google bias

[Magyar]

I put this in to social issues because there are some hints of political motivations discussed in thea article (google vs bings response/performance) and because the power google has over our daily lives and how they filter, process and allow access to information.

Reading this article has added further suspicions to my conspiracy theory on how google works http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...earch_results_for_Michelle_Obama?taxonomyId=1 or rather is rigged..


I use google for advertising for work and I frequently find when I try to do very specific searches within my industry that the info pushed by google is very skewed! While I obviously not done the research and anecdotal evidence is not reliable it is a topic I discuss with people frequently and I hear the same kinds of stuff from others who use google listings and AdWords.

Google's image search results rely "heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query,"

Yes, I recognize that Obama's election has a racial overtone for obvious reasons, Google wants us to believe that that thee most relevant search result for the First Lady of the United States is a bigoted, ignorant cartoon done by a half whit?! REALLY!????


Isn't this kind of like saying that that most relevant fact about Hitler is that he was an art student, or that Stalin made good borscht?


If so then their algorithm needs serious rewriting or there is something else driving their returns to searches.

Which brings me back to a larger social issue! While the Internet should not be counted on
for critical thinking and first source info on things it is a great tool and billions of people use it. A company with this much power and an agenda could/does have a great influence. Google now has like 90% of the search engine market locked up. Should this be controlled regulated?

 

[Fishstick]

Relevancy by google is based, among other things, on how many links there are to the page/image and how many links go back from the page to other relevant pages. It has nothing to do with how factual the message or page actually is. Look into google-bombing for a succinct explanation.

 

[back2basics]

If you could create an algorithm that establishes if an image is racist you would be a rich man.

 

[GreyICE]

Google is not your personal army.

 

[Horatius]

Google's image search results rely "heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query,"

Yes, I recognize that Obama's election has a racial overtone for obvious reasons, Google wants us to believe that that thee most relevant search result for the First Lady of the United States is a bigoted, ignorant cartoon done by a half whit?! REALLY!????

I just did a Google Image Search for "First Lady of the United States", and saw no such image on the first page of hits.

Thus, I suspect you've done something either stupid or nefarious, as opposed to Google doing something stupid or nefarious.

Rebuttal?

 

[Arcade22]

I can't find the image, can anyone help me out?

 

[Dancing David]

Looks like if it was true they tweaked it.

 

[cwalner]

I just did a Google Image Search for "First Lady of the United States", and saw no such image on the first page of hits.

Thus, I suspect you've done something either stupid or nefarious, as opposed to Google doing something stupid or nefarious.

Rebuttal?

I would suggest out of date, rather than nefarious. While you take the lack of direct link to be suspicious, it could be that Magyar did this search some time ago. If at that time, the cartoon had just been published and was being talked about on a lot of news sources, that would defenitely up the relevance.

I am thinking possibly the cover of the New Yorker that came out some time ago and specifically depicted a lot of the racial stereotypes being levied against Mrs. Obama as a criticism of the tone of the arguments, not as a criticism of Mrs. Obama.

And yes, if the search was done at that time, that probably was a very relevant of the first lady, because of the commentary it made about public discourse.

ETA: Here is a link to the cartoon I am thinking of, it is actually from during the campaign before she bacame First Lady (and includes the soon to be president as well)

New Yorker Picture

 

[Horatius]

I would suggest out of date, rather than nefarious. While you take the lack of direct link to be suspicious, it could be that Magyar did this search some time ago. If at that time, the cartoon had just been published and was being talked about on a lot of news sources, that would defenitely up the relevance.

I am thinking possibly the cover of the New Yorker that came out some time ago and specifically depicted a lot of the racial stereotypes being levied against Mrs. Obama as a criticism of the tone of the arguments, not as a criticism of Mrs. Obama.

And yes, if the search was done at that time, that probably was a very relevant of the first lady, because of the commentary it made about public discourse.

So, stupid then.

 

[cwalner]

So, stupid then.

Yes, as with dealing with any conspiracy theory. Never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence.

Clearly, if my supposition is correct, then Magyar is still being dishonest by not explaining the context of the search, but not so nefarious.

I also tried to give him the benefit of the doubt by searching images for 'Michelle Obama' and intentionally misspelled 'Fist Lady' and 'Fist Lady of the United States' but all hits on the first page for each search that actually depicted Mrs. Obama were photographs, not cartoons. (one was a picture taken of her in mid word so it looks like she has a stupid expression on her face - but nothing racist)

 

[shawmutt]

Every time I do a google image search on "boobs", it returns a bunch of white chicks.

That's racist.

 

[Agatha]

This morning, a GIS for Michelle Obama returned a horrible picture as the first result; I've just tried again and it doesn't appear now.

The picture was Michelle Obama's picture run through one of those "chimp yourself" programmes, and it was hosted on what appeared to be a porn site, I didn't click it as the URL looked NSFW.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8377922.stm

 

[Magyar]

I would suggest out of date, rather than nefarious. While you take the lack of direct link to be suspicious, it could be that Magyar did this search some time ago. If at that time, the cartoon had just been published and was being talked about on a lot of news sources, that would definitely up the relevance.

I am thinking possibly the cover of the New Yorker that came out some time ago and specifically depicted a lot of the racial stereotypes being levied against Mrs. Obama as a criticism of the tone of the arguments, not as a criticism of Mrs. Obama.

And yes, if the search was done at that time, that probably was a very relevant of the first lady, because of the commentary it made about public discourse.

ETA: Here is a link to the cartoon I am thinking of, it is actually from during the campaign before she became First Lady (and includes the soon to be president as well)

New Yorker Picture

No, i is nothing I did - perhaps you should read the article I linked to first? - The link I posted is to a current article on the PC magazine website
talking about the fact that this image googled as the most relevant image when entering Michelle Obama. Here is another link (posted news 3 hours ago so very much current)
http://googlewatch.eweek.com/content/google_search/the_michelle_obama_google_bomb.html

the further explained that you can game the search engine it normally would remove such sites yet this one is still up in number one place

Relevancy by google is based, among other things, on how many links there are to the page/image and how many links go back from the page to other relevant pages. It has nothing to do with how factual the message or page actually is. Look into google-bombing for a succinct explanation.

i am not going to create an active link to the image, but you can easily find it if you bothered from both links I posted.


Again, I a not talking tin hat conspiracy here, just the fact that because info is controlled by a single source like google could let something like this come to first place because of their algorithms and no alternatives.

 

[cwalner]

This morning, a GIS for Michelle Obama returned a horrible picture as the first result; I've just tried again and it doesn't appear now.

The picture was Michelle Obama's picture run through one of those "chimp yourself" programmes, and it was hosted on what appeared to be a porn site, I didn't click it as the URL looked NSFW.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8377922.stm

Thanks for the link. It does appear from the article to be a case of google bombing (unless somebody else has a better explanation for how such a picture rises that quickly to the top of the queue).

I actually applaud Google for thier response. Leaving the link but putting a warning that it could be viewed as offensive by many viewers. According to the article, the link no longer appears on google's search results because the site that hosted it is no longer active.

 

[geni]

Yes, I recognize that Obama's election has a racial overtone for obvious reasons, Google wants us to believe that that thee most relevant search result for the First Lady of the United States is a bigoted, ignorant cartoon done by a half whit?! REALLY!????

There are a number of potential factors that made it come first.

First it was aparently on a porn site. Porn sites use every trick in the book to game search engines. Generaly called black hat SEO.

Secondly it's the kind of thing people will link for various reasons. To appear edgy and anti-PC. Age of irony and all that.

Thirdly there is a lack of pics of Michelle Obama that everyone uses. As a result any individual pic is likely to only have a moderate page rank. Means it's not supriseing that something like the image in question may outrank them (in voteing this is known as the cloneing problem).

Isn't this kind of like saying that that most relevant fact about Hitler is that he was an art student, or that Stalin made good borscht?

Um no. On the other hand do an images search for Muhammad.

If so then their algorithm needs serious rewriting or there is something else driving their returns to searches.

It's being rewritten constantly.

Which brings me back to a larger social issue! While the Internet should not be counted on for critical thinking and first source info on things it is a great tool and billions of people use it.

Pubmed is on the web.

A company with this much power and an agenda could/does have a great influence. Google now has like 90% of the search engine market locked up. Should this be controlled regulated?

So far not regulating appears to be working.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's been pulled: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/25/google.michelle.obama.controversy-2/index.html

 

[Morrigan]

Haha, holy crap, when I do a Google Image Search on "Michelle Obama", in the "releated searches" I have "Michelle Obama Monkey".

 

[Fishstick]

Again, I a not talking tin hat conspiracy here, just the fact that because info is controlled by a single source like google could let something like this come to first place because of their algorithms and no alternatives.

Google doens't control info. The info is out there, google just lets you find it. It's not a "single source" either, there are multiple search engines you can use if you don't like google.

Haha, holy crap, when I do a Google Image Search on "Michelle Obama", in the "releated searches" I have "Michelle Obama Monkey".

That's a whole different issue, related search/autocomplete is based on other people's searches, not google's "suggestions". Check out autocompleteme.com if you want to see the kind of amazing stuff you can find with related search.

 

[gtc]

Haha, holy crap, when I do a Google Image Search on "Michelle Obama", in the "releated searches" I have "Michelle Obama Monkey".

Its showing "Michelle Obama Ape" for me. Earlier this week the first result for "Michelle Obama" was the chimped up one.

The problem for Google is that these image results are what people are looking for, either because they want to be jerks or because they are following the media coverage.

Out of interest a search for "George Bush" also suggests "George Bush Monkey" as a related search.

On the first page of results for "George Bush" I get:

A picture of him eating a cat;
A caricature of him as satan; and
A picture of him next to a picture of a monkey with a similar expression.

A search for "George W Bush" seems to be more neutral, with only one image that seems to be from a truther site. I wonder why this is.

I also searched for some other prominent people but couldn't find anything similar.