Google to use TrustRank for News, Possibly More 166
mike slaven writes "In a follow-up to Tuesday's post about Google registering a trademark on the term TrustRank, an article on NewScientist explains how Google plans to track the credibility of news sources. The article also mentions that the patent on TrustRank is not limited to ranking just news stories: 'The patent also reveals that the same system could be roped in to rank other search results, not simply news. So sales and services could in the future be listed on the basis of price and the reputation of the company involved.'"
I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I have with this is that there are many problems with identifying trusted sites and maintaining the trustworthiness of such sites after they have been chosen.
From Google's point of view, a trusted site would have to have strict editorial standards and link to a lot of sites. I can think of a lot of sites with strict editorial content, but they generally do not link to a lot of sites. The open directory projects seems to me to be a candidate for a trusted site [dmoz.org]. It has editorial controls and links to a heck of a lot of sites.
The first question to ask is: "After the trusted sites is chosen, how much would it cost to buy one?". I suppose dmoz itself would be hard to buy outright, but how much would it take to buy one of the editors, or to buy an editorial position? Probably not much. Dmoz alread has a lot of editorial fraud and it would make the problem worse. I'm not sure that its fair to expect trusted sites not to degrade to some extent.
The second question to ask is: "How hard is it to buy links from trusted sites?". The answer has to be that it is pretty easy. Forget about corrupting the people as I discussed in the last point. Any trusted site that links to lots of pages is going to have a huge link management problem. Every day hundreds of domains that it links to may expire. You can snap those up and buy trust.
All this doesn't even include folks who make sites look trustworthy with the sole intention of turning them to the dark side later. All of this happens currently with pagerank, but it will be much worse once the trust power is put into the hands of a few.
--
Exchange Rate Currency Calculator [ostermiller.org]
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, it seems like making an assumption like that is not really a good idea. I think a company like Google certainly has shown competent decision making in the past, but we should never accept something at face value just because of an apparent pattern of competence. Question everything!
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:5, Insightful)
It means that CBS News and MSNBC get a heavy "trust" rating, while Juan Cole [juancole.com], tomflocco.com or Scoop.nz get "Le Shafte".
More coprorate sponsored media is not why I click. This is Google being used to "mainstream" the Internet as an information source - which is now a loose cannon in the world of controlled messages. Millions, just hearing about "'blogs on the Innernets" for the first time will now be safely served "more of the same" - while having alternative messages and analysis spun away with "low-trust".
Don't Be Evil, my ass.
You want the real truth on "trustworthy" news sources from Google? Search for "The Mighty Wurlitzer"+CIA or "Project Mockingbird".
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:1, Insightful)
You want the real truth on "trustworthy" news sources from Google? Search for "The Mighty Wurlitzer"+CIA or "Project Mockingbird".
Lord knows I expect nothing but "the truth" from a guy called "The Mighty Wurlitzer".
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
I'm ashamed to say that I thought there'd be no doubt about the attribution.
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
Or will the PHB outfits reach an Infinite Diabolical Regress (IDR), where TLAs are AFU, too?
It's the Information Age, yet the Combine's fog machine obscures more and more...
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:5, Funny)
I worry about stuff like that...
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
You know, that's exactly what I thought, too. In fact I can't think of a better site to use. Being an open directory editor myself, I'm pretty familiar with the rules and guidelines for editors, and, let me tell you, the open directory people take what they do very seriously. Of course, you'd really want to have multiple directories like this to really utilize Trust Rank.
A dmoz editor, eh? (Score:1)
Is this you: http://dmoz.org/profiles/psiolent.html [dmoz.org]
I wonder if you can find my editor profile? ;-)
Re:A dmoz editor, eh? (Score:2)
You're certainly a more prolific editor than I am. I apologize for my arrogance.
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:5, Interesting)
I was gonna mod you down, but I'll post instead. If you'd have RTFA, you'd have seen that the above statement is totally false. There are lots of criteria they are using to generate the number, of which internet traffic is only 1. To quote TFA:
he database will be built by continually monitoring the number of stories from all news sources, along with average story length, number with bylines, and number of the bureaux cited, along with how long they have been in business. Google's database will also keep track of the number of staff a news source employs, the volume of internet traffic to its website and the number of countries accessing the site.
Google will take all these parameters, weight them according to formulae it is constructing, and distil them down to create a single value. This number will then be used to rank the results of any news search.
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:3, Insightful)
Time and again, important news stories put out through blogs are ignored by the big companies with lots of 'reporters' and lots of stories regurgitated from the AP newswire.
This is nothing more than an idiotic push for more 'corporate' news in an attempt to drown out the smaller people.
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:1)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
If these factors (as mentioned in TFA) are the only factors, I think Google will placing a greater emphasis on (large|corporate) sites:
average story length
This one is probably most up for grabs -- although we'll have to see if the formula prefers longer or shorter stories.
number with bylines
This too is up for grabs. Certainly a willingness to put your name on a story helps for credibility.
number of the bureaux cited
This certainly favors (large|corporate) organizations. A news source that sites
trust rank (Score:2)
Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank (Score:2)
Any trusted site that links to lots of pages is going to have a huge link management problem. Every day hundreds of domains that it links to may expire. You can snap those up and buy trust.
That's a good point, and it has happened that some of my relevant subject matter-related links have expired and then, uh, changed content. Given enough (I mean time, not money) resources it should be possible to validate links on a regular basis though.
Trustrank? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trustrank? (Score:2)
Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:5, Funny)
2. Apple
3. Firefox
4. Your Rights are being stolen!
5. Microsoft sucks.
Rinse. Repeat.
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:4, Funny)
6. Ask
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:5, Funny)
Estimated TrustRank: Zero.
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:2)
Rinse. Repeat.
They probably should put the word, "stop" in there somewhere. My scalp is soggy and my brain is waterlogged.
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice prediction! (Score:3, Funny)
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/04/29/1950245.shtm
Re:Nice prediction! (Score:2)
That said i suppose it was inevitable another SCO story would pop up again
The Mighty Morphin Slashdot Rangers??? (Score:1)
Now to figure out how to equate trolls with Bulk and Skull and flamers with Rita and Zedd...
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:2)
Rinse. Repeat.
Goodness, is that before or after the hot grits?
Re:Slashdot's News Rotation (Score:1)
Trustranking Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trustranking Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trustranking Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
It is a lot easier for Google to index one site than to hand pick articles from all over the web, and do the editing and quality control themselves.
Re:Trustranking Slashdot (Score:2)
You're new here, aren't you? :-)
Re:Trustranking Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Trustranking Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Trustranking Slashdot (Score:2)
ofc if microsoft copy the idea, it'll be -1 Troll for them.
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good. (Score:2)
grep "[Pp]ublic [Ss]erver" serverlist.lst
Hordes of Lamers for your humiliation needs.
Some points (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.seobook.com/archives/000661.shtml [seobook.com]
I can see dangers in this becoming an elitist thing though, i.e Trusted Sites only linking to other trusted sites, or creating perceptions in surfer's minds. It will be interested to see how Google develop this one, that's for sure.
Re:Some points (Score:2)
Re:Some points (Score:2)
Well, they've gotta learned something from the orkut (sp?) mess.
This Worries Me... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they are not patenting the formula itself, but just the idea of using such a formula, it seems...
This seems like another case of taking an obvious idea and trying to block the competition by patenting it.
Never Be Evil . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
TrustRank? (Score:1, Funny)
If anyone is willing to accept these money orders, may you send me a laptop computer? The one I am using is falling to peices. Please contact me at Muabobu Mitchel "MM20012127@gmail.com", and I'll send you the money orders after you send two DELL laptops to 342 Vood
So, now we know how to scam it (Score:2)
Astroturf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Astroturf (Score:2)
Idea vs. implementation... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea isn't exactly new...refereed and peer-reviewed professional journals have been doing something along these lines for decades. Google, as I read it, is attempting to apply some basic scholarly principles to their listings.
Now the bad news...I don't think it will work as described. Counting "number of bureaux cited" or hops from originator isn't exactly going to keep faked articles off their listings; as someone else already pointed out, it may be a matter of shucking out the cash for a domain that suddenly gets listed as "high trust level." Then that domain can be used to post pretty much whatever they want to make people think is accurate journalism.
Sorry...I like the concept of automating the tedious task of fact-checking, but until Google can get their clusters' AI well beyond the Turing-test phase, it's not going to happen. Humans will still need to examine articles and references and make decisions as to whether a particular submission is, in fact, valid and accurate.
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a root beer or something...
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Google to tell you who to trust? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google to tell you who to trust? (Score:4, Funny)
Too much work. It's just easier to do what Google tells me to do.
Re:Google to tell you who to trust? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't intend to substitute Googles validation for my common sense. But when I go to Google for news, and click on one of the top few stories on a particular topic, I want to have some expectation that I'm probably getting a reasonably trustworthy news source.
Currently I do this by scanning for one I've heard of. Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC News, hell, even Al Jazeera and CNN: All of these may have biases, but I have some idea what they are, and they can all be expected to try for accuracy about the basic facts.
For more obscure stories, this doesn't necessarily work. So I'm perfectly glad to hear Google will be making some attempt to weed out those "news" sources which, to put it kindly, do not try for accuracy about the basic facts.
Links And The Linking Links That Link To Them ... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but you forgot... (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, but you forgot... (Score:2)
Chickens (Score:1)
Is It in Beta? (Score:3, Funny)
Already been done (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Already been done (Score:1)
question (Score:2)
This can only be good (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe when you search for DSL you'll see companies at the top that deserve that ranking and the companies that fall down who think they should be first would improve how they treat their customers.
Peer pressure at it's finest.
New York Times (Score:2)
Now Google is starting to go too far. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideally everyone would use common sense, but so few people have that anymore that it's almost quaint to suggest it.
Re:Now Google is starting to go too far. (Score:2)
"Common sense ain't all that common"
-Samuel Clemmons
(I probably screwed up the quotation, but it was very close to that.)
Sooooo, what is the trust rank of CBS? (Score:1)
What is the trust rank of CBS? Of 60 Minutes?
Re:Sooooo, what is the trust rank of CBS? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Trust in the eye of the beholder (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps Google will need to introduce right-wing and left-wing versions of TrustRank. If it does not, then it will be an example of tyranny of the majority when Google asserts than the majority's bias is trustworthy.
Re:Trust in the eye of the beholder (Score:2)
Trusted by whom (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrates are exactly the opposite. What should TrustRank do about that? I don't see any way to reconcile stuff like that.
Re:Trusted by whom (Score:1)
For me thats the true power of google's massive database, what do I look at, and how can I find things I need faster. Give me USEFUL information from sources similar to those i have used before.
Re:Trusted by whom (Score:2)
The problem I see with self-selecting the news you get is that you're soon only going to be getting facts which validate your prejudices and confirm the decisions you've already made. Of course, we're already headed there with Air America, Fox News and soforth.
Re:Trusted by whom (Score:2)
Re:Trusted by whom (Score:2)
whuffie (Score:2)
now where do I back myself up?
ref is to here [amazon.com] for those not down with the ad hoc's
so no more /. (Score:2)
Algorithm for Trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Quality on the other hand is very hard to measure, and any definition will surely be controversial. The metrics they are proposing will also benefit large well knwown news sources.
What I would really like though is a rank that gave the widest possible perspective. Some algorithm that would take a news event and define some broad categories of news sources (say, on news on Iraq, conservative american media, liberal american, iraqi, arab, etc.). Then one or two representatives of each category would be displayed in the ranks, choosen among the cotegory by the metrics described in the article. The trick of course is to define the categories, but I think one could do that by looking at how different sources 'cluster' together. Sources in one country link overwhelmingly among themselves rather than abroad. Conservative news sources tend to cite and link to other conservatives, ditto for liberals or any other category. This is even more true for blogs, which wouldn't be much cited in the rank itself, but are a sort of glue that binds ideological and national categories together, and thus provide useful information to help classify the news source.
I hope I'm making sense here. Just my 2cents...
Re:Algorithm for Trust (Score:2)
True, but in the Iraq exemple for instance Id like a view from a representative news source from, say, and Arab paper, an Iraqi paper and perhaps, say, a american soldiers blog taht mentions the incident first hand. Each of these sources would be identified automaticaly by google because they are each the most popular, and trusted acording
Another Google Article? (Score:1)
This kind of blind horn blowing for a company is why Google's stock is
Re:Another Google Article? (Score:3, Insightful)
So in short, knowing about what makes a #1 result a #1 result is critically important. We are moving from a phase where relevance & the work of hucksters looking for higher rankings drove search ranks to a new era, where "credibility" and political considerations will drive the results.
just boils down to (Score:1)
You Want Prior Art? (Score:2, Interesting)
My Trustrank algorithms... (Score:4, Funny)
IF author = 'DiDio' THEN TRUST=NADA AND MICROSOFT_SHILL = 1
IF topic = 'SCO' THEN RELEVENCE TO ANYONE = RELEVANCE TO ANYONE - 1000
IF quoted_source = 'Marc Andressen' THEN WHO_FUCKING_CARES = 1
IF news_organization = 'FOX' then BULLSHIT_IS_AFOOT = 1.
Re:My Trustrank algorithms... (Score:2)
Isvestia nye Pravda, y Pravda nye Isvestia (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, well. Google News was nice while it lasted.
we need something like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone probably has some internal list of sources they trust, but maintaining such a list is very hard.
If TrustRank could be done and done right (???) then it would be a wonderful service.
But, can any corporation be trusted to do this? Surely they would eventually start to 'sell' higher trust ratings? I 'trust' google, but it is still a corporation and it's job is to make money.
Political implications (Score:3, Insightful)
What "trust rank" would you give Al Jazeera, for example?
It is a state-owned, but journalistically largely independent big satellite network with a lot of staff and a huge audience. Just from an area of the world that might have different views.
MOD PARENT UP. (Score:4, Insightful)
I always paid attention to which news sites does the Google algorithm chooses to use as a primary source to a news item, and they are, more often than not, American sites. Anyway, news.google.com has been an useful source, since you can click on "all 1,777 related" and browse through the headlines and see the varying oppinions around the world. Example: this one was picked as a headline:
Bush Promotes New Plan for Social Security as Benefit to Young
In the other headlines, you see other views:
In the end, nothing beats reading the news from a number of different news sources. Unfortunately, most people don't do that.
Sites that I trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sites that I trust (Score:2)
But that wouldn't solve the problem of people who just put out shite and are effectively unaccountable for it. Sure, YOU get your news from the sources you want and believe to be true, but I'd also like to be able to see what "TrustRank thinks is valid" as an indicator. Not that I'd trust it alone but it might be a good source among 2 or 3 to determine validity.
It's a great idea! (Score:1)
Recently it seems that some San Francisco Real Estate site was getting high ranks for its barely literate ramblings on news topics that had nothing to do with real estate. This isn't about squashing the small guy - this is about getting a news story that is literate. I, for one, will welcome a day when I don't have to scroll down to the 153rd link on a story to find some
Parody news articles and trustrank (Score:1)
Instead of only selecting news from the top 200 or so sources, wouldn't it be better if Google did the opposite and filtered out known unre
Difference to Advogato's trust metric? (Score:2)
Is Google implementing the same algorithm?
Re:Patent? (Score:2, Funny)