Live data from Hacker News

Google killed me

amywilentz.tumblr.com

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Google killed me

#31
> It all comes down to Google’s algorithm (a word I use carelessly, and frequently, but whose meaning is obscure to me, though I feel it is something mathematical)

Loved this. Amusing reminder of the fact that most people do not speak our language. :)

Re: Google killed me

#33
Great article, really well written!

This is what happens when the world is ruled by a robot

I take it OP hasn't had the delightful pleasure of dealing with old-fashioned human bureaucracy. My uncle tells some great stories about his time in East Berlin, before the Wall fell.

A great example is the post office that did some renovations, and so delivered the old copper and other materials for reutilization. From then on, the System cleverly decided the yearly productivity goals should include delivering the same amount of copper, each year.

The post office master had to figure out how to deliver the copper for a couple of years, in order to avoid failure in meeting the obviously correct goals, until he finally managed to change them.

So, yeah, at least Google's algorithms have the excuse of not being sentient.

Re: Google killed me

#34
post #27

This post was really well written. Just a pleasure on the eyes.

I loved it too, up until this part:

"I’m reading Kafka’s Castle right now — which itself may kill me"

Kafka is one of my favorite authors and The Castle is one of my favorite novels :( But a well-written essay nonetheless ;)

Re: Google killed me

#36
post #20
post #14

What a bad article... The author talks about something (google indexing) she admits she doesn't understand. She doesn't understand that by editing her Wikipedia article, the google crawler would update her infobox data pretty quickly. Her birth data was added to the wikipedia entry today and the google infobox is fixed. It took less than 2 hours. Not something worth whining about.

Yes, the fact that a reasonably well-respected writer and English professor doesn't understand the inner workings of Google's infobox means that her blog post is terrible. This arrogant and dismissive response highlights the problem even better than her mild and humorous complaint (which, for the record, I didn't see as whining). Perhaps she did understand that editing her Wikipedia page would correct the problem but…

Well, the Wikipedia article's history shows that she edited her own article quite a few times, so that doesn't seem to be the problem.

I don't see how the error detracted her in any way, and, as I highlighted it, it was a quick 2-minute fix.

I also don't think the Google algorithm is to blame. If her Wikipedia entry had followed the style guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biogr... ), her birth date would have been parsed correctly.

For the record, I didn't find her post funny or even particularly well-written.

I guess if there's something that can be taken from this article it's "Program or be Programmed". The author didn't understand the inner workings of the Google Factbox data, so she assumed computers control her identity and her online information. However, with a little more computer knowledge, you can figure out how to control this data yourself.

Humans control the computers; it's not the other way around.

Re: Google killed me

#37
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is interesting that google almost seems to take Wikipedia bio boxes as gospel FTA, I don't believe the data was taken from a bio box: > So it’s not too surprising that my original Wikipedia entry, as conceived by Joel, was — let’s be honest — more about my father (a famous New Jersey judge) than about me. Joel began the entry with my connection to my father, and immediately mentioned my father’s birthdate and th…

Don't know what is so scary about that. I am willing to bet less than 0.01% of "name[s] on Wikipedia..followed by a birth and death date" aren't the actual birth and death date. Seems like just an oddmatch caused by an overzealous relative that happened due to the incredibly large amount of data Google processes.

Scary because it takes a cry to the internet to get it corrected. While the issue of being declared dead is somewhat innocuous, it could've been much worse -- what if her dad was a convicted sexual offender, and Google chose to associate that with her bio? What do you think that'd do for any job prospects, especially if she wasn't aware that it was present? It could be downright devastating.

Since it is not opt-in (nor is it opt-out), YOU have no control of it. As the author stated, she requested many times, over several months, to have it reviewed and it wasn't until she clamored about it publicly that it was addressed. What if Google never did correct it?

Re: Google killed me

#39
It's interesting to think about the consequences of dissemination of wrong information about yourself online (as a "non-important" person) by a largely well-respected outlet such as Google. As a far-fetched example, it's not uncommon for identity thieves to use a dead person's identity - and if the author applied for a job and the employer Googled her name... you can see where this is heading.

I suspect there might be some liability issues about incorrect information online, perhaps as a result of other cases with more dire consequences than simply not getting a job.

Re: Google killed me

#40

Great article, really well written! This is what happens when the world is ruled by a robot I take it OP hasn't had the delightful pleasure of dealing with old-fashioned human bureaucracy. My uncle tells some great stories about his time in East Berlin, before the Wall fell. A great example is the post office that did some renovations, and so delivered the old copper and other materials for reutilization. From then o…

I can't seem to find a good canonical reference at the moment, but there's some interesting writing in organizational theory about the extent to which some of those kinds of bureaucracies are themselves basically mechanical systems, controlled by code that just happens to be manually executed by human operators. In general, code executed by computers tends to be executed more "rigidly", but in some systems humans can also be quite automaton-like in just executing instructions. In those cases it's not clear the human operators, rather than the algorithms they're executing, are in control of the decisions (it may not even be true that any one human knows what algorithm is being executed). Of course, you could argue someone can always change the bureaucratic protocol, but that's even true with computer code: someone at Google can always edit the code, at some times more easily than others.
Post reply on HN