? Blogs? This policy immediately creates an incentive to not deviate from Established Consensus if one wants a high page rank.
I think there's a danger of inhibiting informational diversity on the web--developing an internet experience of directed media similar to print and cable news.
-1 [deleted] 2012-12-09
[deleted]
7 [deleted] 2012-12-09
Maintaining neutrality and the promotion of reputable sources are not mutually exclusive...
1 [deleted] 2012-12-09
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2012-12-09
-2 [deleted] 2012-12-09
[deleted]
6 haveyouconsideredthe 2012-12-09
So google is biased towards information that experts deem good? That umm sounds like a good thing.
1 NSojac 2012-12-09
Here's why I think this is a bad thing:
Sometimes there is no such thing as expert consensus. In many areas even the very idea of any type of meaningful consensus is laughable, like political commentary for instance. Depending on how these experts are vetted, this can introduce (un)intended bias into the results.
Expert consensus isn't evaluated by experts themselves. Take a look here at the qualifications. Basically you need to not be brain-dead and be a US citizen.
The internet is not a primarily academic instrument. For those wanting factual rigor in their internet experience, there are many ways to get it, and they aren't exactly hidden.
Incorrect, misleading, or against-the-mainstream ideas and opinions can still be valuable, both intellectually and for entertainment purposes. They can broaden one's horizons, introduce you to new modes of thinking, or simply be a catalyst for prompting you to learn more.
Following closely from (3), differing opinions and mutually exclusive claims fosters the development of good critical thinking skills. In school and in mass media, expert opinion is taken as gospel and critical thinking is reduced to a mere theoretical exercise. On the internet the ability to analyze and contextualize sources is a practical necessity, and that is only true because of the ubiquity of conflicting and at times unreliable information.
The internet is valuable because it is democratic. Outside of standing on a soapbox on mainstreet, the internet is the only domain I can think of where people can express themselves without being vetted and reviewed by experts or other gatekeepers.
1 TheBigBadDuke 2012-12-09
Beware of "experts".
5 PlacentaJuan 2012-12-09
Lousy Ivory Tower Elitists. They think they know more than us just because they know more than us?
3 [deleted] 2012-12-09
[deleted]
3 PlacentaJuan 2012-12-09
So says a scientist... And we all know how credible they are.
0 highguy420 2012-12-09
That's the problem. If they know more than you then they can deceive you without being detected.
If the "Ivory Tower Elitist" know more than the normal people then they will rule. It is essential that We, the People, retain public ownership of educational institutions sufficient to compete with the schools of the "Ivory Tower Elitists", owned by banks and multi-national corporations.
You assert that they should be trusted because they know more than "us". They should be trusted because their claims and stated methods are logical and confirmed by the scientific community, comprised of experts with varied backgrounds and with degrees from various universities, both private and public. Individual private citizens should be educated well enough and have access to resources necessary to confirm, independently, the claims of the experts.
If you truly believe they are smarter than "us", the public, then you need to start advocating for education reforms. If only the "ivory Tower Elitists", as you call them, are educated then we need to stat overhauling the education system immediately.
3 PlacentaJuan 2012-12-09
You mean exactly what google is doing? Nice try, google shill.
-2 highguy420 2012-12-09
No, I'm saying "the scientific community" should be much different than it is today. You are misrepresenting my argument and ignoring all the time and effort I put into ensuring it was clear that independent citizens should have access to the resources and education to confirm the results of those in "the scientific community".
I assume your intention was to make a joke, however the implication is insulting and unfairly reduces my argument to absurdity only through the exclusion of context.
4 haveyouconsideredthe 2012-12-09
The public does have access to the information though for education. But Google is a private company and they have a right to keep their algorithms private.
0 highguy420 2012-12-09
You must be having a different conversation than I am.
2 haveyouconsideredthe 2012-12-09
So the public doesn't have access to the information of the scientific community? That is the claim you are making? But they do.
0 highguy420 2012-12-09
No. I am not making that claim.
2 haveyouconsideredthe 2012-12-09
Then what are you claiming because thats exactly what you said.
0 highguy420 2012-12-09
Apparently you missed both times I summarized my point in my original comment:
...
My point is about We, the People, ensuring that we not only own a large percentage of the educational institutions, that we also make available enough scholarships to send average citizens interested in educating themselves to our institutions to ensure we have a diverse educational system. If only the wealthy own schools and can afford tuition then they can deceive us without our being able to even realize it.
2 haveyouconsideredthe 2012-12-09
That currently happens. It's actually gotten amazingly better the past 10 years despite getting more expensive. If you can get into Harvard you can go. Same for Stanford, MIT, etc. They will find ways to cover you.
1 highguy420 2012-12-09
Yes, a bit. At one point we actually knew the importance of publicly-owned higher education. Some of the institutions and programs that were set up back then seem to still be around, but we don't protect or defend them and we let them get gutted year after year as for-profit learning institutions lobby their competition out of existence bit by bit.
1 mattgrimes 2012-12-09
Interesting. At first glance I would think it is more related to most people being poorly educated and not being aware of much that is true about main stream science and to prevent people basing their opinions of completely unfounded information or at worst just that they are bias (not necessarily conspiring to keep people ill-informed of the "real" truth), but I will have to do some research.
1 preventDefault 2012-12-09
TIL Google employs humans to rate websites for its search results
1 [deleted] 2012-12-09
Since yesterday when I posted this I have received exactly 0 new subscribers to my subreddit. I don't know what is going on. Maybe its a spam prevention policy or Reddit is having difficulties. Anyways I think you might be interested in my /r/googlecensorship subreddit
-2 Thevents 2012-12-09
Oh yeah, if you do a search for "Architects and Engineers for 911 truth" it will take you to a page supposedly debunking that. As to how the fuck people can't realize that buildings don't turn into fucking dust from a plane hitting it is beyond me. What are we living in a cartoon? But I digress.
4 conspiracyright 2012-12-09
What, really? Can you give a screenshot? For me, the search "Architects and Engineers for 911 truth" (without quotes) gives:
Doesn't look too bad to me...
2 [deleted] 2012-12-09
Yep, I get exactly the same (on google.com and .co.uk). No idea what Thevents was seeing.
1 Thevents 2012-12-09
Looks like they changed this. I know it used to be like I said. If you go to 911blogger I think they even had an article about this. If I am correct that google used to do this, and doesn't anymore than one can conclude that it appears whoever made this decision decided AE911 truth is more truthful than they first thought. Interesting.
8 NSojac 2012-12-09
The obvious problem is how google determines which sources are disreputable and by what criteria and by what experts. Does this only apply to sites about the hard sciences whose factuality is easily verified? News as well? Blogs? This policy immediately creates an incentive to not deviate from Established Consensus if one wants a high page rank.
I think there's a danger of inhibiting informational diversity on the web--developing an internet experience of directed media similar to print and cable news.