9-17-11 - John,
 I am excited to be in a position to offer a demo to our potential
London Partners. However I am very upset about the comments from
Perry. I have been telling you about this book from Eli Pariser of Moveon.org
The Filter Bubble. His book talks mostly about Facebook
and Twitter and the potential for suppressed or forced information
through what he describes as "filter bubbles". His views about
search on Google indicate he has no real understanding about how the
Internet actually works. More specifically about how search
algorithms work and process search queries. As a social activist
this is an area in which he has no expertise.
John, this is not going to go away. A guy like this is getting his
message quoted over and over. He is an
invited speaker to the Search Engine Strategies conference this
month, in New York. If you ever wanted a
description of what Internet "viral content" is, this will be it. I
believe the pros and cons about "The
Filter Bubble" will be split along party lines. We are not in the
Facebook business so I have no comment
about the nature of filters Facebook or Twitter may apply.
 As you and I have discussed, because no one really knows how the
Google algorithms work, there is nobody in
a position of authority to dispute the claims of this guy. If you
cannot dispute his claims, you certainly
cannot dispute his motives, until you get to the end of the Filter
Bubble. It is not until the last quarter
of the book where he starts complaining about how Google and
Facebook should be better citizens. In short,
(unexpressed) advocating the "fairness doctrine" be applied to the
Internet. Google's business motto states
not "first do no harm" as in medicine, but rather "don't be evil."
http://investmentsidea.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/the-big-question-for-google-is-success-illegal/
Pariser's example of different results for the search term "Egypt"
is ridiculous. How many possible pages
in the Google index contain references to Egypt? I can tell you as
of today there are (About 620,000,000
results). He is shocked that some people in different parts of the
country see different results. The
results are not what matters here; what matters is, this is an
example how search engines "teach" how to
search. What is the likelihood that anyone searching the topic of
Egypt found exactly what they looking for
out of 620m possible results? Even that answer is of little
importance. Teaching how to search is intuitive
in light of 620m results. It does not take long for even an Internet
"newbie" to refine the search
parameters to include the specific topic like "war," "travel,"
"artifacts" etc.
http://news.yahoo.com/google-faces-big-whether-success-illegal-153533648.html
The Filter Bubble will be almost a biblical reference for many
people based on the biased valuations by the
author. Unfortunately, with no opposing views his ideas will spread
and now that I think about it, it is
probably a good thing. If you notice, no official statements from
Google. Let the people spread as much
disinformation as possible. If search results can be influenced then
the only place to guarantee "subject
visibility" will be pay-per-click. Stupidity will be "good for
Google"
Eli Pariser and his book "the Filter Bubble" seems to be a great
example of the old axiom; "Those that
can, do; those that can't, teach." His observations with regard to
news suggest a complete lack of search
understanding, and suggests Google should show a bias toward more
left-wing stories or outlets rather than
rely on the algorithms for story relevance. The "Fairness Doctrine"
in spite of its fair sounding title
does not work in TV, Radio, and it certainly will not work against
an unbiased information supply company
like Google.
All this proves what I have preaching since 1998. Almost everyone
thinks they know a little about how
search works, and everyone of them is right; they know a little. Once again if search
was just about keywords, everybody would
be number 1. The filter bubble suggests personalized results for
arbitrary searches like Egypt is somehow
potentially very sinister. Better search will allow you to find
exactly what you need. The search engines
job has always been to provide the best, most relevant information
to the search query. Google early
success was because it provided "better" results. If, in the future,
the natural results become tainted by
advertising not disclosed, the door would completely open for
anti-trust lawsuits and Government
regulation.
The left always wants regulation to deliver their side
of the story, because nobody cares about
their point of view, the very reason the Fairness Doctrine was
created. If left unchallenged the filter
bubble may become a block-buster for the same reasons the Internet
bubble burst. Investors were delivering
money hand-over-fist to any company that ended in .com without
knowing anything about the company itself, or thinking the Internet
business models could be run just like their bricks-and-mortars
partners. If the public finds search results for Toyota
after searching for "Chevy Volt," there will be reason to worry that
perhaps natural search results can be bought. Right now they cannot
be bought, at least from the big 3 Google, MSN and Yahoo.
I
watched in 1999-2000 an interview conducted by Mark Haynes of CNBC
with the CEO of a public emerging .com
company. When Haynes asked how could the company expect to get a
second round of funding after losing 18
million dollars, the response was "because 18 million was below our
projections." Thank God for morons.
The Filter
Bubble
To continue about morons notice complaints about Google going
into the "flight" and travel business and potentially running Orbitz
or Travelocity out of business. Whichever TV network has the Super
Bowl uses valuable advertising slots to promote new network shows,
their own news divisions and reinforce network branding. You do not
hear other networks claiming unfair advertising practices. Now that
Google has acquired "online flight and travel" technology how can
you not expect them to push and promote this business entity on
their own platform? You father was right when he said our biggest
business problem moving forward was going to be the "moron factor."
( The comments
on this page are entirely the opinions of Richard Adams and his view
and observations about The Filter Bubble and are not subject
to argument or comment. )
I am personally saddened by the death of Mark Haynes.
(Richard Adams)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43167028/CNBC_Anchor_Mark_Haines_Dies_Unexpectedly_at_Age_65 |
| |
SEARCH PERFECT
... a Professional Internet Publishing Company
|
Cloud Tags:
Filter, Bubble, Moron, Morons, Eli, Pariser, google, yahoo, msn,
algorithms, Mark, Haynes, CNBC, Twitter, Facebook, search, moveon,
social, activist, Eli, Pariser |
|
|