RSS
The Register Complaining That Google Doesn't Like Them
from the seems-a-bit-paranoid dept
Andrew Orlowski at the Register really has it in for Google this week. It seems like every one of his articles is targeted at Google - and each time he seems to think that whatever they're doing is personally directed at him. His latest all-too-smug piece complains that a Google search on the term "Googlewashed" (which he claims to have invented) doesn't make it easy to turn up the original article. Orlowski immediately blames people at Google for taking it out directly on him - when Google has always been clear that their ranks are based on algorithms. If they made a mistake, it isn't some big conspiracy. It just means the algorithms don't work perfectly - something that shouldn't surprise anyone. However, Orlowski uses the opportunity to make it sound as though Google is purposely trying to make his article disappear. He could just contact Google and suggest an improvement - but instead goes public with his argument that Google is out to get him.
6 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- If The RIAA Wants To Talk About Misinformation Campaigns, Let's Start With The RIAA's Misinformation Campaign
- UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content
- NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
- Author Jonathan Franzen Thinks That Ebooks Mean The World Will No Longer Work
- Misguided Twitter Protests... And Why Twitter Could Have Explained Itself Better
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
But...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...
The overall thrusts of The Reg's stories are great. I don't understand why this isn't getting more play. You can't trust any sources, not even ones the the 'power to the people' utopians decide to worship as God. I think blind faith in a Search Engine is more on the level of paranoia. Attacking, the Blogger/Google Cult is a good thing. What makes Google so sacred? It's only the computer? Yeah yeah sure. The power to change word-meanings and block others, hey it's only the algorithm. We get upset when governments are careless with information, why should it be any different with a Search Engine?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...
Not saying Google is infallable. Just that this series of stories from The Register is ridiculous in what "motives" they try to pin on Google.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...
The Orlowski rant that Mike wrote about was a claim that Google deliberately censored his original "googlewash" story. Orlowski said that a search for "googlewash" put his story 11 pages deep or something. You only have to do a google search yourself to prove him wrong: I found the story on the second page. So the single fact the Orlowski relied on to form his conspiracy theory is obviously wrong.
It's very bizarre. I checked on all the other search engines I normally go to, and Google not only had more results for googlewash, but *Google was the only search engine that had Orlowski's story at all*. That's right: every other search engine blows large chunks for "googlewash," but somehow Orlowski decides that the one engine that returns his story is the one that's censoring him. Okay, whatever..
I get upset when governments are careless with information, but I get more upset when "reporters" are careless or outright wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...
Plus, who cares? Google has the right to do anything they want with their search engine.
Strange thing. When I search on the letter "a":
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=a
it says there are about 14 million results. That can't possibly be true!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment