Hacker News Reader

Comment by nimblegorilla | Hacker News Reader

I kind of see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. It sounds like you want search engines to modify results so that activists can't create meanings like Obamacare or Santorum. In order to do that they would need to control the way language changes over time to keep that from happening.

How do you feel about terms less mean-spirited like the "Arab Spring?"

View on HN

You don't get it. Google routinely modifies search results. There isn't a coherent "algorithm" that determines all SERPs. The whole site is carefully calibrated to adjust to user expectations. I think that gives you a choice of two conclusions:

(a) Google believes that most of its users really are looking for Dan Savage's prank when they search for the name of one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years.

(b) Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism.

Please understand that I could give a rats about Rick Santorum. I find him odious. I firmly hope he does win the GOP nom so that Obama can win 2012 in a walk.

But [santorum] does not return that particular SERP because the word "Santorum" organically became associated with that particular idea. A group of people decided to rewire, well I guess the Internet, to force that association. If they can do it, anyone else can too. Google's search results should be more credible than that.

Google is deliberately choosing not to adjust this particular search result for reasons of ideology or pragmatism

Not sure I believe that all the people at Google involved in deciding how search results get tweaked lean the same way politically and are interested in having their ideology reflected in Google results.

That's kind of what you're implying here isn't it?

I think the overall argument we're seeing here is fundamentally the same as those questions about sexism in the tech industry.

Some believe its just a reflection of the fact that most people in that group happen to fit into a certain demographic and that nothing is really broken. Others believe there's a fundamental underlying problem that needs to be fixed.

The answer is obviously (a). But Rick Santorum is hardly "one of the best-known national Republican figures of the last 30 years." I'd put on that list people like Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush, Cheney, Powell, McCain, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc. That fact that you'd even think to put Sen. Santorum in that company inclines me to question your judgment.

Santorum is a 2-term Senator who ran poorly for president a couple times, and who was made mildly more famous due to a minor controversy. He's like the Gary Hart of the GOP.

You think that of all the searches across the country for [santorum], most of them are for the prank? That strains credibility. I get that virtually no HN'ers are naturally interested in ultra-right wing conservative Republican politics, but let me assure you that approximately half the whole country is, and even the most conservative among them have net access.

Meanwhile, Google most assuredly does have signals as to which of the results on that first SERP are the ones users are actually looking for.

"You think that of all the searches across the country for [santorum], most of them are for the prank?"

I think enough of them are that it justifies the prank being among the top results.

> Google most assuredly does have signals as to which of the results on that first SERP are the ones users are actually looking for.

Yes, and the spreading santorum site is the first result. So unless you have some actual counterproof, I think the reasonable assumption is that Google is giving the people what they ask for, as usual. Especially since Bing returns the same top result.

Anyway, the whole thesis of this thread is factually wrong, since the top result today on Google for "santorum" is actually the Iowa caucus results table from the Associated Press. So Google has, in fact, manually inserted a search result in response to the surge in interest in Santorum the candidate. (Bing, by the way, has not.)

There's also c) No one at Google with the power to change this judged Rick Santorum an important enough figure to modify the results.

Here's Google's response on this issue from back in September, after Santorum requested the result be removed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html

"Google’s search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the web."

So, "no comment".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com