Google Search and Hot News: Sensitivity and Relevance
November 10, 2017
I read “Google Is Surfacing Texas Shooter Misinformation in Search Results — Thanks Also to Twitter.” What struck me about the article was the headline; specifically, the implication for me was that Google was not responding to user queries. Google is actively “surfacing” or fetching and displaying information about the event. Twitter is also involved. I don’t think of Twitter as much more than a party line. One can look up keywords or see a stream of content containing a keyword or a, to use Twitter speak, “hash tags.”
The write up explains:
Users of Google’s search engine who conduct internet searches for queries such as “who is Devin Patrick Kelley?” — or just do a simple search for his name — can be exposed to tweets claiming the shooter was a Muslim convert; or a member of Antifa; or a Democrat supporter…
I think I understand. A user inputs a term and Google’s system matches the user’s query to the content in the Google index. Google maintains many indexes, despite its assertion that it is a “universal search engine.” One has to search across different Google services and their indexes to build up a mosaic of what Google has indexed about a topic; for example, blogs, news, the general index, maps, finance, etc.
Developing a composite view of what Google has indexed takes time and patience. The results may vary depending on whether the user is logged in, searching from a particular geographic location, or has enabled or disabled certain behind the scenes functions for the Google system.
The write up contains this statement:
Safe to say, the algorithmic architecture that underpins so much of the content internet users are exposed to via tech giants’ mega platforms continues to enable lies to run far faster than truth online by favoring flaming nonsense (and/or flagrant calumny) over more robustly sourced information.
From my point of view, the ability to figure out what influences Google’s search results requires significant effort, numerous test queries, and recognition that Google search now balances on two pogo sticks. Once “pogo stick” is blunt force keyword search. When content is indexed, terms are plucked from source documents. The system may or may not assign additional index terms to the document; for example, geographic or time stamps.
The other “pogo stick” is discovery and assignment of metadata. I have explained some of the optional tags which Google may or may not include when processing a content object; for example, see the work of Dr. Alon Halevy and Dr. Ramanathan Guha.
But Google, like other smart content processing today, has a certain sensitivity. This means that streams of content processed may contain certain keywords.
When “news” takes place, the flood of content allows smart indexing systems to identify a “hot topic.” The test queries we ran for my monographs “The Google Legacy” and “Google Version 2.0” suggest that Google is sensitive to certain “triggers” in content. Feedback can be useful; it can also cause smart software to wobble a bit.
T shirts are easy; search is hard.
I believe that the challenge Google faces is similar to the problem Bing and Yandex are exploring as well; that is, certain numerical recipes can over react to certain inputs. These over reactions may increase the difficulty of determining what content object is “correct,” “factual,” or “verifiable.”
Expecting a free search system, regardless of its owner, to know what’s true and what’s false is understandable. In my opinion, making this type of determination with today’s technology, system limitations, and content analysis methods is impossible.
In short, the burden of figuring out what’s right and what’s not correct falls on the user, not exclusively on the search engine. Users, on the other hand, may not want the “objective” reality. Search vendors want traffic and want to generate revenue. Algorithms want nothing.
Mix these three elements and one takes a step closer to understanding that search and retrieval is not the slam dunk some folks would have me believe. In fact, the sensitivity of content processing systems to comparatively small inputs requires more discussion. Perhaps that type of information will come out of discussions about how best to deal with fake news and related topics in the context of today’s information retrieval environment.
Free search? Think about that too.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2017
Google and VW: How the Quantum World Turns
November 9, 2017
I read “Google and VW Team Up on Quantum Computers.” The main idea is that two of the companies on EU litigators’ radar have become BFFs. Self driving cars? Clever advertising featuring the Pixel phone and VW campers driven by Woodstock types?
Neither.
The article informed me:
The two corporate heavyweights will work together using quantum computing as they try to solve complex puzzles related to the future of traffic.
I noted this statement:
“Volkswagen has enormous expertise in solving important, real-world engineering problems, and it is an honor for us to collaborate on how quantum computing may be able to make a difference in the automotive industry,” added Hartmut Neven, director of the Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Google is pretty good at cracking the problem of fake news and solving death. VW has the diesel emission technology nailed.
The fruits of this collaboration will improve the quality of life for those who have to commute in one of those autonomous autos on streets designed for medieval carts in the Italian town of Sienna. Here in Harrod’s Creek, deep in rural Kentucky I just walk. No almost unusable Google Maps. No cute VW bus with happy hippies. No worries.
Stephen E Arnold,
A Clever Take on Google and Fake News
November 8, 2017
I noted this story in the UK online publication The Register: “Google on Flooding the Internet with Fake News: Leave Us Alone. We’re Trying Really Hard. Sob.” The write up points out:
Google has responded in greater depth after it actively promoted fake news about Sunday’s Texas murder-suicide gunman by… behaving like a spoilt kid.
The Google response, as presented in the write up, warranted a yellow circle from my trusty highlighter. The Register said:
Having had time to reflect on the issue, the Silicon Valley monster’s “public liaison for search” and former Search Engine Land blog editor Danny Sullivan gave a more, um, considered response in a series of tweets. “Bottom line: we want to show authoritative information. Much internal talk yesterday on how to improve tweets in search; more will happen,” he promised, before noting that the completely bogus information had only appeared “briefly.”
The Register story includes other gems from the search engine optimization expert who seems to thrive on precision and relevance for content unrelated to a user’s query; for example, the article presents some “quotes” from Mr. Sullivan, the expert in charge of explaining the hows and whys of fake news:
- “Early changes put in place after Las Vegas shootings seemed to help with Texas. Incorrect rumors about some suspects didn’t get in…”
- Right now, we haven’t made any immediate decisions. We’ll be taking some time to test changes and have more discussions.
- “Not just talk. Google made changes to Top Stories and is still improving those. We’ll do same with tweets. We want to get this right.”
Yep, Google wants to do better. Now Google wants to get “this” right. Okay. After 20 years, dealing with fake content, spoofs, and algorithmic vulnerability is on the to do list. That’s encouraging.
For more Google explanations, check out the Register’s story and follow the logic of the SEO wizard who now has to explain fake news creeping—well, more like flowing—into Google’s search and news content.
Does an inability to deal with fake news hint at truthiness challenges at Googzilla’s money machine? Interesting question from my point of view.
Stephen E Arnold, November 8, 2017
Treating Google Knowledge Panel as Your Own Home Page
November 8, 2017
Now, this is interesting. Mike Ramsey at AttorneyAtWork suggests fellow lawyers leverage certain Google tools in, “Three Reasons Google Is Your New Home Page.” He points out that Google now delivers accessibility to many entities directly on the results page, reducing the number of clicks potential clients must perform to contact a firm. He writes:
[Google] has rolled out three products that provide potential clients with information about your law firm before they get to your site:
*Messages (on mobile)
*Questions and Answers (on mobile)
*Optional URLs for booking appointments (both mobile and desktop)
This means that Google search results are becoming your new ‘home page.’ All three products — Messages, Questions and Answers and URLs for appointments — are accessible from your Google My Business dashboard. They appear in your local Knowledge Panel in Google. If Google really is becoming your home page, but also giving you a say in providing potential clients with information about your firm, you will definitely want to take advantage of it.
The article explains how to best leverage each tool. For example, Messages let you incorporate text messages into your Knowledge Panel; Ramsey notes that customers prefer using text messages to resolve customer service issues. Questions and Answers will build an FAQ-like dialogue for the panel, while optional URLs allow clients to schedule appointments right from the results page. Ramsey predicts it should take about an hour to set up these tools for any given law firm, and emphasizes it is well worth that investment to make it as easy as possible for potential clients to get in touch.
Cynthia Murrell, November 8, 2017
The Companies Leading Open Source
November 6, 2017
Open-source enthusiasts will want to check out this roster from Datamation, “35 Top Open Source Companies.” We’re reminded that the open-source community has moved well beyond a collection of individual hobbyists to include many corporate initiatives. The article notes:
While independent developers are still an important part of the open source community, today much of the work on open source projects is being done by corporate developers. In a recent appearance at the Open Source Summit, Linux founder Linus Torvalds acknowledged this corporate influence and welcomed it. ‘It’s very important to have companies in open source,’ he said. ‘It’s one thing I have been very happy about.’ The list below highlights some of the leading for-profit companies that are using, sponsoring and contributing to open source projects. It includes a mix of large enterprises, small startups and everything in between. Some of the companies exclusively offer products based on open source software, while others sell a mix of proprietary and open source solutions. But all of these companies play a significant role in the open source community.
The write-up emphasizes the list is alphabetical, not a ranking of any sort. Red Hat is there, of course; they are behind Apache and OpenStack, after all, and boast the most popular Linux iteration for large organizations. We also see Cloudera and Hortonworks, homes popular supported Hadoop versions, and the vast open-source repository, GitHub. As for search, Elastic makes the roll with its Elasticsearch project, and MongoDB is recognized for its popular NoSQL database. Some of the biggest companies we see include Adobe, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, and Samsung. See the write-up for the complete list.
Cynthia Murrell, November 6, 2017
What Will Marketers Do When Google Goes Away?
November 6, 2017
Wait, do not panic! Google is still around to help you search for restaurants, test answers, and cat GIFs. Keep your towel handy, however, because Mark Schaefer at Business Grow has some mighty interesting information about SEO and other Internet marketing strategies in, “What Happens To Your Marketing Effort When Google Search Goes Away?” Schaefer makes a clever point in the article’s introduction that consumers are searching for reliable answers to their queries, but businesses are trying to be the number one answer or top search result at any given time.
It might be that search results are going away. Where are they going? Technically, search results will still exist, but voice search tools like Siri and Alexia will be the game changer. Schaefer said that no one has invented a vocal search marketing strategy yet. Smart speakers are one of the latest tech gadgets and eventually, they may become indispensable modern tools, like indoor plumbing, electricity, and the Internet. So what will happen?
From a marketing standpoint, the idea that fascinates me is that increasingly, these speakers will be the “economic on-ramp” for commerce, as Google search is now. However, Amazon will try to direct you to the Amazon eco-system and Apple will try to keep you in the Apple eco-system. This is where the real battleground will be.
Who will “own” or partner with the Wal-Mart eco-system? Will we choose a car in the future due to the brand of smart speaker we like best? Will one part of our home be controlled by Google, another part by Amazon, while an Apple device plays out TV and music?
Marketers are going to need to find a new way to advertise their wares. Looking back at history, this is not new. The same happened with radio, TV, and then the Internet. Smart speaker “airspace” is brand new, but the concept of marketing on the new territory is not.
Whitney Grace, November 6, 2017
Alphabet Google: The Cheese Placement Revolution
November 4, 2017
I noted an article with the mouth watering title “Google Makes the Android Burger a Reality for Its Employees.” The main point of the write up strikes me as the pickle on top of a Google management decision; to wit:
… the company is serving its employees with a burger assembled in a similar order to the one depicted in its emoji.
When I was 16 years old, the owner of the root beer stand at which I worked taught me how to assemble a cheeseburger. The idea was that once the hamburger patty (at least I thought it was real cow then), I was to put the cheese on top of the meat patty and allow the cheese to melt. The idea was that warm melted cheese was the hallmark of this joint in a dead end town in central Illinois.
The Google management decision is that my training in how to make a cheeseburger was not Googley, nor would the cheeseburger be fit for consumption by an Android user who will be monitored.
My son knew the fellow who created the now famous McDonald’s jingle which points out:
Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, and a sesame seed bun.
Obviously that jungle writer was wrong. The jingle suggests that the cheese goes on top of the two all beef patties in my opinion.
I love Google, but the recipe fetish of Jeff Dean may work for Chubby, just not for me.
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
Free Services: What Happens When They Are Killed Off?
November 3, 2017
In the salad days of online, one paid for “time” (the online connection) and one paid for the “content” (the citations, data, full text). Today data are free. Hooray.*
For users of the the Google flight information, the news that Google was likely to shut down its flight data feed is bad news. Even worse, those nifty MBA inspired spreadsheets which happily omitted the cost of flight data are going to have to be re-imagined.
And Oath (remember Yahoo?) is, it seems, going to cut off the finance, if the story in Hacker News is accurate. The write up states:
Yahoo Finance has apparently killed is API. Zero warning. Lots of apps probably use this. Before, you could get stock information by using http://download.finance.yahoo.com/d/quotes.csv Now, you get the following message: It has come to our attention that this service is being used in violation of the Yahoo Terms of Service. As such, the service is being discontinued. For all future markets and equities data research, please refer to finance.yahoo.com. What violation of TOS? People have been using this for years without any issues. If you are going to cut this off, how about a warning and heads up? Guess that’s what we should expect from OATH / Verizon.
The comments are interesting.
Net net: The online model from the 1969 to 1995 phase of online may be poking its nose from a Rip Van Winkle snooze.
And those spreadsheets? MBAs are crafty. The numbers will work out—at least in Excel. In real life? Hmmm. Good question.
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
* Editor’s update: Heads up. I last night (November 3, 2017) I received an impassioned and mom-like communication from a person who wanted confidentiality about the information he was about to impart via Gmail email. (Isn’t that type of email parsed by smart software for the purpose of collecting ad revenue and data?) The alleged former Googler (aka Xoogler) was unaware that I was at dinner with my wife enjoying a grilled squirrel burger with the cheese on the bottom in the approved Google manner. But this write up was an urgent matter in the mind of the agitated Xoogler eager to share confidential information with me. Lucky me! The email included numbers and a statement that I had to rewrite this article because I was, as I have noted on numerous occasions in the course of this 10 year old Beyond Search blog, an “addled goose”. The email made clear that killing Google services and products does no harm, and I was wrong, incorrect, off base, and a Bambi brained deer. Please, check out the source story from Marketwatch. Make up your own mind, gentle reader, because I try to present my opinion whilst separating the giblets from the goosefeathers. My view is that abrupt, unilateral modifications of services is a good thing for some devlopers and users. But I do enjoy confidential communications about the inner workings of my favorite search engine as I munch my burger with cheese on the bottom in the Sundar Pichai approved manner. Plus, I enjoy recalling the Google Reader, Google Talk, Google Health, Knol, Google Buzz, and my favorite and the fave of some Brazilians, Orkut. You don’t? Well, you, unlike me, are not trying to be Googley. To refresh your memory, check out the Google Graveyeard. Do you have a problem with terminated services? In my opinion, termination with extreme prejudiced is in your best interests. Now put the cheese on the bottom of the meat patty.
Google and Google Docs: A Monitoring Opportunity or Reality?
November 3, 2017
Yesterday a person wanted me to share content on Google Docs. I politely declined. We have access to this service, but I prefer my content on devices under my old fashioned Kentucky controls.
I read with interest “A Mysterious Message Is Locking Google Docs Users Out of Their Files.” After reading the write up, I don’t think the message is mysterious at all. A violation of Google’s terms of service seems easy to understand.
The write up in the Bezos infused newspaper stated:
Even if the error turns out to be a technical glitch, the fact that Google is capable of identifying “bad” Google Docs at all is a reminder: Much of what you upload, receive or type to Google is monitored.
Right. That’s a news flash for sure.
I noted this statement as well:
Google explicitly refers to docs — albeit in a lower-case fashion — as an example of the type of content from which Google extracts information. I’ve asked Google for clarification on whether they actually read the contents of a person’s Google Docs and will update if I get a response. (Update: Google responded with a statement, which I’ve included above, but declined to answer questions about whether Google reads your Google Docs.)
Ah, the Google. And the comfort of “Don’t be evil.”
Stephen E Arnold, November 3, 2017
Voice Search: Bing vs Google
November 3, 2017
We all know that Microsoft’s Bing has struggled to compete with Google Search. Will voice search level the field? Search Engine Watch ponders, “How Does Bing’s Voice Search Compare to Google’s?” Writer Clark Boyd acknowledges it does not seem Bing will eclipse Google as a whole anytime soon, but points to Microsoft’s new partnership with Amazon’s Alexa as evidence of change. The article delves into specifics about Microsoft’s voice-search technology, mostly with details on Cortana but also citing the voice search now found in their Edge browser. It also examines the company’s apparent strategy, which involves that partnership with Amazon and integration into popular platforms like Spotify.
Boyd next examines specific differences between the companies’ voice searches. For example, he states Cortana is better at understanding his Irish accent, and Cortana’s tie-in with Windows lends efficiency to task management. It is Boyd’s analysis of context, though, that I found most interesting. He writes:
When a user is logged in across Windows products, Cortana can serve accurate contextual results. See below for an example of the same phrase [“who are Leeds playing today?”] searched by voice on a Windows laptop using Cortana and Google. The differences are slight but telling. Cortana knows that I am currently in Spain (I am using a Windows laptop), and therefore provides the kick-off in my local time. Google is not privy to this information and serves the result in Eastern Time, as my account is based in the US. When results default to Bing, it all gets a little hairier. I follow up by asking who will be in the starting lineup and receive a bizarre result about the USA soccer team, a news story about a Leeds starting lineup from three years ago, and some news about the Leeds music festival. Google does a better job of this, but both lack the immediacy that integration with a social media feed would provide.
This same pattern plays out across a wide range of travel, weather, and commercial queries. When Cortana can pull an immediate answer, it does so very capable; when it resorts to providing a list of search results from Bing, the quality varies. Google, therefore, represents a much more consistent, reliable option.
Those last two sentences serve the differences in a nutshell. The article concludes with a handy graphic that compares and contrasts Microsoft’s and Google’s voice search pros, cons, and other differences. Will an alliance with Amazon help Bing narrow the distance between it and Google Search? Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2017
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
