The truth, according to Google

money.cnn.com...





So google plans to add an algorithm that ranks websites according to the veracity of information provided. In theory it sounds good, in practice however it could mean that google will be told what the truth is and what not, so anything that is not in line with the mainstream media (Reuters AP) and therefore given a low ranking in therms of truth arbitrarily will be buried way back in the search results.

Of course this does not affect alternative news as such, but will make the research for content that might be of interest harder.

a reply to: Merinda

Dump Google search. Their search product does not offer significant benefits to consumers. They keep manipulating results to generate revenue and this new move is about revenue and nothing else.

Familiarize yourself with search engines like Bing and Yahoo. There are others, but exercise some caution.

a reply to: Merinda

Another fine example why never to use google.

hope this isn't off topic OP, but do people have recommendations on other search engines?

I use startpage, but I am a tech moron. Any other recommendations?

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Merinda

Another fine example why never to use google.

hope this isn't off topic OP, but do people have recommendations on other search engines?

I use startpage, but I am a tech moron. Any other recommendations?

Start page uses google for you, so you can remain anonymous to google

Does this mean CNN is also known to push hoaxes ?

Issue #1 - Russia Today, they have been publishing hoaxes lately and are a state-owned propaganda service.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Merinda

Dump Google search. Their search product does not offer significant benefits to consumers. They keep manipulating results to generate revenue and this new move is about revenue and nothing else.

Familiarize yourself with search engines like Bing and Yahoo. There are others, but exercise some caution.

I agree, Google search results have been placing the highest bidder above the most relevant content for years..

Google delivers an intentionally faulty product in the name of making even more outrageous profits than they already do.

a reply to: Merinda

Hm. Hi, Merinda. For the last few months, I have been learning about the world of Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Google rankings/marketing, social media's ties to website success, and how to generate revenue from owning a website by selecting relevant advertisers to contract with.

Publishers pick a topic, presumably after finding a 'niche' that interests them and has little internet presence but lots of interest. They build a website around that "niche" market (for example, baby clothes for preemies....or hardware for gamers), and blog about it, and refer people to "advertisers" who sell goods and services related to that market (the people interested in baby clothes for preemies or hardware for gamers).

Then, the race is on to compete with others who are 'selling' similar goods. Website owners (publishers) are encouraged to tell the truth, to provide factual information in order to help searchers who are looking for specific info or goods or services.

The article you linked does not say anything about "alternative news" - it talks about VERACITY. That sites will be ranked by how much "truth" they present, and not just based on how many "pageviews" they have.

Fortunately, MANY advertisers vet websites who apply to be contracted "publishers". If a site is questionable in its integrity, its authenticity, its legality, its topics, its transparency and sourcing, most Advertisers will not accept that site as an 'outlet' for their products.

The whole idea is so that Publishers can receive a (usually very tiny) percentage of profits by providing leads or customers.
It's a very competitive "business" to begin - starting from scratch and building a reputation comes WAY before any money - and yes, it costs money (not much, though) to buy a website domain (about $12 a year), and a host (cost varies with services provided).

This means there are two methods to earn money with a website:

1) selecting and applying for a CONTRACT with advertisers who accept 'affiliate marketers' (publishers) for free with no guarantee of success for the publisher - where it is the site owner's (publisher's) responsibility to generate content and build traffic that leads people to click on links to advertisers' sites (this is where SEO comes in - the trick is to get ranked on page 1 of Google (or Bing/Yahoo/Opera/Safari) so that searchers will find THEIR site early - and not buried on, for example, page 72; or,

2) BUYING ad space (which is, for example, how ATS makes their money - advertisers PAY to have an ad on here). Small startup websites CAN buy ads (showing up at the top of Google with that little orange "AD" symbol costs money - but many hundreds of thousands of publishers (bloggers) will rely on advertisers that contract with relevant bloggers to market their products in exchange for a percentage of the proceeds.

(This may not be news at all to some readers - partly I explain it to solidify my own understanding of it and 'write it down. Therefore, if I am mistaken in any way, someone please let me know - and yes, I'm paying to learn it.)

So - your title is misleading. It isn't that "alternative sites" will be targeted - if they present TRUTH they have nothing to worry about. If they present Glenn Beck or Alex Jones as harbingers of universal truth, they will likely take a hit. This means that advertisers will be more selective in WHERE they buy ads, since TheBlaze or whatever will be exposed as sensationalist hype rather than reliable sources for information.

If ATS sticks to their guns and provides sourced information that is not dumped in LOL or HOAX or trashed altogether as nonsense, they have NOTHING to worry about.

Another way your title is misleading is that it is the research stages, according to the article. Another thing that is rapidly changing is the "social presence" of websites. Prior to recently, it was standard practice that publishers could steer readers from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Pinterest, etc and by growing their traffic via those outlets, could get more 'hits' and 'clicks' on the advertisers who have allowed their ads to be placed on the website.

NOW, FB and Twitter are talking about disallowing links to websites, and FB is ALREADY vetting and controlling HOW MANY 'friends' receive marketing posts. It's all ending. No longer is merely having 92,425,316 "likes" going to automatically get a page ranked....or even distributed!

There are, of course, other programs such as Google AdSense (which doings with ATS has prompted the donation banner atop our pages). What AdSense does is approve a website, and then they track the interests of READERS who come to that site, and put ads on the site that are specifically relevant for that READER. For example, if you're looking at Toasters on Overstock - the next website you look at that is approved and running AdSense ads will show you toasters whether or not that site is about Toasters. The publisher (site owner) is not allowed to click on those ads, or they will lose their contract (AdSense pulls their ads altogether).

Anyway - nice alarmist article you've extrapolated from the actual information - an excellent example of a thread that will NOT rank highly on Google - because it is misleading, and in fact, not true.

Just to let you know how this all works.
Cheers

In other words, NO. Google is considering burying sites that present DISINFORMATION as truth.

ETA: Ah, I see you have changed the OP, but not the title.

Okay then.

From: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Regarding the RT version of this story:

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
In charge of truth? Google considers ranking sites on facts, not popularity

There's several issues with this story.

Issue #1 - Russia Today, they have been publishing hoaxes lately and are a state-owned propaganda service.

Issue #2 - NewScientist as the original source. Real scientists have been criticizing the magazine for years for it's sensationalist slant and lack of staff who really know science.

Issue #3 - Google rarely officially discusses the workings of their black box, and didn't in this case. The sensationalism is based off one Cornell University computer science research paper: arxiv.org... from which NewScientist makes it's alarmist assumptions.

Issue #4 - Google has, in the past, stated that they're considering "Knowledge-Based Trust" ranking of web content for customized searches, such as Google Scholar, but never for general web-based search. (Matt Cutts)

a reply to: Merinda

Short answer is No.

Long answer. There's millions of sites out there that are nothing more than clickbait to sell things.
These sites have no value other than to make people money.

Google has always been working hard to take out these spam websites from the serps.

So in the end you'll get better quality results to your searches.

a reply to: Merinda

Ng but good to know. Thanks.

F&S&

a reply to: stosh64

Try DuckDuckGo, it also lets us search anonymously.

I've noticed how google had devolved from the best search engine on the internet, to what it is today and I am not even sure what to call it. It has become a targeted ad producer and is vital to the control of information as the majority of internet users rely on google for their web searches.

Those that mean that the first site that popup on google when you search a program won't be spyware infested site anymore?
Impossible, those results are there because they are the ones paying google the most to get the top spots.

Does that also mean that free anti viruses which are buddy buddy with selected spywares won't be first in line?

No, this probably means that to search "911 was an inside job" will be harder than ever.

a reply to: Merinda

That is the problem I have when monopolies starts to shape what the internet should be and not should be, this what makes me scream, is nothing more than suppression of information.

You have a group of people that make themselves jurors and executors in order to push into others their own views, tailored to what they perceive is just and righteous, just like religion and political law makers.

This what happen when companies get too big, too financed by interest groups and take upon themselves to rule over others.

I have never liked google and neither their slow take over of internet search engines when it comes to the net and neither any other offices of government like now pushing net neutrality that while sound good actually may come buddle with other agendas.

Darn if I want to read disinformation by all means if my right and I should be the one to chose what to read or not, no a monopoly with their best interest invested in their profit margins.

The hell with gooboo

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Google is in bed with the obama admin.

Truth is not-and never will be-their objective.

Only CONTROL.

a reply to: FalcoFan

Can you substantiate that with sources, please?

ANd didnt GOOGLE help write the Net Neutrality paperwork?

Anyone starting to see connections here?

I could be completely off base, but just saying......

eyes and ears people....

originally posted by: stosh64


hope this isn't off topic OP, but do people have recommendations on other search engines?

I use startpage, but I am a tech moron. Any other recommendations?

ixQuick

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Can you refute me with sources,please?

a reply to: mOjOm

ixQuick = Start Page and works with Google.