I see I may have to freeze the discussion on yesterday's entry ...
heh, and here I was chatting about coyotes. I avoid politics and such, but damned if my son wouldn't be here cheering you on. I have to hide WallyWorld bags after shopping so he won't lecture me on my 'unconsciousness.'
I understand what you're saying about work. I have to ask myself if I really want to be Head of Circ if my boss carries through her threats (ten years worth) to quit. Others want her job, but I see a down side there as well. Of course if they offered to compensate me handsomely.... ;o)
It only undermines if the fact can be proven. I'm sure they also do their best to confuse everyone with plenty of fog and smoke about what's really going on.
While Google results need to be seriously evaluated, and search terms have to be carefully chosen to get good results, most users seem to be blissfully unaware and will take whatever comes up at the top or on the first page as the answer to their question. This poses quite a moral question for Google's management of results, however they choose to do it or not do it. In my opinion, if they aren't deliberately manipulating, then they are failing to provide enough caveats and advice on using their engine.
A friend of mine here is having trouble with Chase Bank. I was so bothered by it, that I asked him for a list of European departments that I could boycott myself
Chase is so large it is inevitably evil. Many of us over here have been scooped into the Chase empire as the smaller institutions with which we did business were gobbled up willy-nilly. I deal with Chase by going to the local branch bank where I have done business for the last decade, while it changed names four times, and speaking directly to one of two bankers there who know me by name. Invariably they fix whatever the latest stupidity has been, and that's the end of it. Without that direct and immediate way of correcting the bureaucratic blunders, I'd have already withdrawn all my funds and moved them to some smaller bank.
You're right, I do know that. And I'm just pointing out that they're already manipulating the results by selling search terms to the highest bidder, and they're doing it openly. If they can do it openly and make fistfuls of money hand over hand, why would they bother to use more subtle forms of manipulation
( ... )
I think you assume purely rational thinking and behavior, without political or other potentially irrational influences. I am more inclined both to mistrust the behavior of large corporations based purely on my own observations during my lifetime, and even moreso to mistrust the behavior of individuals in this respect.
While Google claims that its algorithms are not susceptible to influence, I have never believed that, and in fact have seen several claims to the contrary that seem just as reasonable as any Google itself has presented. I also find, alas, that whatever Google's algorithms may be, they don't always do a very good job. When that is added to the fact that very few people bother to dig past the first page of results, reliance on Google for information becomes a growing element of social behavior that I find extremely disquieting at best.
One of the problems with public debate in the media and elsewhere is that the louder the argument, often the less thought behind it.
It's good to have strong feelings about issues, but if that energy was channeled into thinking more carefully and clearly and calmly stating positions and reasons behind them, we'd all be better off.
Far too much media and general online discussion has become clones of Crossfire and the like.
Comments 16
heh, and here I was chatting about coyotes. I avoid politics and such, but damned if my son wouldn't be here cheering you on. I have to hide WallyWorld bags after shopping so he won't lecture me on my 'unconsciousness.'
I understand what you're saying about work. I have to ask myself if I really want to be Head of Circ if my boss carries through her threats (ten years worth) to quit. Others want her job, but I see a down side there as well. Of course if they offered to compensate me handsomely.... ;o)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
While Google results need to be seriously evaluated, and search terms have to be carefully chosen to get good results, most users seem to be blissfully unaware and will take whatever comes up at the top or on the first page as the answer to their question. This poses quite a moral question for Google's management of results, however they choose to do it or not do it. In my opinion, if they aren't deliberately manipulating, then they are failing to provide enough caveats and advice on using their engine.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Duh, anybody can see that, pony. :) It's right at the top in a pretty colored box labelled "Sponsored Links".
Reply
Reply
Reply
While Google claims that its algorithms are not susceptible to influence, I have never believed that, and in fact have seen several claims to the contrary that seem just as reasonable as any Google itself has presented. I also find, alas, that whatever Google's algorithms may be, they don't always do a very good job. When that is added to the fact that very few people bother to dig past the first page of results, reliance on Google for information becomes a growing element of social behavior that I find extremely disquieting at best.
Reply
Oh, I'm sure my viewpoints could liven it up even more, but anymore, I tend to leave those discussions to someone else with more energy.
Besides, trains, nature, computers and books are so much more rewarding topics of discussion. :)
Reply
Reply
One of the problems with public debate in the media and elsewhere is that the louder the argument, often the less thought behind it.
It's good to have strong feelings about issues, but if that energy was channeled into thinking more carefully and clearly and calmly stating positions and reasons behind them, we'd all be better off.
Far too much media and general online discussion has become clones of Crossfire and the like.
Reply
Leave a comment