Wir sprechen Online.

Gerrit Eicker 14:41 on 16. July 2010 Permalink
Tags: .EN ( 3,425 ), Algorithms ( 26 ), Analysis ( 94 ), Bias ( 6 ), Business ( 1,192 ), Gatekeeper ( 6 ), Google ( 648 ), Google Maps ( 21 ), Google News ( 26 ), Government ( 45 ), IT ( 1,958 ), Links ( 82 ), Media ( 621 ), Net ( 2,755 ), News ( 338 ), Newspapers ( 148 ), NYT ( 36 ), Organisation ( 420 ), PageRank ( 10 ), Publishing ( 640 ), Regulations ( 27 ), Search ( 308 ), Social Media ( 1,080 ), Video ( 197 ), Web ( 3,322 )   

• 

  Gerrit Eicker 14:49 on 16. July 2010 Permalink | Reply

  NYT: “Google handles nearly two-thirds of Internet search queries worldwide. Analysts reckon that most Web sites rely on the search engine for half of their traffic. When Google engineers tweak its supersecret algorithm – as they do hundreds of times a year – they can break the business of a Web site that is pushed down the rankings. … The potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses. – Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks. … With these caveats in mind, if Google is to continue to be the main map to the information highway, it concerns us all that it leads us fairly to where we want to go.”

  Mayer: “Search engines use algorithms and equations to produce order and organisation online where manual effort cannot. These algorithms embody rules that decide which information is ‘best’, and how to measure it. Clearly defining which of any product or service is best is subjective. Yet in our view, the notion of ‘search neutrality’ threatens innovation, competition and, fundamentally, your ability as a user to improve how you find information. – When Google was launched in 1998, its fundamental innovation was the PageRank algorithm. It was a new and helpful tool in helping users decide which was the best information available – and one of many hundreds that have since been deployed by search engines to improve the ranking and relevance of their results. – Yet searching the web has never been more complex. Type ‘World Cup’ into Google today and you will see millions of returns, ranging from recent news articles to images of players. Often the answer is not a web page: sports scores, news, pictures and tweets about matches are included. Such results stem from an upgrade in Google’s technology launched in 2007, which made it possible to include media such as maps, books, or videos on a results page. … Here the practical challenges would be formidable. What is fair in terms of ordering? An alphabetical listing? Equally, new results will need to be incorporated – new web pages, but also new media types such as tweets or audio streams. Without competition and experimentation between companies, how could the rules keep up? There is no doubt that this will stifle the advance of the science around search engines. … But the strongest arguments against rules for ‘neutral search’ is that they would make the ranking of results on each search engine similar, creating a strong disincentive for each company to find new, innovative ways to seek out the best answers on an increasingly complex web. … We know that Google plays an important role in accessing information. We also welcome scrutiny and want to ensure everyone understands how we work. Yet we believe the best answer for a particular search changes constantly. It changes because the web changes, because users’ expectations and tastes evolve and because the media never stay still. Yet proponents of search neutrality are effectively saying that they know what is ‘best’ for you. We think consumers should be able to decide for themselves – with an array of internet search engines to choose from, each providing their very best.”

  SEL: “The New York Times is the number one newspaper web site. Analysts reckon it ranks first in reach among US opinion leaders. When the New York Times editorial staff tweaks its supersecret algorithm behind what to cover and exactly how to cover a story – as it does hundreds of times a day – it can break a business that is pushed down in coverage or not covered at all. … And Now, Without The Satire… Search engines are very similar to newspapers. They have unpaid ‘organic’ listings, where usually (though not always), a computer algorithm decides which pages should rank tops. The exact method isn’t important. What’s important is that those unpaid listed are the search engines’ editorial content, content it has solely decided should appear based on its editorial judgment. … What the New York Times has suggested is that the government should oversee the editorial judgment of a search engine. Suffice to say, the editorial staff of the New York Times would scream bloody murder if anyone suggested government oversight of its own editorial process. First it would yell that it has no bias, so oversight is unnecessary. Next it would yell even more loudly that the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects it from such US government interference. … Guess what. The First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of the press apply to more than newspapers. In fact, they apply to search engines. The courts have said so, most clearly back in May 2003, in the SearchKing case. … But by and large, Google’s been a net positive actor, from where I measure things. It deserves better than a knee-jerk reactionary editorial from what’s supposed to be one of the leading newspapers of the world.“

• 

  Information Monopolies « Wir sprechen Online. 11:44 on 14. November 2010 Permalink | Reply

  […] WSJ: Do away with Google? Break up Facebook? We can not imagine life without them, and that is the problem; http://eicker.at/1e […]

• 

  Google News Editors’ Picks « Wir sprechen Online. 08:10 on 6. August 2011 Permalink | Reply

  […] Google leaves its algorithm-centricism: adds serendipity via Editor’s Picks to Google News; http://eicker.at/GoogleNewsEditors […]