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.
