Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.171.108

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Adds Fact Checking to Google News

     
8:54 pm on Oct 15, 2016 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:26375
votes: 1036


The latest addition to Google News is fact checking service.

Today, we’re adding another new tag, “Fact check,” to help readers find fact checking in large news stories.Google Adds Fact Checking to Google News [blog.google]
12:57 am on Oct 16, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3661
votes: 374


Unfortunately a lot of people in the U.S. don't care about facts.
10:49 am on Oct 17, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 15, 2015
posts:117
votes: 43


This is bad for freedom of speech. Slippery slope.
2:19 pm on Oct 17, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member editorialguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:3476
votes: 781


This is bad for freedom of speech.

How so? People will still be free to lie.
4:29 pm on Oct 17, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 15, 2015
posts:117
votes: 43


Yeah like google.
6:11 pm on Oct 17, 2016 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:26375
votes: 1036


Eh, I don't get the negativity over this! Surely, you want the facts to be correct. If Google's fact checking proves to be wrong, and time will tell, then it will have reason to be called into question.

We've yet to see how well it works, and whether it is accurate, and after that time i'll make a judgement.

In the meantime, i'll be looking for ways to include accurate information in the fact checking service.
6:48 pm on Oct 17, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3661
votes: 374


Surely, you want the facts to be correct.

Well they can't be facts if they aren't correct.

But more seriously, there are a lot of truth-haters who immediately raise with a huge orchestrated howl in the media against anyone who dares to point out any real facts relevant to the current political "discussion". So you shouldn't be surprised at any "negativity" that arises from this announcement.
6:49 pm on Oct 17, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 15, 2015
posts:117
votes: 43


Yes but my negativity comes not with fact checking but who is doing the fact checking. Google news is biased enough already.
1:09 am on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Nov 11, 2010
posts:164
votes: 2


This is terrifying.
1:38 am on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 3, 2015
posts:132
votes: 64


I'm not taking any position one way or the other, but sometimes facts are different depending on the person.
I grew up being told Sir Francis Drake was an amazing and admirable(think about it) person. My wife grew up being told Sir Francis Drake was the lowest of the low, a pirate with no redeeming qualities. Our kids probably have no idea who Sir Francis Drake was. :)

Tough concept to fact check.
10:43 am on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

New User from US 

joined:Nov 10, 2015
posts: 17
votes: 12


I am with @jambam. This is not good. I do not want Google doing any fact-checking for me. I am a DEPLORABLE, so I fear it may impact the things that I want to read, if you get my jist:)
11:41 am on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 11, 2008
posts:1717
votes: 263


Pretty sure Google is not fact-checking, so much as labelling links to fact-checkers.

Re: Drake: "He was a good person" is not a fact, it's an opinion. "He served as mayor of Portsmouth" could be found to be wrong (it was Plymouth).

What I want to know is how you become an authoritative fact-checker, as opposed to a liar armed with markup.
4:37 pm on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 3, 2015
posts:132
votes: 64


Historical events are usually taught as facts. England has one history, Spain has a different one, yet they are both correct regarding this individual. Point of reference can and does alter what people consider facts, having nothing to do with opinion.
6:03 pm on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3661
votes: 374


Walt Hartwell wrote:
Point of reference can and does alter what people consider facts.

Just because someone considers something to be a fact doesn't mean that it is.


Shaddows wrote:
What I want to know is how you become an authoritative fact-checker, as opposed to a liar armed with markup.

That's a good question. If liars can lie about "facts", they can also lie about "fact"-checking.
7:38 pm on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member editorialguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:3476
votes: 781


If liars can lie about "facts", they can also lie about "fact"-checking.

There are any number of sites that have earned reputations for reliable fact-checking. I'd imagine that Google will be linking to those, not to sites maintained by liars.
9:54 pm on Oct 18, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3661
votes: 374


What you're overlooking is that some people don't want the facts to be checked.
12:10 am on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 22, 2005
posts:657
votes: 20


All history facts seem to be written by the winners. Drake, Raleigh, and others were just looters who got away with it as they paid the Queen.
<aside>At my school our 'houses' were named after them, as where the local open-top buses that ran in the summer</aside>
In fact most 'fact' checking shows bias. Your interpretation may differ.
3:54 am on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 3, 2015
posts:132
votes: 64


Just because someone considers something to be a fact doesn't mean that it is.

Water boils at 100 degrees
Water boils at 212 degrees
Both are facts, both are true.
An individual's exposure and experience will make one of those statements more valid to the individual than the other statement.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how the Google fact checking/referencing works in real world exposure.
5:34 am on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member graeme_p is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 16, 2005
posts:3006
votes: 207


No, water boils at a 100 degrees Celsius at normal atmospheric pressure is a fact. You have not given a different fact, merely a different way of stating the same fact - that does not change the fact. As @Shaddows pointed out facts are not opinion, and the additional links are to fact checking sites, not opinion checking sites.

The change is an extra set of links in Google News, so news stories are linked to relevant pages on fact checking sites.

This does not kill freedom of speech, it gives people extra information and a wider variety of links, and reduces big media domination of news search results.
6:26 am on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 3, 2015
posts:132
votes: 64


@graeme_p
You say water will only boil at 100 degrees Celsius at normal atmospheric pressure.
What happens when I heat water to 212 degrees Fahrenheit?

The point, which people seem to misunderstand, is that your perception of the world isn't the same as mine.
11:19 am on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

New User from US 

joined:Nov 10, 2015
posts: 17
votes: 12


Don't think that things won't get filtered out. There are videos out from the last two days by a conservative undercover investigation into voter fraud and YouTube seems to be deleting comments, suppressing likes, suppressing views, etc., and YouTube is owned by Google. It's happening, folks, and it has got to be watched.
2:44 pm on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from CA 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 25, 2003
posts:1339
votes: 438


Personally I find it rather amusing that Google, whose entire empire has been built upon validating popularity, finds itself having to point out that much of what they are presenting as the best available news results may actually be ummm...
7:42 pm on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member editorialguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:3476
votes: 781


What you're overlooking is that some people don't want the facts to be checked.

Exactly. Facts have a way of debunking bogus arguments, especially in the political realm.
9:17 pm on Oct 19, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:10469
votes: 1099


I preferred g as the collector of all information, not providing judgment on some information and ignoring other. Sad thing is the fact checking sites g intends to use (big msm) is riddled with bias and error, or lies. Science is fact, everything else is an opinion. :)
6:15 am on Oct 21, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member graeme_p is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 16, 2005
posts:3006
votes: 207


@Walt, so you can heat water to 212 F without heating it to 100 C?

@tangor, Google is not providing judgement - it is linking to other people's judgements. The site in the example they gave is not MSM either - it is a small non-profit.

Science is not necessarily fact either: science consists of models and hypotheses some of which have been validated to a sufficient degree to be regarded as fact, some of which are unproven but have evidence, other are opinions. A hundred years ago science said that electromagnetic radiation was transmitted through the "ether", and that non-white people were intrinsically inferior. Two hundred years ago science said combustion occurred through the release of phlogiston.
12:02 pm on Oct 21, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3661
votes: 374


graeme_p --
Huge sums of money are being spent to bombard the U.S. public with lies and misinformation. The goal is to drown out the truth under a flood of lies.
Obviously this is a difficult thing for a mathematical algorithm (like google's) to cope with.

And adding this "fact"-checking feature, despite the good intentions, will only have a tiny effect. Plus some are concerned that google will link to the "sites maintained by liars" that EditorialGuy mentioned.

So you can see the problem.
5:00 pm on Oct 21, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 5, 2009
posts:1730
votes: 387


I sort of have a different take on this. The news sections are the brand sites, now the fact check sites will be listed there and thus expanding the news section. For somebody with a site that isn't privileged enough to be included in news, this is making the organics slip further out of site. I have found the news listings hard enough to deal with but if those are going to expand further down now, this is getting more discouraging. Of course it depends how Google is going to utilize fact checking and on what searches.
2:35 am on Oct 22, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member editorialguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:3476
votes: 781


Plus some are concerned that google will link to the "sites maintained by liars" that EditorialGuy mentioned.

I doubt very much that Google will use "sites maintained by liars" as fact-checking resources.
3:00 am on Oct 22, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tangor is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 29, 2005
posts:10469
votes: 1099


Who defines "liars"? That's the slippery slope involved here. WAPO and NYT, for example, are extremely biased and tend to over report errors and under report inconvenient facts. Then again, others might have quite the opposite opinion. If g was truly about data collection and serving the most accurate and popular queries then this new "feature" would not be necessary.
2:08 pm on Oct 22, 2016 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member editorialguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:3476
votes: 781


Who defines "liars"? That's the slippery slope involved here. WAPO and NYT, for example, are extremely biased and tend to over report errors and under report inconvenient facts.

That sounds like spin. What would a fact-checker say? :-)

More seriously:

There are any number of fact-checking sites that have earned respect from the fact-based community. Those who who prefer an alternate reality don't have to click links to fact-checking sites they don't like (just as they don't have to click through to stories in media they don't like when browsing Google News or Bing News).
This 60 message thread spans 2 pages: 60