Google to use TrustRank for News, Possibly More

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

[DeadSea]

From what I have read about trust rank, the basic premise is that they pick 200 or so "trusted sites". The trust rank for any page is then basically the number of link hops to the page from a trusted site.

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

[MankyD]

Interesting points, but I find it hard to believe that Google, (or any other competent company implementing something like this,) hasn't had the forethought to avoid these pitfalls. We still don't know entirely how trust rank works, mind you.

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[Psiolent]

I find it hard to believe that Google, (or any other competent company implementing something like this,) hasn't had the forethought to avoid these pitfalls.

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

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

All Bullshit.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You will not be able to stay home, brother.
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

[utexaspunk]

Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. That's Gil Scott-Heron.

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Gawd.
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

[utexaspunk]

really? i'd imagine most slashdotters haven't even heard that before, much less know who it was... let's hope you're right :)

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[smittyoneeach]

Will the internet increase the turnover frequency, as all DBE sources go PHB, to be replaced by "untainted" ones?
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

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I got TLAs OFA! (Out my F****** A**) ;-)

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[smittyoneeach]

So, if the TLA is Obviously Fscked Up, does that make it TOFU?
I worry about stuff like that...

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[d34thm0nk3y]

They are gonna have to do something. The signal to noise ration has been steadily worsening as more and more people are figuring out how to game the pagerank system.

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[Psiolent]

The open directory projects seems to me to be a candidate for a trusted site.

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?

[DeadSea]

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?

[Psiolent]

Here you are: http://dmoz.org/profiles/deadsea.html [dmoz.org]

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

[Chyeld]

Simple solution, don't publish who you trust, just publish the results.

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[twbecker]

From what I have read about trust rank, the basic premise is that they pick 200 or so "trusted sites". The trust rank for any page is then basically the number of link hops to the page from a trusted site.

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

[Shotgun]

Which is even worse that just picking 200 or so 'trusted sites'.

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

[Eternally optimistic]

There seems to me a fundamental problem with a single number for this purpose. Some sources are low-trust because the are unknowns, others because the have an established agenda, still others because they are habitually dishonest. Even worse, say you have the number 1 quality source about disk drives, do you now trust them about gardening tips?

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[cybermage]

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

[js7a]

Sheesh! I hope I will still be able to sort by date.

Re:I see problems coming if Google uses trust rank

[pipingguy]

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?

[awhelan]

Can we know this for sure? Has google confirmed it? What is the trustrank of newscientist.com ?

Re:Trustrank?

[A beautiful mind]

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Netcraft confirms".

Slashdot's News Rotation

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google
2. Apple
3. Firefox
4. Your Rights are being stolen!
5. Microsoft sucks.

Rinse. Repeat.

Re:Slashdot's News Rotation

[Taladar]

You forgot:

6. Ask /. : I have an important question concerning the future of my career and I ask you, the /. experts what to do.

Re:Slashdot's News Rotation

[wgaryhas]

Get 2 MicroATX motherboards, and 2 powersupplies and put them in 1 case, with gigabit network connection between the 2. Then set them up with a version of linux designed for grid computing. (I wish I had thought of this when I first saw the question)

Re:Slashdot's News Rotation

[Spy der Mann]

Rinse. Repeat.

Estimated TrustRank: Zero.

Re:Slashdot's News Rotation

[pipingguy]

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

[Phil246]

also forgot the occasional sco-bashing story.

Nice prediction!

[MarkByers]

Just two stories later, 'Your Rights Online: The SCO Trial Through A New Lens'.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/04/29/1950245.shtml ?tid=123&tid=136&tid=88&tid=155 [slashdot.org]

Re:Nice prediction!

[Phil246]

heh I think it was more through luck then prediction :D
That said i suppose it was inevitable another SCO story would pop up again

The Mighty Morphin Slashdot Rangers???

[game kid]

Well as long as they don't take orders from a giant bluish face, or combine one day into a Megadupe, that's all right with me.

Now to figure out how to equate trolls with Bulk and Skull and flamers with Rita and Zedd...

Re:Slashdot's News Rotation

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Hey, you forgot Star Wars! Star Wars!!!! STAR WARS! (well ok maybe HHGTTG or some other scifi movie).

Rinse. Repeat.

Goodness, is that before or after the hot grits?

Re:Slashdot's News Rotation

[roastedMnM]

*nix

Trustranking Slashdot

[lildogie]

I'll be fascinated to see how Slashdot articles get ranked.

Re:Trustranking Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why Slashdot ever makes it on Google News. They rarely 'report' anything, just link to other articles.

Re:Trustranking Slashdot

[MarkByers]

Slashdot takes a lot of articles and stories from a large number of websites, the editors check them for errors and ensure quality. In theory at least. ;)

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

[ncc74656]

Slashdot takes a lot of articles and stories from a large number of websites, the editors check them for errors and ensure quality. In theory at least. ;)

You're new here, aren't you? :-)

Re:Trustranking Slashdot

[kniLnamiJ-neB]

if (SlashdotPage.search("Google"))
{ return(BEST_RANK_EVAR); }

Re:Trustranking Slashdot

[alexhs]

if (SlashdotPage.search("Google"))
{ return(BEST_RANK_EVAR); }

error: `BEST_RANK_EVAR' undeclared (first use in this function)

Re:Trustranking Slashdot

[Phil246]

+5 fanboyism Ofc
ofc if microsoft copy the idea, it'll be -1 Troll for them.

Good.

[Telastyn]

Now for the gamespy implimentation to see what servers are filled with lamers... Now that'd be useful!

Re:Good.

[Doctor O]

Come on. That one is easy.

grep "[Pp]ublic [Ss]erver" serverlist.lst

Hordes of Lamers for your humiliation needs.

Some points

[Sv-Manowar]

The basic ideas and principles of TrustRank:
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

[Neophytus]

If the sites selected as parents are hand monitored well enough then google should be able to pick up on them, for example, selling off links for profit. Seeing as there shouldn't be too many, this could be entirely possible if spread across the workforce.

Re:Some points

[nutshell42]

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.

Well, they've gotta learned something from the orkut (sp?) mess.

This Worries Me...

[smug_lisp_weenie]

Basically what they patented (from what I gather) is the idea of taking many factoids about a news company and putting it into a balanced formula to create a "trust" number.

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 . . .

[kingjosh]

Isn't this behavior outside their mission statement? If Google's just going to be another patent farm and start using geniuses to come up with obvious ideas, I'd hardly call that not being evil . . . but that's just me.

TrustRank?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, bow to Our skunk protocol. You will give us your food, or we'll raise git on Our handstand and point our tail at you as the O'reilly spotted skunk found only in the most dense Amazon.com forests of the United Nigerian estates of America.

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 "[e-mail]", 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

[192939495969798999]

If you just get one link from a "trusted" site to some really un-trusted site, then POW! Down goes Frasier! I guess we'll know when that happens, because the top Google news stories will be teenage sluts, casinos, and cialis.

Astroturf

[Doc Ruby]

"Trust, but verify." - Ronnie "Rayguns" Reagan

Re:Astroturf

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, his speechwriter was clever enough to use a Russian proverb when writing lines for Bonzo's role as a negotiator with them. Much like Kennedy's script in opposing the Berlin blocade, without the reference to the donut.

Idea vs. implementation...

[TVmisGuided]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

foxnews.com just disappeared entirely from the Internet.

Google to tell you who to trust?

[winkydink]

Do you really need Google for this? Or is Google validation going to substitute for your own common sense?

Re:Google to tell you who to trust?

[lucabrasi999]

your own common sense?

Too much work. It's just easier to do what Google tells me to do.

Re:Google to tell you who to trust?

[2short]

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 ...

[rewinn]

... didn't Al Franken write that book already?

Yeah, but you forgot...

[game kid]

...the "A Fair and Balanced Search for Your Site" subtitle.

Re:Yeah, but you forgot...

[T-Ranger]

/me registers amifairandbalancedornot.com

Chickens

[Virtual Karma]

I have heard that this time they are using chickens instead of pegions [google.com] for the ranking system. Is it true?

Is It in Beta?

[lbmouse]

Did they copyright "TrustRank" or "TrustRank Beta"?

Already been done

[costas]

Well, this is (half) a shameless plug but my newsbot [memigo.com] has been ranking news sources and referring meta-news sources according to "trust" for over 3 yrs now. Findory [findory.com] (no affiliation) does something similar by ranking each individual news story.

Re:Already been done

[deutschemonte]

I just checked it out and joined, shameless plug or not, it's a great idea.

question

[justforaday]

How will this affect all those litigious bastards or miserable failures out there?

This can only be good

[Bruha]

As long as the rankings are fair and handled in a responsible matter then Google stands to give consumers the power that they have lacked for a long time. Companies will take note that if their trust ranking suffers from bad consumer reports then they will begin to pay attention.

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

[hey]

Well, the New York Times is one of the most trusted publications in the country. Oh, wait it isn't any more.

Now Google is starting to go too far.

[kin_korn_karn]

So Google wants to be the web's authoritative source on what sites can be trusted? I don't think I like the sound of that. No one entity should have that job.

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.

[Shotgun]

Anymore?!

"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?

[wowbagger]

Sooooo....

What is the trust rank of CBS? Of 60 Minutes?

Re:Sooooo, what is the trust rank of CBS?

[paranoic]

About the same as W.

Trust in the eye of the beholder

[G4from128k]

Given that ALL news sources or sites have some bias, isn't trust in the eye of the beholder in many cases? Although the objective facts of some situation may be undisputed (usually these are disputed, too), the interpretation of those facts is subjective and highly dependent on the viewpoint, world model, etc.

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

[metamatic]

Well, there's a difference between biased presentation of facts, and insisting on the right to broadcast things you acknowledge are outright lies [nomorefakenews.com]...

Trusted by whom

[hey]

Reblicans trust The Free Republic [freerepublic.com] but distrust The Nation [thenation.com].
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

[hamlet2600]

I think if "trust rank" was user specific sort of the way search history works that would be ideal. You clicked on the link from the news which means 1) the article interests you and 2) you trust or are interested in what the source has to say.

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

[flyingsquid]

think if "trust rank" was user specific sort of the way search history works that would be ideal. You clicked on the link from the news which means 1) the article interests you and 2) you trust or are interested in what the source has to say.

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

[kin_korn_karn]

Google will give the higher TrustRank rating to the site that the government tells them to give it to.

Re:Trusted by whom

[hey]

No, I wasn't trying to slight either party.

whuffie

[byrd77]

one step closer to whuffie...

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 /.

[capoccia]

so that means no more slashdot on news.google.com? with all the duplicate stories, inflamitory and incorrect analysis, and bogus stories, slashdot has to be near the bottom of the heap.

Algorithm for Trust

[wronski]

There are two main ways of ranking news (as well as websites and whatnot): Popularity or Quality. Popularity can be easily quantified, but with news you will probably end up with big and well known media source dominating the ranking. Regardless of what one thinks about CNN or BBC, they are not what I look for in googlenews (or I would just type www.cnn.com). I want news sources that I was anware of, to give me a fresh perspective.

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

[wronski]

If you were searching for information about a story, you probably WOULD want a cnn article over some random blog opinion piece that may or may not have any real facts

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?

[Cheirdal]

I use Google a LOT at work and at home. Google is a great search engine that most people use every day. We're going to read about the new functionality on their site when they implement it. I don't understand the obsessive need that some people feel to follow everything that Google does. This is like writing a new article every time a car manufacturer adds a new feature. "The New Corvette to feature a digital clock on the dashboard...".

This kind of blind horn blowing for a company is why Google's stock is

Re:Another Google Article?

[duffbeer703]

Google is important because millions of people use it multiple times per day. Many people don't even type URLs into their browsers directly anymore... they just enter website names into the google toolbar or homepage.

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

[ahdeoz]

how much you trust google

You Want Prior Art?

[lofi-rev]

I got your prior art http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=116588&cid=986 5259 [slashdot.org]">right here.

My Trustrank algorithms...

[GPLDAN]

IF author = 'Enderle' THEN TRUST=ZILCH AND BONEHEAD = 1.

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...

[Shotgun]

IF news_organization = 'FOX' && subjec = 'CBS' then DAN_RATHER_LYING_AGAIN = 1.

Isvestia nye Pravda, y Pravda nye Isvestia

[John Hasler]

From the article I conclude that the old Soviet Union's news services would have ranked very high.

Oh, well. Google News was nice while it lasted.

we need something like this

[Qwavel]

The internet provides us with such unlimited info that the problem is no longer finding information, it is deciding who to trust.

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

[Heraklit]

There will be political implications of this new ranking system. I bet nobody has really thought this through...

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.

[HishamMuhammad]

This will be a very interesting thing to watch.

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:

• Bush Speech Fuels Capitol Debate Over Social Security's Future
• Bush on offensive as ratings hit floor
• Bush Plan Would Cut Benefits
• Bush pitches plan to fix Social Security finances
• For first time, Bush backs benefit cuts to help bolster Social ...
• Bush vs. The Press

And from here you can read articles from the various dissenting views. To me, that's the main utility of news.google.com. I wonder if TrustRank is going to start favoring sites such as CNN... after all, they're "America's most trusted news source" (according to themselves, at least).

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

[sapped]

How about over time Google learns which sites I trust and modifies the ranking according to that. We could give each site a thumbs up or down rating like you do on a TiVO.

Re:Sites that I trust

[rsborg]

How about over time Google learns which sites I trust and modifies the ranking according to that.

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!

[Skippy_kangaroo]

The number of times I have used Google News and clicked on the top link only to get some barely literate ramblings are too many to count.

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

[zoogies]

I have concerns that trustrank will limit the variety of news we get from Google News search, but I'm wondering if it will get rid of parody search results at the top. A few weeks ago, I did a google news search on John Kerry, and got several parody articles near the top...with all due respect to their sense of humor, I think there are more important articles than that.

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?

[danpat]

http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html [advogato.org]
Is Google implementing the same algorithm?

Re:Patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

algorithm (v, tr) - a sequence of operations to perform a task (modern, from "Al Gore, Rhythm", Albert Gore Jr (1946-?) being a popular politician and American Vice President (1992-2000) reknowned for his command of logic, co-joined with "Rhythm" to infer repetition.)