Of COURSE Google's algorithms are the result of subjective human
judgements in how to best apply available technology to meet user needs.
This should surprise nobody that knows that software isn't magic, it
just does exactly what programmers tell it to.
Our own library software and data is the same thing. Google tends to be
pretty good at it, which is why we all use it every day.
What is the big shocking thing here supposed to be?
Certainly if libraries want to take 'information literacy' seriously, we
should be trying to educate our patrons in this too. Google is just a
human endeavor, it's not somehow infallible. If even people inside the
library world find this a shocker, that is not encouraging.
On 12/3/2010 6:29 AM, Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> Quoting from myself (sorry about that everyone!)
> <snip>
> In response to this story, Google tweaked their results, see "Google Changes Search Results After Story About Misleading Retailer Rankings" http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/02/131753456/google-changes-search-results-after-story-about-retailer-rankings?ft=1&f=1001, so things apparently work differently now, but of course, what the tweaks did to other searches remains to be seen, and in any case Google changes must remain secret.....
> </snip>
>
> I just wanted to point out some new discussions on this, which are becoming very interesting from the information management point of view. See "Google admits its algorithm is opinion; but its decision process is dangerous" http://blog.seattlepi.com/zennieabraham/archives/230477.asp which discusses Google's reasoning for the "tweaks", as debated on John Battelle's blog post "In Google's Opinion...." with Matt Cutts, a Google "engineer" http://battellemedia.com/archives/2010/12/in_googles_opinion
>
> Mr. Cutts wrote:
> "...I believe the "opinion" in that sentence refers to the fact our web search results are protected speech in the First Amendment sense. Court cases in the U.S. (search for SearchKing or Kinderstart) have ruled that Google's search results are opinion. This particular situation serves to demonstrate that fact: Google decided to write an algorithm to tackle the issue reported in the New York Times. We chose which signals to incorporate and how to blend them...."
>
> Very interesting.
>
> James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
> Director of Library and Information Services
> The American University of Rome
> via Pietro Roselli, 4
> 00153 Rome, Italy
> voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
> fax-011 39 06 58330992
> First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>
Received on Mon Dec 06 2010 - 14:11:34 EST