General discussion

Doing a *Google* on Google

Did any of you watch the 60 Minutes segment a while back (1/3/05)? It was very interesting, I thought. Those two young men have done extremely well for themselves and their employees.

What I found most interesting, however, relates directly to SpeakEasy and our resident "Googlers," (myself included - it's even my homepage). I recalled one portion of the conversation on the Google ranking system, and here is that portion of the interview:

That includes the term "60 Minutes," for which Google's computers return 19 million search results in one-fifth of a second. But at first glance, the top results are all related to "60 Minutes" stories that have created some kind of controversy. And that?s a big problem with Google: Its ranking system tends to put negative events or statements at the top of the list.

And if you Google a person, Battelle says, the picture you'll get is, "an entirely skewed one, in my opinion. When anybody puts in a name, and that person has had a terrible event... that will become who she is in the world."

"As hard as we try," Schmidt says, "we have not yet understood how to make value and moral judgments about information. And we can?t distinguish between hugely popular accurate information and hugely popular dated information."

The reason I decided to bring this to light is because we all have utilized the term "Did you Google it?" (or something similar) when we are trying to make a point about something. I know that, for myself anyway, when a search brings me a few thousand or hundreds of thousands of hits, I usually only check out the first couple of pages, unless I truly need to narrow the search for something important.

With that in mind, we need to be aware of what even the founders and employees of Google say about their offerings through a Google search. Just because the first page or more seems to have a slanted view, does not make that the most reliable view or most reliable sources. We have to go beyond that to get well-rounded information.

JMO Grin

Happy Valentine's Day everyone



Discussion is locked

Reply to: Doing a *Google* on Google
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Doing a *Google* on Google
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Excellent post

And so true....

- Collapse -
Thanks, Mary Kay ....

... I just found it thought-provoking in light of how much we all tend to rely on the Google ranking system for "facts" in our arguments.

I kind of hope this thread will create some good discussion on this trend (relying on Google); or, if nothing else, make those of us who post the link to a Google search as a definitive answer to our argument think twice (or more) about that being conclusive.

Don't get me wrong, I love Google and I use it alot; but it has it's limitations and drawbacks, as admitted by the top brass at Google itself.


- Collapse -
Interesting food for thought, but ...

... we all tend to rely on the Google ranking system for "facts" in our arguments.

I don't!

BTW, if I'm looking for something more recent, I'll Google on News instead of the web. If I know generally where to look for what I'm looking for, I use advanced search on the website.

But I see where your going with the recent habit of some to post Google searches to support their arguments. I don't think most pay much credence to such.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
I should have known better than to use ...

... an absolute term! You got me on that one, Evie Wink

I should have stuck with the terms "many" or "most" or "alot of us." I know that I have done it. I saw a couple of recent ones, and it reminded me of this interview. Wasn't meaning to point a finger at all - was just wanting folks to look at some opinions (from sources that are hard to ignore) about the "Google it!" fad, and keep it in mind with our debates right here in SE.



CNET Forums

Forum Info