←back to thread

581 points antr | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.144s | source | bottom
Show context
ferdo ◴[] No.6223638[source]
I'd point out that Page and Brin predicted the course of their own search engine, and perhaps their own company, in 1998:

“The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users.”

“We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.”

“Advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results.”

"Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines, search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText, which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top of the search results for particular queries. This type of bias is much more insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who “deserves” to be there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed.”

“We believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.”

“Search engines have migrated from the academic domain to the commercial. Up until now most search engine development has gone on at companies with little publication of technical details. This causes search engine technology to remain largely a black art and to be advertising oriented. With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm.”

> http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

replies(4): >>6223717 #>>6224148 #>>6224377 #>>6224668 #
anxious ◴[] No.6223717[source]
Way to hijack the thread with anti-Google propaganda ...
replies(3): >>6223750 #>>6223869 #>>6227282 #
1. levosmetalo ◴[] No.6223750[source]
Why is this anti Google propaganda? I can't see a single point that is not reasonable enough on its own merit, and none of them applies to Google alone, but to all search engine providers.
replies(2): >>6223760 #>>6223799 #
2. officemonkey ◴[] No.6223760[source]
I think he forgot the sarcasm tag, but it's hard to tell.
3. anxious ◴[] No.6223799[source]
First and foremost it's off-topic. Second, these are the same citations used by those who were pushing for the FTC to sue Google for antitrust, so they have political baggage, third: it's before the company was founded so it's all academic and theoretical with no actual experience behind it, fourth: context matters - choice quotes from long texts have been used for Google bashing before, some earlier this week even.
replies(3): >>6223909 #>>6223945 #>>6224084 #
4. postblogism ◴[] No.6223909[source]
no, it's confirmed now that he's just crazy. Dude, get an objective bone in your body, otherwise you're just a crusader.

Not everyone cares about whatever is going on in antitrust, but if you're not objective, you have no argument.

5. trailfox ◴[] No.6223945[source]
> choice quotes from long texts have been used for Google bashing before, some earlier this week even

Somebody on the Internet is wrong and said something bad about Google? How dare they! At what time did this serious offence occur?

6. adventured ◴[] No.6224084[source]
Being before or after the company was founded, being 10 years ago or today, has absolutely no bearing on whether what was said is right or not. Experience != truth, just having experience doesn't mean what you say is more likely to be right. The theoretical can be right or wrong. You haven't proven your argument at all.