Forum Moderators: goodroi
In a statement, Tribune said a 2002 story about United Airlines' bankruptcy was unearthed over the past weekend due to, "The inability of Google's automated search agent 'Googlebot' to differentiate between breaking news and frequently viewed stories on the Web sites of its newspapers."
[marketwatch.com...]
Gasp!
Gbot doesn't follow instructions?! ;)
The Big Boy Traders were all over this during the day, saying the FBI needed to investigate WHO created this situation.
Seems Goog's having a bad week all around...
Sidebars are not content, nor are Navs, etc. etc. etc. Instead of billions of pages, how about the pages of original content and then list those of dupe content?... Just asking...
Of course... WE want OUR content to be FIRST! :)
these people would have lost money when the stock sold for a loss, for no good reason
For no good reason? Are you suggesting that the insanely volatile, over-reactive stock market that has existed for most of this year does things for a good reason? :-)
Second:
The headers which indicate modification dates for the Sun-Sentinel's pages do not match the story dates. Most old stories have very new Last Modified dates coming back. Again - if your server tells Google it was last modified recently then Google is going to assume it was last modified recently.
Third:
The original story [sun-sentinel.com] is now 301 redirected and deleted; but is available through Google cache. (What kind of a newspaper goes back through the archive and wipes out all records of certain stories? - certainly not ethical journalism or publishing)
Fourth:
From the website which messed up... [sun-sentinel.com]
The researcher linked to the Sun-Sentinel Web site, found a copy of the story, and forwarded it to Bloomberg at 9:53 a.m. Chicago time, Lehmann said. Moments later a headline declaring " UAL Corp.: United Airlines files for Ch. 11 to cut costs" appeared on Bloomberg news screens around the world.
Finally:
The people who lost money here are those who had automatic systems built to sell stock as soon as it dropped below a certain price. Nobody forced them to use those systems; it is well known that taking shortcuts sometimes backfires. They didn't want to spend the time and resources watching, understanding and handling the stocks full-time and now they have paid the price for what we must presume is a calculated risk on their part.
There are lots of us out there that know this stuff but companies are not interested at all about hiring them. I have been passed over for jobs where the person knew very little about SEO for an SEO job. It is more important to hire somebody with experience at a big company than actual SEO experience. I have even come into companies as a consultant where I had to come in and fix the junk that some "seo" that was hired over me did.
But a single visit to the story in the wee hours of Sunday morning, a period of low traffic to the newspaper's business section, bumped it into a "Popular Stories" section of the newspaper's Web site.
It sounds like Tribune need to take a look at their own ranking algo. One click can get an item back into "popular stories"? It would be so easy to bump up bad news of competitors and/or good news of your own company.
Also, they need to sort out the dating of their stories.
Why does such an old article still appear on their website unless they want it to be found?
Who is blindly passing the information along (for a fee) without checking it? (What a great business model...).
Someone suggested that it was a good opp to get some cheap shares. Yes, but someone sold them cheap thinking the worst.
Hello?!, this is NOT about placing blame.
This is about being R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E.
Couple quick side arguments.
A. Goog can index all it wants. GOOGLE N-E-W-S is a different animal with different responsibilities (theres that word again) and a different level of conduct.
So the all the red herring arguments about it being the robots.txt issues TOTALLY miss the point.
B. People views regarding the risks of stock trading are also irrelevant to this argument as well.
C. For those who think this is a "crusade"... When this board becomes the Tribune board, you'll hear me saying the same thing... buuuut, since this is the Google forum we're dealing with Goog's responsibility.
The Main Point.
(first re-read PageOne's posts and Tangor's post)
A R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E company doesn't jeopardize a entire company and consequently the entire American economy regardless of who's at "fault or to blame"
A R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E company quickly apologizes and makes sure that safeguards are in place to PREVENT a massive collapse of a major stock component in the future.
A R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E company doesn't care who's "at fault" or "who's to blame" and simple fixes whatever part they were responsible for, so it doesn't happen again.
This is getting a lot of press. A news release can bankrupt a company these days. Think of a brokerage or a bank.
Glad some people here "get it".
Like I said, when it involves the SEC, doesn't matter who's "to blame." It's about who holds the biggest bankroll.
(Google does NOT, for those who still miss the point)
[edited by: whitenight at 6:40 pm (utc) on Sep. 12, 2008]
GOOGLE N-E-W-S is a different animal with different responsibilities (theres that word again) and a different level of conduct.
Why is it any different? It is just a specialised index, same disclaimer and common sense rules apply.
The responsible people are those who make decisions to buy/sell stock on the basis of unreliable unconfirmed information that they got from a free source.
You had it right if you were but I see now you weren't.
The robots.txt comments were in response to the company saying they had requested months ago that Google not index their site. So I think it is you who missed the point on that one.
How does one ask Googlebot not to crawl ones site? robots.txt maybe? Not a red hearing just a factual refute to their claim they asked Google to not index them.
Just because it is called Google News doesn't mean it is a news agency, it doesn't report the news, it finds news reports based on a myriad of things.
You are trying to protect the stupid from themselves by saying that an automated process should be de-automated to ensure accuracy when it is the automation that people use it for in the first place.
You are kind of being an jerk about this all. Want to discuss what people with brains do.
People who have brain didn't sell stocks without asking themselves why first.
People with brains don't trust a robot to tell them about current events.
People with brains don't let an industry hang on the theory that something will just work.
People with a brain weren't affected by this, and therefor don't have make simple fixes, because their brain is working for them.
Like you said some people just get it.... and those are the people who didn't let a robot mess up their finances.
Google is doing the same thing today as they did that day and the American economy is still here, so it must not be that bad.
Just because it is called Google News doesn't mean it is a news agency, it doesn't report the news, it finds news reports based on a myriad of things
Sigh... this is the point you and Majestic are missing. They ARE a news agency. They spent a great deal of money to become a NEWS reporting agency.
You are kind of being an jerk about this all. Want to discuss what people with brains do.
People who have brain didn't sell stocks without asking themselves why first.People with brains don't trust a robot to tell them about current events.
People with brains don't let an industry hang on the theory that something will just work.
People with a brain weren't affected by this, and therefor don't have make simple fixes, because their brain is working for them.
Again, all irrelevant arguments.
As said earlier, if this was the TRIBUNE, WSJ, or "Stock Investment Stratgies" Boards, then I would be making similar arguments to those people.
THEY ALL SHARE BLAME.
This is the GOOGLE board. I am talking about Google's responsibility.
And at the end of the day, Google will be held RESPONSIBLE for this. Doesn't matter if you think it's right, wrong, moral, or correct.
Again, reread my posts a SECOND time, if you're missing the LARGER WORLD impact of the situation.
It's already happened once.
Doesn't matter who was to BLAME.
The next time it happens, there will be NO excuse.
There will be BLAME AND RESPONSIBLE parties to go around.
Ok I am done now lets talk about the real problem... Get over what board we are on.... A person is responsible for their own actions. If Google News jumped off a bridge would you?
No matter how much you repeat it it still won't be true Google is not a news agency, but if you insist on saying they are please....
Name a reporter?
Name the chief editor?
Name a story they broke?
In fact name the Google reporter that broke this story, Name the editor who let it go to print.
Is Google image a photography agency too?
I am not missing the larger world impact, I am just saying it isn't Google responsibility. I will bet you dimes to dollars that Google will not be held responsible and no amount of bold text or CAPS will change that fact.
[edited by: Demaestro at 7:50 pm (utc) on Sep. 12, 2008]
Name a reporter?
Name the chief editor?
Name a story they broke?
In fact name the Google reporter that broke this story, Name the editor who let it go to print.
Exactly. If you had READ my earlier posts, then you would understand my point. Me saying something about HUMAN editors, and not calling yourself "NEWS" if you don't have fact checkers.
Pretty sure, it's still in this thread...
I will bet you dimes to dollars that Google will not be held responsible and no amount of bold text or CAPS will change that fact.
Like before, I've already addressed the bolds and CAPS. If you interpret it as shouting, that reflects more on you than on me. ;)
Me saying something about HUMAN editors, and not calling yourself "NEWS" if you don't have fact checkers.
Using this childish logic, Google Web should employ a bunch of spiders (real ones) and Google Labs should be all about chemistry and physics. Get a grip, man. A disclaimer that Google News is not a news agency is posted on the home page, reading "Search and browse 4,500 news sources updated continuously." and "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program."
And asking Google to check manually each news page they craw is like asking Google to check every web page they craw and verify if everything is a fact. We all know how good DMOZ was, RIP.
It's all S.Florida newspaper's fault and R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-T-Y for not knowing two sh$ts about how the Internet works, yet want to publish a website and make money out of it. It's not a question whether they like the way Google works - currently it's the general consensus that Google works this way - they can either keep up or go back to print-press only. The same applies to every other webmaster who thinks Google should revolve around them.
Sigh... this is the point you and Majestic are missing. They ARE a news agency. They spent a great deal of money to become a NEWS reporting agency.
I don't miss anything - just because someone spends a lot of money (which I am sure is not the case for Google News since it is mainly automated) does not mean they give you any guarantees - if you read "stock tips" newspaper column and lose money it is YOUR problem, the ultimate responsibility (even in case of Reuters/Bloomberg who supply expensive much better verified information to stock traders) rests with the person who makes the decision to sell or buy anytying.
Google will certainly not be held responsible for this, and I am sure the original newspaper that published this old story too.
The problem is the day traders. Most are not educated financial analysts, else they would do their homework before dropping a stock. Most are just average joes trading stocks on the side hoping to get rich quick someday.
Well this was a wake up call. They have no one to blame but themselves.
The days where the stock market related to a company's performance are over. It is all a big emotional roller coaster now.
This is exactly why my portfolio is not based mostly on stocks anymore. I no longer trust the day traders of the world with my retirement.
A newsstand gets publications from real news agencies and makes them available in one location.
Google is just a big newsstand that gets publications from real new agencies and makes them available in one location.
But no point arguing with you, some people can't learn and I understand that too.
I guess you are right and everyone else here is wrong.
Who do they have recourse against?
[edited by: SlyOldDog at 6:43 am (utc) on Sep. 14, 2008]
poor buggers who were on holiday with stop loss sell order
This breathing pause would allow responsible stockholders the needed time before overreacting or have their automated (loss cutting) solutions overreact.
