/s
Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality.
I’ve recently read a lot about hedge funds, and it’s astounding how many scientists literally say, “I don’t think hedge funds add value to society, I wouldn’t work there.” And then the firm slides this check across the table, and they didn’t even realize a single check could have that many zeroes, and they join the firm and stay forever. That’s what happened with Google and all the rest.
What I don’t understand, is why we don’t tax it. If an industry generates lots of wealth, but has a questionable impact on society, the “f(r)ee market” west’s response has usually been to throw a stiff vice tax on it. It doesn’t make the vice go away, but it puts a governor on its excess and redirects some of the spoils for projects which hopefully are net positive.
Or at least enough weight to be competitive. Sin taxes have a way of permanently tying the sin (at some reduced level) to the general budget.
I don't think we're there yet. People can get plenty mad at "tech" without connecting the ad-tech dots.
Edit: "then cost" => "then tax"
We're sinking our best and brightest (and also plenty of perfectly useful and adequate) talent into getting people to look here, buy something they don't need, or press button.
It's comically to contrast that with the same people who pretend climate change is an existential crisis. Meanwhile, so many scientists and engineers idealistically interested in that, leave for software-related subjects where they'll make 10X the money making the problem worst.
If you're not the principal investigator, a NIH grant will pay someone with a PhD + 7 years of experience...$65,292 with pretty weak guarantees on job security (etc).
As mentioned above. It's also the AI.
Ads are not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is tracking. More on that here and about search: https://www.mojeek.com/support/ads/
The search engine could, for example, give semi-poor results, making the person search again, increasing ad impressions.
An ad-supported search engine would also prioritize pages with ads that are also conveniently sold by the search engine.
As a user, I want a search engine to give me the best page with the fewest searches. An ad-supported search engine wants me to view more ads and click on them. Those are, if not orthogonal, often in conflict.
Is this really the case? Assuming pay per click model and rational and competent advertisers. More clicks would increase their costs and reduce the generated value per click. The advertisers would limit their maximum cost per click. This would limit the revenue of the ad-supported search engine to the previous level (from before introducing bad search results).
It is possible that more clicks (generated by tricks and bad search results) produce more revenue for the advertisers. This would (slightly) benefit both the advertisers and the search engine.
In the end and in the long run the incentives of the ad supported search engines are alligned with their customers ( advertisers ) if the above assumptions are met.
https://www.investopedia.com/managing-wealth/hedge-fund-over...
Because this is the summary of the article.
"Is the hedge fund over? It's difficult to say."
I don't think Google quite invented those, GoTo/Overture invented ad auctions and pay-per-click, but missed out on patenting them. Google did improve on the idea, with the second-price auctions.
https://slate.com/business/2013/10/googles-big-break-how-bil...
I don't think it would happen at the low level of engineers filing bugs. It happens at the highest levels of management, where the main concern is corporate profits.
Even if there's no explicit cooperation or algorithmic link between the ads and search divisions, everyone on the search management team knows that search is a huge, expensive operation that makes no money on its own. Advertising is what pays for their salaries, bonuses, operating expenses, etc., and you can bet that they make their executive decisions accordingly.
While not adjusting titles, librarians do have some influence on how a book is classified and thus filed/organised within the library. Check out the wiki article on Dewey[1] for the various options for homosexuality, which has numbers for it including under areas including mental illness! Depending on the library systems leanings you may still find it there or the section for sexual disorders or hopefully in the sexual relations area. (Disclaimer: I just used this as an easy example because it’s on Wikipedia)
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification
[1] https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit03/libraries03_04.pht...
> no self-respecting library uses it these days (unless it always has, and hasn't got around to re-organising).
The vast majority of library systems have been around long enough where Dewey was the defacto choice (or LCC). Just checked a few like the British Library, the French National Library, and all the other libraries I’ve looked up now in London, all Dewey.
Classifying a new technology is another major area where the original taxonomies need to be extended in order successfully index material. The internet, for example, didn’t exist at when LC/Dewey were originally defined.
1. Google doesn't care about the sites. The sites aren't Google's customer.
2. More importantly, the person doing the search is the customer.
Unfortunately, most sites believe SEO is about them. They can improve how they present themselves but the "transaction" is not about them.
Google, serving ads aside, needs to maximize customer satisfaction or run the risk of losing a customer.
It's worth repeating: Google doesn't care about rhe sites.
If Google believes a site's content is a good fit for maximizing customer satisfaction, but the title isn't optimal then it makes perfect sense Google would want to optimize the title, if the title is the "gateway" to a happy customer.
Whether that's right or wrong, IDK. Whether it actually helps, again IDK. But from a pure relationship / business perspective it makes sense.
2. SEO is about the sites and Google and other sources are just that: means to an end.
It's all a matter of perspective.
The customer is the person doing the search. The sites aren't viewing the ads. The sites aren't clicking on the ads. *That* is Google's #1 source of revenue. Full stop.
And thus, as originally stated and supported, too many practicers of SEO, with that wrong lens, continue to misunderstand Google.
Put another way, Google doesn't change the title for the benefit of the sites. There's simply no biz model / source of revenue to support that idea. None.
More seriously: incentives are stacked against search quality these days. Poor results means more trips into ad laden wastelands, and more returns to the ad laden search results page.
Giving people the result up front and center would directly affect quarterly profit I am afraid.
At least this is the model that makes most sense to me.
The next most probably is machine learning is already out of control and the people who created it left.
Edit: wild speculation of course.
Maybe that’s what we need. An FDA metadata label for every website served, kinda like the fav-icon, but useful.
- Readable word count (protein)
- Ad count (fats)
- Image count (carbs)
- Embedded script size (the list of nasty sounding chemicals it contains)
- Average data transmitted (sugars)
- etc
Must be shown in black text on white background with a black border. Sorry dark mode guys.
Sounds like something out of Black Mirror, but could be interesting.
The book titles are unchanged (when you visit the site) - this is just the Librarians adding synonyms and/or simplifying titles in their catalog so that it is "Dr. Strangelove" rather than "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".
Google never was a suitable candidate for the world's authoritative librarian. Unfortunately, we'll probably need another Carnegie to displace them.
It should be more like an assistant: here are some boring tasks/questions, find out everything about them, summarize it for me and present me my options. I dont't really want to search or find something. I want to get things done, questions answered.
"Feels"? This has been the reality for many years.