Playing with Google
2/5/12 12:30![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
peristaltor.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI've got a favor to ask. Right now, click over to Google and search "oil supply." Make sure you type it in verbatim.
Then, share the first web site Google supplies you in a comment below. I'm curious about who gets what results as the top-ranked choice. Trust me, from what I've read this could very well lead to a lively discussion.
Addendum: To comply with Rule 8 (which I was until now unaware; sorry Ab), let me note that this exercise is a completely non-scientific attempt to confirm or deny Eli Pariser's observation from the introduction to his book, The Filter Bubble.
If his observation is confirmed, I posit that a lack of repeatability in Google search results—especially if that lack swings wildly—might exacerbate discussions of topical issues by presenting any given web-based reality through hyper-customized filters, filters of which the user is probably unaware. Individuals would then be able to point to their Google results and scream "See! You're once again proven an IDIOT!!!" to each other; absent knowledge of the filters, each person would be absolutely correct that the other was, indeed, being an idiot.
Later Addendum: Since the Wiki entry on the issue has obviously gotten too much traction to show variance, I'm going to let this sucker die the deletion death and work on another way to show either confirmation or denial of Pariser's observation. Maybe selecting the second or third choice would be better, and maybe something that isn't currently covered in Wiki. Although finding such a beast would be amazingly difficult; why don't they have a Wiki entry on topics not covered in Wiki? People could just check them off as the new entries were written. I mean, duh, seems like a no-brainer, right?
Thanks for your brief attention.
Then, share the first web site Google supplies you in a comment below. I'm curious about who gets what results as the top-ranked choice. Trust me, from what I've read this could very well lead to a lively discussion.
Addendum: To comply with Rule 8 (which I was until now unaware; sorry Ab), let me note that this exercise is a completely non-scientific attempt to confirm or deny Eli Pariser's observation from the introduction to his book, The Filter Bubble.
If his observation is confirmed, I posit that a lack of repeatability in Google search results—especially if that lack swings wildly—might exacerbate discussions of topical issues by presenting any given web-based reality through hyper-customized filters, filters of which the user is probably unaware. Individuals would then be able to point to their Google results and scream "See! You're once again proven an IDIOT!!!" to each other; absent knowledge of the filters, each person would be absolutely correct that the other was, indeed, being an idiot.
Later Addendum: Since the Wiki entry on the issue has obviously gotten too much traction to show variance, I'm going to let this sucker die the deletion death and work on another way to show either confirmation or denial of Pariser's observation. Maybe selecting the second or third choice would be better, and maybe something that isn't currently covered in Wiki. Although finding such a beast would be amazingly difficult; why don't they have a Wiki entry on topics not covered in Wiki? People could just check them off as the new entries were written. I mean, duh, seems like a no-brainer, right?
Thanks for your brief attention.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 20:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 20:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 21:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 04:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 18:19 (UTC)http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96lvorkommen
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:39 (UTC)but gay oil reserves gets you this:
wwww.chinatopsupplier.com/buy-gay_oil/
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 22:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 21:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:42 (UTC)?
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:50 (UTC)I reside in West Virginia. They cant get anything right here.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 19:53 (UTC)So it went:
Wiki article
Image Results
oilmarketreport.org.
Then economics.about.com.
(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 20:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 20:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 00:47 (UTC)It's as useful as pointing out to a parachuter in free fall that, if his main chute doesn't open, he's got some time to think of an alternative, so therefore there's nothing to worry about.
Typical economist answer. Technically correct, but worthless.
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 08:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 20:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 00:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 21:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/5/12 22:50 (UTC)Here's a pic of the first results also:
http://pics.livejournal.com/gunslnger/pic/0000bdb5/
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 08:01 (UTC)Top result was this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves) wikipedia article, followed by 2 articles with with "peak oil" in thier headlines.
As a control I performed the same search using Bing and got Chevron's homepage as my top result followed by the afore mentioned wikipedia article. No results in the top 5 mention peak oil.
In a broad note Google appears to link to more blog and editorials.
Bing seems to link to more government/corporate sites.
These impressions do not constitute evidence of any kind and are entirely annecdotal.
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 19:01 (UTC)Thus, individually we are all happy with our search results since they track well with our mental preferences. Collectively, yet another shared commons has been lost. Imagine being told by a third party to look up a word or topic in a reference book and having the librarian refer to your user profile before printing out the information. What you hold might match the third party's definition, or it might not. If it doesn't, yet another source of potential conflict between individuals rears its ugly head.
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 20:27 (UTC)This is fairly common knowledge in some tech circles.
(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 18:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/5/12 19:25 (UTC)