• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Google's Search Bias Against Conservative Sites Quantified

sangha said:
Google is biased because they direct those looking for scientific data to websites with actual science :lamo
Click to expand...

LMAO i bet this nails it perfectly IF its even true but since it doesn't come from any legit source we dont even know.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's some research to back up the long-held suspicion of left bias at Google.

Science / statistics
Google’s search bias against conservative news sites has been quantified

Google Search is biased in favor of left/liberal websites against conservative websites, and is extremely biased in favor of climate alarmism against climate realism.

[h=2]Abstract[/h]The percentage of domain traffic, referred by Google Search, net of brand searches (PGSTN), tends to be in or around the range 25%-30% for a broad class of web domains. This hypothesis is tested by calculating the correlation between the popularity of news/opinions websites and their PGSTN, and finding it to be near zero. Thus, PGSTN can be used rigorously to detect and even quantify Google Search intentional bias. Intentional bias is the bias that has been introduced by internal Google decisions, and unrelated to external factors, such as the dominance of particular viewpoints on the web. Here, the PGSTN method is applied for intentional bias detection about climate debate and in general political discourse.
Google Search is found to be extremely biased in favor of climate alarmism and against climate realism. The PGSTN ranges for climate realism and climate alarmism do not even overlap! Some of the most important climate realist domains, including low-controversial judithcurry.com, have such a low PGSTN that they can be considered blacklisted by Google.
Google Search is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains and against conservative domains with a confidence of 95%. Further, certain hard-Left domains have such a high PGSTN that their standing raises suspicions that they have been hand-picked for prominent placement. Certain respected conservative domains are blacklisted. . . .

Click to expand...

Do we need research to determine this? I experience it every day.
 
countryboy said:
Do we need research to determine this? I experience it every day.
Click to expand...

the only correct answer is yes

unless of course you are suggesting your subjective perception of your experience is an equal determination to a legit research of facts?
 
Jack Hays said:
Your claims are false from front to back. Skepticism about AGW requires no conspiracy theorizing. You are, sadly, parading your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Not according to Rush, Lack.

But he's evacuating anyway:lol:
 
Jack Hays said:
And this is noteworthy because . . . . ?
Click to expand...

Because the notion that the scientific community is perpetrating a hoax on the world begs the question, "why would they do such a thing". To answer that, we get conspiracy theories.
 
And yet if you google, for example, Seth Rich, Pizza gate, page after page of right wing sites pop up.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's some research to back up the long-held suspicion of left bias at Google.

Science / statistics
Google’s search bias against conservative news sites has been quantified

Google Search is biased in favor of left/liberal websites against conservative websites, and is extremely biased in favor of climate alarmism against climate realism.

[h=2]Abstract[/h]The percentage of domain traffic, referred by Google Search, net of brand searches (PGSTN), tends to be in or around the range 25%-30% for a broad class of web domains. This hypothesis is tested by calculating the correlation between the popularity of news/opinions websites and their PGSTN, and finding it to be near zero. Thus, PGSTN can be used rigorously to detect and even quantify Google Search intentional bias. Intentional bias is the bias that has been introduced by internal Google decisions, and unrelated to external factors, such as the dominance of particular viewpoints on the web. Here, the PGSTN method is applied for intentional bias detection about climate debate and in general political discourse.
Google Search is found to be extremely biased in favor of climate alarmism and against climate realism. The PGSTN ranges for climate realism and climate alarmism do not even overlap! Some of the most important climate realist domains, including low-controversial judithcurry.com, have such a low PGSTN that they can be considered blacklisted by Google.
Google Search is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains and against conservative domains with a confidence of 95%. Further, certain hard-Left domains have such a high PGSTN that their standing raises suspicions that they have been hand-picked for prominent placement. Certain respected conservative domains are blacklisted. . . .

Click to expand...

This why it's important not to buy into the Democrat's line about being for "the little guy". That ship sailed a long time ago. Google's CEO practically had an office in the White House under Obama's watch.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So the point is...the problem was with you...not Google.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, the problem could also be that they have no idea what it is they're looking for so they think typing in vague terms will do it. Like if I type 'Charlie Reese' it'll go to the article I'm thinking of. Funny enough, if I type in NASA and climate change stance, I can go straight to their words. Could it be that NASA does a better job at publishing and making its work visible than Charlie Reese's massive PR machine? Probably not, haha those geeks at NASA are only good for getting to the moon.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your claims are false from front to back. Skepticism about AGW requires no conspiracy theorizing. You are, sadly, parading your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Skepticism, maybe not. It's what you do with it. When accusations about Google and bias come up on a website dedicated to global warming denial, a conspiracy has definitely been theorized.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's some research to back up the long-held suspicion of left bias at Google.

Science / statistics
Google’s search bias against conservative news sites has been quantified

Google Search is biased in favor of left/liberal websites against conservative websites, and is extremely biased in favor of climate alarmism against climate realism.

[h=2]Abstract[/h]The percentage of domain traffic, referred by Google Search, net of brand searches (PGSTN), tends to be in or around the range 25%-30% for a broad class of web domains. This hypothesis is tested by calculating the correlation between the popularity of news/opinions websites and their PGSTN, and finding it to be near zero. Thus, PGSTN can be used rigorously to detect and even quantify Google Search intentional bias. Intentional bias is the bias that has been introduced by internal Google decisions, and unrelated to external factors, such as the dominance of particular viewpoints on the web. Here, the PGSTN method is applied for intentional bias detection about climate debate and in general political discourse.
Google Search is found to be extremely biased in favor of climate alarmism and against climate realism. The PGSTN ranges for climate realism and climate alarmism do not even overlap! Some of the most important climate realist domains, including low-controversial judithcurry.com, have such a low PGSTN that they can be considered blacklisted by Google.
Google Search is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains and against conservative domains with a confidence of 95%. Further, certain hard-Left domains have such a high PGSTN that their standing raises suspicions that they have been hand-picked for prominent placement. Certain respected conservative domains are blacklisted. . . .

Click to expand...



Google is biased because more people seek answers on global warming?

Bye bye
 
Working for the Goog must be horrible. I can't imagine anything worse than being surrounded by insufferable pretentious dbags.
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's some research to back up the long-held suspicion of left bias at Google.
Click to expand...

Well, Google did state that they didn't want to be evil. "Don't be evil".
 
OlNate said:
Companies aren't going to do anything that is not profitable...so there's got to be some logic behind this. Is this just another example of the Right becoming less relevant? (With respect - looking at this strictly from a numbers perspective).
Click to expand...

From a numbers perspective the left is not becoming less relevant it is irreverent. By the numbers you lost the House, Senate and now the Presidency and have lost over a thousand seats across the country under Obama. With respect you are irreverent.
 
TobyOne said:
Working for the Goog must be horrible. I can't imagine anything worse than being surrounded by insufferable pretentious dbags.
Click to expand...

Yeah working for a company that offers some of the best benefits and corporate amenities in the country, pays very high salaries, and specifically allocates time for every employee to work on the project of their own choosing just to foster more creativity, must be terrible. :roll:
 
TobyOne said:
Working for the Goog must be horrible. I can't imagine anything worse than being surrounded by insufferable pretentious dbags.
Click to expand...

I imagine it would be tad worse if they paid less, had crappy benefits and were on the verge of being crushed by the competition. ;)
 
chuckiechan said:
This why it's important not to buy into the Democrat's line about being for "the little guy". That ship sailed a long time ago. Google's CEO practically had an office in the White House under Obama's watch.
Click to expand...

Google's CEO has nothing to do with how the Google Crawlers work, nor how their algorithms rank sites they crawl. What is going on is their engineers have built algorithms to rank scientific sites based upon accuracy and credibility, they look for how often those sites link to peer reviewed articles and studies, what scientific societies are associated with those sites, the language and semantics used on those sites, and other factors to weed out the pseudo science. Sites that deny mainstream science on AGW are then ranked lower for the same reasons that sites that promote creationism, antivax propoganda, and other pseudo science, misinformation, and nonsense are ranked lower. No one consciously makes these decisions, its just that to the google crawlers and search engine algorithms, AGW denier sites typically look like pseudo science while sites like the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, the Royal Academy of Sciences, and so on, don't.

If you search for AGW denial rather than AGW, then those denier sites are ranked much higher because those same algorithms assume you are looking for pseudo science, misinformation, and nonsense.
 
Phys251 said:
I'm upset that people keep dismissing the controversy about the physical makeup of the moon, which could be made of Swiss cheese or beef stroganoff for all we know. /snark
Click to expand...

I was fairly confident the moon was made in Wisconsin; if that is true then the moon is likely made from American cheese ..........
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What is going on is their engineers have built algorithms to rank scientific sites based upon accuracy and credibility, they look for how often those sites link to peer reviewed articles and studies, what scientific societies are associated with those sites, the language and semantics used on those sites, and other factors to weed out the pseudo science. Sites that deny mainstream science on AGW are then ranked lower for the same reasons that sites that promote creationism, antivax propoganda, and other pseudo science, misinformation, and nonsense are ranked lower.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Jack Hays
Here's some research to back up the long-held suspicion of left bias at Google.
Click to expand...

I guess, Jack Hays, that is why there is this perceived left wing bias.

Guess what "biggest liars in politics" produced?
 
bearpoker said:
Because the notion that the scientific community is perpetrating a hoax on the world begs the question, "why would they do such a thing". To answer that, we get conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I don't claim there's a conspiracy.
 
Grand Mal said:
Skepticism, maybe not. It's what you do with it. When accusations about Google and bias come up on a website dedicated to global warming denial, a conspiracy has definitely been theorized.
Click to expand...

Yours is an unfounded claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom