Just so that everyone is on the same page on what is being discussed here: this is a “study” by a competitor who can't implement personalised search and thus is spreading FUD to spin that as a differentiating advantage. It might be a good marketing strategy as he managed to get coverage by a couple of outlets during the elections frenzy in the US, but this "filter bubble" buzz-phrase is nonsense. Don't fear personalized results they are just another way of sussing relevance, and as mentioned in that post it concerns a tiny number of queries and has minimal effect on the results page.
Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
21–30 of 56 posts
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#22I'm happy to give more context on this. Some people don't put all their information needs into a single query. For example, instead of searching for [iphone wikipedia] to find the iPhone page on Wikipedia, they'll do one search for [iphone] and then their next search will be [wikipedia]. Google tries to help with those sorts of search sessions. For 0.3% of queries, if we see a search for a query A and then another se…
You really could have made it more obvious and opt-out. As in, have a list of keywords that google also considered somewhere on the top, along with smal "x"s next to them.
No, google needs to work for the masses and confuse them as little as possible so adding even more sub-options doesn't seem like a good idea; specially when it only affects one or two results.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#23I'm happy to give more context on this. Some people don't put all their information needs into a single query. For example, instead of searching for [iphone wikipedia] to find the iPhone page on Wikipedia, they'll do one search for [iphone] and then their next search will be [wikipedia]. Google tries to help with those sorts of search sessions. For 0.3% of queries, if we see a search for a query A and then another se…
What you're saying, though, is that Google is making an inference. DuckDuckGo does not want to infer anything and I tend to agree. Also, why aren't all of the inserted links highlighted with the, "you recently search for" line? Why wouldn't Romney be a magic keyword? I appreciate your explanation but it doesn't really explain anything.
I don't work for Google or have any inside informatgion, but I guess "magic keywords" become such after a certain (very large) threshold. Obama, being the president of the United States for four years, has probably crossed that threshold long ago, but it only became a political issue since the election process began.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#24I'm tired of Gabriel Weinber telling me how bad Google is and therefor why I should use DDG instead. I'm happy with Google, I'm glad that when I search for "ruby" I get the programming language and that when my brother who works in jewelry searches for "ruby", he gets the gemstone.
But seriously, tell me why DDG is awesome and unique, stop bashing the competition. It was fun at the beginning but now it's getting old. Like basecamp bashing microsoft project at the beginning, it was ok, when was the last time you read 37signals still writing about how bad MS Project is? Exactly.
Stop spreading FUD about Google and tell us what's great about DDG. Google Search is an awesome product that changed the world, it gives great results and at much greater speed than DDG. Beat them at that and I'll give DDG a go. Not for any scary reasons.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#25I'm happy to give more context on this. Some people don't put all their information needs into a single query. For example, instead of searching for [iphone wikipedia] to find the iPhone page on Wikipedia, they'll do one search for [iphone] and then their next search will be [wikipedia]. Google tries to help with those sorts of search sessions. For 0.3% of queries, if we see a search for a query A and then another se…
What you're saying, though, is that Google is making an inference. DuckDuckGo does not want to infer anything and I tend to agree. Also, why aren't all of the inserted links highlighted with the, "you recently search for" line? Why wouldn't Romney be a magic keyword? I appreciate your explanation but it doesn't really explain anything.
You migh find this useful: http://searchengineland.com/why-google-personalizes-results-...
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the effect times out? If so, it could be reasonably construed as an attempt to present more relevant results across a session. If, on the other hand, Google accumulates history until you sink into a morass of similar results, it's clearly harmful.
In the original WSJ article (yc: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4741394 ), it's confirmed that this effect has a limited duration. > A Google spokesman said: "We aim to get users the best > answers as fast as possible" using techniques such as > examining "related searches." He said the goal for the > feature is to provide better results in a situation > where, for instance, a person who searches for "Harry > Po…
for instance, a person who searches for "Harry
Potter," and then for "Amazon," actually wants "Harry
Potter" results from Amazon.com Inc.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#27"65% of people said personalized search was a 'bad thing'"
So does this guy ( http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... ) on TED and will easily convince you if you aren't already.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really could have made it more obvious and opt-out. As in, have a list of keywords that google also considered somewhere on the top, along with smal "x"s next to them.
No, google needs to work for the masses and confuse them as little as possible so adding even more sub-options doesn't seem like a good idea; specially when it only affects one or two results.
0.3% of a big number is still probably pretty large.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#29"We chose to use these keywords (abortion, gun control and obama) because they are both a) searches where many people want unbiased results..."
I suspect that someone searching for these keywords are looking for reinforcement of their predetermined beliefs. Which is exactly what personalized search would do.
[edit] I've been downvoted so I feel I should clarify. I'm saying that these keywords are "magic" for a reason. This test should be performed using keywords people actually want unbiased results for. A good example would be a good javascript library for making graphs. (something I searched for yesterday and wanted to see an unbiased comparison). These keywords return biased results because they are highly polarized topics and you probably situate yourself on one of those poles - not in the middle. If google knows this about you, good for them and you because you found what you were looking for.
Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results
#30"65% of people said personalized search was a 'bad thing'" So does this guy ( http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... ) on TED and will easily convince you if you aren't already.
if people really wanted to find the other side of the story its available to them. I absolutely love personalized search. When I search for something I want local results, I want results that are most relevant to me. Its been proven that people would only go to sites that support their ideas and beliefs already. So showing unbiased results make no difference.