Google Under Pressure from Both Sides

[Brett_Tabke]

The press never has understood Searching very well, but when you throw in a politically charged subject, they can't begin to see the core of the story.

Google results are not about the politics of the keywords, they are about providing results that service the intent of the searcher. Google's mission is to provide results people are looking to acquire.

If I search for Fruit, I do not want results featuring Apple Computers, I want results with Apples and Oranges.

[ibtimes.com...]

[jimji]

Two points, please:

#1: "... they can't begin to see ..." < < < I'm confused as to the point. The negative "can't" is intentional?

#2: Why the focus on Google's search software? Bing is still doing that work, no? I think Yahoo might still be at it.

Thank you.

[martinibuster]

...they can't begin to see ...

The news media has consistently been unable to accurately report on search related matters because (apparently) their reporters (content re-writers?) don't have even the bare minimum of expertise to write about the topic.

But to be fair, the SEO community which should know how to report and discuss Google has often clung to myths and misinformation because those are easier to understand than the science underpinning what Google does.

Why the focus on Google's search software?

Because most people use Google.

Bing is still doing that work, no?

The article is about Google because Google overwhelmingly matters more than Bing.

I think Yahoo might still be at it.

If Yahoo mattered you wouldn't have to preface your statement with the wavering "I think." :)
And of course, the reason is because Yahoo has been floundering for years, with Google Trends indicating their traffic is close to 50% less than what it used to be.

[thecoalman]

....don't have even the bare minimum of expertise to write about the topic.

You shouldn't need to be an expert to learn and understand the fundamentals of how a Google search result is compiled. Today's journalist are irresponsible, incompetent, biased, lazy and sometimes outright idiots. Media outlets labeling themselves as news don't publish news stories, they publish to attract their viewership/readership. Just be clear I'm pointing my finger at all of them regardless of which way they lean. Journalism is dead and has been since the 90's.

[ronin]

Today's journalist are irresponsible, incompetent, biased, lazy and sometimes outright idiots.

Oh.

I think that's a little harsh. Journalists have a lot of accusations levelled at their door - and all too often it's not them.

I can't speak for broadcast journalists who work in radio / television environment (though I imagine it's not too far different) but newspaper journalists can't just source and write up whatever they want to - they need to research and write up stories their editor is looking for.

If it doesn't hit the right notes, the editor will ask for a rewrite. If the angle is wrong the editor will ask for a rewrite. And if it's completely off-key, the work will just be scrapped.

If you keep being asked to rewrite the same story or, worse, your stories are being binned, because, in your editor's eyes, they don't even merit a rewrite, you're not going to get very far. Yes, there is a hierarchy in the newsroom. You need to look like you're moving up it, not moving down. And certainly never like you're bumping along the bottom.

If your story / write-up is acceptable, is that what gets published? Very likely not. The editor may make or insert some last-minute changes. Even if the editor doesn't, the sub-editor certainly will. The vital paragraph that you introduced near to the end to add some much-needed nuance? Scrapped. There isn't the space on the page. Can it go on the web version, then, where space isn't constrained? No, as you well know, we have a policy that the web version copy is a mirror image of the print version. So, it's scrapped everywhere. The accurate headline you wrote for your piece? Scrapped. The sub-editor has replaced it with a much more click-baity headline of their own. (No matter, that it corresponds much less now to what the article is actually about.) No, you don't get a say in this.

Journalists may be - and often are - accused of things for which, as individuals, they're not responsible for at all. It may well be coming from the sub-editor and, ultimately, the editor, not the journalist. So does the buck stop with the editor? No. Because just as the journalist's career depends on the editor, the editor's career - hard to see this from the unforgiving environment of the newsroom floor, but it does - depends on the proprietor.

Journalism is dead and has been since the 90's.

I think the word isn't "dead", it's "underfunded".

You shouldn't need to be an expert to learn and understand the fundamentals of how a Google search result is compiled

No, you shouldn't. This I agree with.

[tangor]

The current "press" has a different educational background and agendas than in decades past. G is doing their best to fit into that. :)

[thecoalman]

....and all too often it's not them.

Their name is on it, it is them. If you are going to label yourself a journalist your ultimate responsibility is to provide your readers with fair and accurate articles. If you have any integrity you are also responsible to yourself. If someone asked me to put my name on something that I knew to be biased, half the story, inaccurate or however you want to describe it my response is "I quit".

[brotherhood of LAN]

I don't blame journalists. Search commentary surely warrants full-time agnostic experts, beyond Google. The problem with the SEO authoritative sources is they're typically talking about how to monetise from search (pretty much Google) which undermines their position when it comes to information discovery.

Seems like most people are conditioned to using Google in how they search so even if they looked in other places, they're not going to get the best results because their search query is symbiotic with what they think Google will return relevant results for. How would any vanilla tech journalist have any idea of how the results are generated given it's a black box algo.

I doubt it's a problem with how Google ranks results, for us top-down left-to-right readers there's going to be a result on the top-left and some below it. You're going to need some pretty extreme AI to appease the political spectrum on the order of things.

The problem IMO is that for most people is that Google is their defacto information discovery mechanism, either their browser or phone default.

There are points of view all over the place about this topic and any other topic, but surely the key is how findable they are.

[ronin]

Their name is on it

Not always. But when it is, that's quite often the worst part about it: the piece has your name on it - and only your name. Does the altered headline have the sub-editor's name on it? It does not. Is there any record for the reader of the paragraphs removed from your piece? There is not.

your ultimate responsibility is to provide your readers with fair and accurate articles

Very good. How are you going to do that from your reporter's desk, when the decision as to what gets edited out, what gets added in and ultimately what gets published isn't yours to make?

If you have any integrity you are also responsible to yourself.

I don't disagree.

If someone asked me to put my name on something

It's not like you get a say in it.

I knew to be biased, half the story, inaccurate

The changes aren't brought back to your desk for you to greenlight. It's extremely rare that you know anything about if, what and what kind of changes have been made to the piece you have submitted until it's in print.

It's important to acknowledge who is pulling the strings here - the editor.

And, very often, the proprietor is pulling the editor's strings.

my response is "I quit".

Very principled. I like it. When young adults don't have much of a post-college resume and need to pay monthly rent and bills out of their meagre monthly salary, that's a choice too difficult for many to make. Some, however, will make it, nevertheless.

ronin (noun) - A ronin was a samurai without a lord or master during the feudal period of Japan. A samurai became masterless upon the death of his master or after the loss of his master's favor or privilege.

N.B. This is why publications like Private Eye exist at all. If journalists could research and write stuff up and it could pass through all the gatekeeping without hindrance, they wouldn't then need to re-write and forward all the information which didn't get published to another journal, so it could get published after all (albeit anonymously, so you have half a chance of keeping your job).