Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

wsws.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#131

Post by immanuelcan »

nebabyte wrote: post #88

> The physical censorship implemented by Google is so extensive that of the top 150 search terms that, as late as April 2017, connected the WSWS with readers, 145 no longer do so. > These findings make clear that the decline in Google search traffic to the WSWS is not the result of some technical issue, but a deliberate policy of censorship. ...or that they have not been keeping up with their SEO, are getting edged o…

This is partially addressed here: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/08/goog-a08.html and here http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/02/pers-a02.html

The change has effected a broad array of left-wing websites, with different SEO methods. It has also happened directly after Google's new algorithm, which stated clearly what they were planning on doing.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#132

Post by immanuelcan »

yeahsureokay wrote: post #22

This has been fairly thoroughly debunked: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/0Y...

A lot of sites have SEO issues, but this is not what caused the drop. It has effected a large number of left-wing sites (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/02/pers-a02.html and http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/08/goog-a08.html). It also happened directly after Google's new search policy was implemented.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#133

Post by immanuelcan »

samplonius wrote: post #36

Bullshit. A Google search for "socialist news" returns wsws.org as the #2 response. #1 is socialistworks.org, a competing site.

The relevant search terms that have been downgraded are "socialism", "socialist", etc. Obviously, if you search WSWS or socialist website or socialist news you will get the WSWS. It is the more general terms that are at issue. These used to (up to April, just before the new policy was unveiled) return the WSWS very prominently. Now they do not.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#134

Post by undersuit »

macspoofing wrote: post #126
undersuit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So WSWS is a known dishonest and/or inaccurate website?

WSWS? Oh yeah. It's an extreme left site that makes no attempt at any objectivity.

I hate to have to ask again. Lack of objectivity isn't dishonest or inaccurate.

ob·jec·tive (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

So is WSWS a dishonest and/or inaccurate website?

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#135

Post by rsync »

ReadEvalPost wrote: post #8
macspoofing wrote: post #2

>The WSWS has been blacklisted in searches dealing with history, and in particular historical topics related to the revolutionary struggles of the 20th century. These include the terms “Russian revolution,” “Bolshevik revolution” and “October revolution,” all of which returned results in the top 50 in April That's probably ... correct.

Why is that correct? Looking at their website they're currently running a lecture series/look back at the Russian revolution: http://www.wsws.org/en/special/1917/chronology.html None of it seems to be conspiracy theory or low-quality material.

"None of it seems to be conspiracy theory or low-quality material."

Even if it were, if it "wins" the pagerank contest it should be represented in the results accordingly.

I don't go to google for a human-curated yahoo-style directory service. I go to google for search - specifically for pagerank-style search results.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#136

Post by beambot »

redm wrote: post #56
beambot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work? You want Congress to determine SEO rank?

I expect it would prevent making changes that are not firmly based organic search quality; not changes that benefit Google's other businesses including advertising, maps, plus, etc. or political views.

So every algorithm change would require congressional approval. That seems very untenable.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#137

Post by macspoofing »

undersuit wrote: post #134
macspoofing wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSWS? Oh yeah. It's an extreme left site that makes no attempt at any objectivity.

I hate to have to ask again. Lack of objectivity isn't dishonest or inaccurate. ob·jec·tive (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. So is WSWS a dishonest and/or inaccurate website?

If you notice, they seemed to be flagged for neutral historical search queries. Things like "Russian Revolution". Someone reading it would get a viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream historians. So yes, dishonest.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#138

Post by macspoofing »

immanuelcan wrote: post #129
macspoofing wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad choice of words. "Tuning their search engine" is more apt. Search is intrinsically a subjective domain.

But this "editorial decision" (ahem, "tuning") is in fact a political decision to downgrade results for a site that by any objective measure has a wide, international readership (Alexa global rank, 30-40k). It is also an objective fact that Google has close relations to the state (top federal campaign contributor, regular visitor to the White House, Eric Schmidt book praised by Michael Hayden, etc.). So it is a "cons…

>But this "editorial decision" (ahem, "tuning") is in fact a political decision to downgrade results for a site that by any objective measure has a wide, international readership (Alexa global rank, 30-40k).

WSWS has a skewed view of history that is outside of what mainstream historians would accept. For that reason displaying them for neutral historical search queries is dishonest. So it seems reasonable that whatever version of search algorithm they updated to might assign them a lower priority.

>It is also an objective fact that Google has close relations to the state (top federal campaign contributor, regular visitor to the White House, Eric Schmidt book praised by Michael Hayden, etc.)

So? Doesn't mean regulatory bodies are interfering in day-to-day operational decision or in this specific instance.

>So it is a "conspiracy theory" that Google's actions might be motivated by political considerations?

Anything is possible but there's no evidence - so yes, it is a "conspiracy theory", especially considering there's an alternative explanation that is more reasonable and doesn't necessitate invoking sinister shadow governmental actions.

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#139

Post by etplayer »

macspoofing wrote: post #125
etplayer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>From my experience, socialist websites and forums tend to ignore, rewrite, or white wash the history of communism in Russia/USSR Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. Do you have evidence that your experience applies in this particular case, or are you just generalising? For a user named after a philosopher, you don't seem to be very keen to apply l…

>Your experience is irrelevant, because we're talking about a particular case, not a hypothetical website. It's also true in this case. WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history. If you want an objective view of the Russian Revolution, this is not the site you would go to - so I have no issues with Google tuning their search engine to suppress them in th…

>WSWS is a political and a ideological advocacy site

I'm always a little amused when people use "ideology" in this way. Marx said that ideology promotes "false consciousness" about political power structures; by this measure, that which exposes false consciousness is anti-ideological. So by this measure, WSWS is non-ideological.

On the other hand, Zizek claims that for someone to actually be captured by ideology, the ideology must be first presented to them as non-ideological. Can you see the conundrum? Ideology isn't an illusion, rather, to be rid of ideology may be to put on the glasses rather than take them off, to use Zizek's example in the film They Live.

>with a non-mainstream interpretation of world history

Perhaps it is the mainstream that is ideological, because it's true ideology that holds the most power!

Re: Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms

#140

Post by undersuit »

macspoofing wrote: post #137
undersuit wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to have to ask again. Lack of objectivity isn't dishonest or inaccurate. ob·jec·tive (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. So is WSWS a dishonest and/or inaccurate website?

If you notice, they seemed to be flagged for neutral historical search queries. Things like "Russian Revolution". Someone reading it would get a viewpoint that is not supported by mainstream historians. So yes, dishonest.

Do you have any proof that the content they host is dishonest? I'm seriously asking.

EDIT This page doesn't seem dishonest: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/08/07/twrr-a07.html Are you saying Google has examined the historical accuracy of this page and found it lacking?

Post reply on HN