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.
you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.
you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.
Hey you do realize Google using it's presence to manipulate elections has consequences right ?
The fact that they enjoy legal immunities for being a common carrier can change in a heartbeat
I looked at your link, read the entire thing, so I asked myself, why are the results this way...
Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.
you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies. They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules
CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.
it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.
so yes, the leaning to non-trump side. Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue. ( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )
Story [nymag.com] about CNN outright lying for a month and refusing to retract a story after EVERYONE knows its a lie. Its their Trump is getting impeached any day now, so its not a minor story either.
You believe CNN is honest, you are an idiot. Thanks for letting us know how dumb you are and that your opinion doesn't matter.
HI AC, my views will always count & let me put it clearly, you and your commie friends end game is clear. Like me there are others who can fight, and if anything has been proven, the USA will defeat your ugly ass once again.
I've followed the money looking way out...
While I don't know who or what is causing client change, we do know the co2 helps keep it warm. Who benefits from this at the end, Russia & Canada, polar shipping route and Russia's frozen tundra become the new bread basket and most of Cana
"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]... [pjmedia.com]
Something of a pattern amongst the left."
Oh please, get off your cross. Everyone in here gets modded down for reasons not inline with Slashdot's suggested mod usage. You're not so special that the evil Left targets you special and the same thing happens to them.
Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words "flagrant" and "reckless" to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying "that the universal sense of justice has been violated" and dismissing the charges.
It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life.
Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.
And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S.
"Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."
Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
"And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."
Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that? . Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate I showed 1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down 2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime 3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time 4. Between extremes of gun control re
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:Occam's Razor (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:Occam's Razor (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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you do realize that trump's bad behavior has consequences right? The fact that a conservative fish bowl of news won't say the obvious does not change that fact.
Hey you do realize Google using it's presence to manipulate elections has consequences right ?
The fact that they enjoy legal immunities for being a common carrier can change in a heartbeat
Re: Occam's Razor (Score:1)
Its easy to test it by doing the same search on google and duckduckgo.
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Interesting)
I looked at your link, read the entire thing,
so I asked myself, why are the results this way...
Well, I came up with some theories, most likely wrong but might be true.
you have a few sites like infowars what are sensational sites having a narrative of hate and conspiracies.
They are adding negative values of trust to the trump name within certain search terms
While sites like CNN are adding positive value to the trump name under the same rules
CNN put's out more content on a daily basis than fox and google is scanning both.
it's coming down to truthiness and trust. I trust CNN over infowars, I can trust Barrons over stars and stripes. I can see that CNN seems more truthful than Fox, and it starting to show.
so yes, the leaning to non-trump side.
Also, the non-trump side propaganda machine is designed differently than the trump side. that could also be an issue.
( because it sound smart people think it's smart concept )
CNN defines Fake News (Score:1)
Story [nymag.com] about CNN outright lying for a month and refusing to retract a story after EVERYONE knows its a lie. Its their Trump is getting impeached any day now, so its not a minor story either.
You believe CNN is honest, you are an idiot. Thanks for letting us know how dumb you are and that your opinion doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
HI AC, my views will always count & let me put it clearly,
you and your commie friends end game is clear.
Like me there are others who can fight, and if anything has been proven, the USA will defeat your ugly ass once again.
I've followed the money looking way out...
While I don't know who or what is causing client change, we do know the co2 helps keep it warm. Who benefits from this at the end, Russia & Canada, polar shipping route and Russia's frozen tundra become the new bread basket and most of Cana
Re: (Score:2)
"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]... [pjmedia.com]
Something of a pattern amongst the left."
Oh please, get off your cross. Everyone in here gets modded down for reasons not inline with Slashdot's suggested mod usage. You're not so special that the evil Left targets you special and the same thing happens to them.
Re: (Score:1)
I am sorry when was the last time you heard of conservatives pulling a fire alarm to stop libs from speaking ?
Staging a riot to prevent someone visiting a campus ?
Phoning in a bomb threat ?
Shooting a congressman at a baseball game ?
Not me on the cross but a pattern just the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one
Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.
Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
Re: (Score:1)
Drive a car into peaceful protester's and kill some one
Peaceful protestor yeah
https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [thegatewaypundit.com]
Shoot up a place of worship because the people there were black.
Dylan Roof was certifiably insane
Hold up against the federal government in a violent manner because they object to federal land policies.
The BLM acted illegally http://www.latimes.com/nation/... [latimes.com]
Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words "flagrant" and "reckless" to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying "that the universal sense of justice has been violated" and dismissing the charges.
It wasn't the land use policies, it was the illegal railroading of a citizen.
I don't pretend my end of the political spectrum doesn't have assholes in it but clearly you do.
Sure you don't
Re: (Score:2)
"Peaceful protestor yeah
https://www.thegatewaypundit.c... [www.thegatewaypundit.c] [www.thegatewaypundit.c] [thegatewaypundit.com"
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
"Dylan Roof was certifiably insane"
And st
Re: (Score:1)
Even if that article is true (nice fring news source) the people hit by that car were in fact peaceful protesters. Just because some lunatic chased him with a gun does not mean that running over completely unrelated people is okay. Why I have to explain that to you in beyond me. The guy driving obviously was not defending himself from anyone when he hit that crowd
Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life.
Irrelevant. We have courts for that type of thing.
And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Durrr, good one! Clearly you'd know my oppinions better than I would.
Well unlike you, I am not lying about them. I'm hardly the person who says there's a replication problem in science except for the parts I like.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why you have to explain ? Well I don't know maybe you need to explain how ANTIFA can be considered peaceful anything. Maybe you need to explain how a vehicular accident by someone in fear of their life."
Sure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
"And we have the 2nd amendment for people like you. And yes it has been used to remove illegal governments in the U.S."
More nonsense. There's nothing in the
Re: (Score:1)
ure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.
Running for your own life
More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.
http://www.ushistory.org/decla... [ushistory.org]
Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?
DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".
Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate
I showed
1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down
2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime
3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time
4. Between extremes of gun control re