Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.
Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.
But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.
Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.
Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and sha
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject
One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?
But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now
Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.
So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?
I know anecdote isn't data but when I searched the other day to see what Trump said about McCain's death, the top 3 results were New York Times, Washington Post and the third was BBC.
Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
The simplest explanation is probably the true one. Conspiracies are rarely the simplest explanation.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
https://pjmedia.com/trending/g... [pjmedia.com]
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as 96 percent of google search results about Trump come from liberal media outlets
You may wish to rethink you naive view of this.
If you apply some critical thinking then the results make sense. You have most of the entire English literate world using Google, not just the US. Very few outside the US think US conservative media outlets are reputable and therefore avoid them. Google ranking is a convoluted feedback loop so you inevitably are going to end up with results people look at which aren't US conservative media outlets.
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
You would be more believable if you had actually read the linked article.
I will observe, the immediate response was to try and silence my post so it wouldn't be noticed.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/g... [pjmedia.com]
Something of a pattern amongst the left.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re-posting a link to a conservative news source is not a refutation. They told you what trends in worldwide traffic might be driving the popularity of less conservative news sources and this is not an argument against that.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
Just noting you are pulling your argument out of your ass or just plain ignorance.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize Google customizes its search results by the location the query is submitted from ?
For local matters, yes. News is certainly more regional and national news tends to take precedence over regional news when it comes to national matters.
But that just gives extra weight to the location of the site (or its intended target area). It doesn't change its relative importance on the Internet in the rest of their algorithm. It would make no sense to do anything beyond that with location information. If web sites worldwide are linking to a web site its overall relative importance is still going to be much higher.
Re: (Score:1)
So that would be why the BBC managed not to be included ?
HMMMM
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically on a survey of sites that are reporting non-stop about Trump? Why would they even make the list? They simply don't write a lot of articles about his antics compared to most sources.
Their location is only relevant in that they're not writing a lot of stories about the topic, and they're not in the country where this is taking place so fewer people are looking to them or sharing from them about that subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
Seems we were talking about local/regional/national/global and now you are trying to switch over to another metric
Re: (Score:3)
I am sorry are you now reversing yourself on the amount of coverage being important as opposed to the prominence and global reach of the site ?
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject (and being further removed from what they're reporting on) means they have fewer pages that are going to rise in the search results and even fewer that are going to be sought after and sha
Re: (Score:2)
How is a page supposed to appear if it doesn't exist? Fewer pages indexed means fewer pages that can rise to the top. Do you think I'm saying "look here, CNN has lots of articles so let's promote all their pages"? No, each page/article gets their own weight and rank.
The BBC having far, far fewer articles on the subject
One do you have any proof of that ? Or do you think the English speaking world has no interest in the actions of the president of the U.S. especially when he is an even more polarizing figure in the U.K. than he is here ?
But lets test your premise looking at the BBC home page right now
http://www.bbc.com/ [bbc.com]
Trump attacks 'left-wing' Google search results
It seems you are factually challenged.
Re: (Score:3)
Did I say they had no articles on the topic? I did a search for Trump on their own web site and there were relatively fewer results and of course their contents are a rehash of sites that reported before them. Good chance that Google ranks pages higher that report sooner on a specific event, as later pages are duplicate or potentially plagiarized.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh now we have another vector. Hmmm
Maybe you're right it's not as if Google doesn't have a pattern of censorship for conservative content. Oh wait what do you know they do.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/20... [foxnews.com]
http://thehill.com/policy/tech... [thehill.com]
https://www.theblaze.com/news/... [theblaze.com]
So I suppose youtube shut down a site dedicated to economic education as hate speech because page rank ? It also shut down a firearms education channel because hate speech ?
Feel free to go again
Re: (Score:2)