51–60 of 151 posts
EDIT: I've noticed all the replies and I'd like to acknowledge them. Unfortunately I feel very stupid for not screenshotting what I saw when I searched one hour ago. I now see 62,900 results, and I can load up to page 6. I can't prove that I was not able to load page 2 before, but it's true. My original comment remains unedited below. -- For a concrete demonstration of pathological de-ranking, do a query for "site:we…
This has been fairly thoroughly debunked: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/0Y...
Of course, support.google.com opinion on this matter is entirely unbiased :P
>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.
https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History-ebook/...
The Russian revolution was co-opted by Lenin and the Bolsheviks who were funded by the German foreign office and more than anything else were unscrupulous about who they murdered. 25 million people were dead by the end of the revolution (early 20s).
There's not so much as a hint of that just scanning though the titles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...how far does "propaganda and misinformation" go? Political parties also put out propaganda and misinformation, as do businesses and individuals.
Marketing is not the same as propaganda and straight up lying about historical facts. If you claim there weren't famines in the Soviet Union, you're either a liar or a fool. I am fine with those being removed from Google. Separating the wheat from the chaff is the entire point of Google search. They should ban all disinformation sites, Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars would be a good start to add to WSWS. Salon and…
Google adjusts its search results all the time for business reasons but also for political or legal reasons. The PC description is "tuning the search algorithm". That may encompass any number of effects to the search results or Google interfaces. While I hate the idea of regulation, Google Search is such a basic utility in the US that it really should be regulated by the government. Regulation is done on utilities li…
How would that work? You want Congress to determine SEO rank?
EDIT: I've noticed all the replies and I'd like to acknowledge them. Unfortunately I feel very stupid for not screenshotting what I saw when I searched one hour ago. I now see 62,900 results, and I can load up to page 6. I can't prove that I was not able to load page 2 before, but it's true. My original comment remains unedited below. -- For a concrete demonstration of pathological de-ranking, do a query for "site:we…
That search works just fine for me.
When Google, Facebook, and others announced that they were banning "fake news", many on the left cheered. But it was probably naive to assume Google would limit itself to censoring political opinions with which one disagrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It may not be but if Google's goal is to promote authoritative sources there's no reason to consider WSWS to be authoritative for those search terms, imo. I'm not saying I agree with their goal, just that this seems consistent with it, and I imagine that's what the reply was getting at.