Google Is Removing 'In the News' Section From Desktop Search After Criticism (businessinsider.com) 74
Google today confirmed that it is removing "In the news" section from the top of desktop search, and replacing it with a carousel of "Top stories," similar to what exists on mobile. From a new report on BusinessInsider: This move had been planned for quite some time, and is being rolled out globally, according to Google. The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product. Last month, Google faced scrutiny when one of its top results for "final election count" was fake news. The top result in Google Search's "In the news" section was a Wordpress blog named "70 News," which falsely claimed Trump won the popular vote by a margin of almost 700,000. (He didnâ(TM)t). Google's search results, in contrast to Google News, are not assessed for "truth."
planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
only after they X2 the votes in her in the recount.
Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:4, Insightful)
thats not how it works. the rules were long standing and clear, its about electors in the states. Its like baseball - the Indians scored more runs than the Cubs in the World Series but who won?
Re: (Score:2)
Different rules would see different vote counts (Score:2)
> In more sensible sports, like soccer, the Indians would
> have won, because you take the aggregate score.
There were a lot of discouraged Republicans who didn't vote in California and New York, because they knew ahead of time that their votes wouldn't make a difference under the current winner-takes-all system. In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
In a popular-vote election, those Republicans would've had the incentive to go and vote, and the vote count would've been different. Trump could've won the popular vote.
Under a different system we could have had a different result. That's why is it ridiculous to pretend that the results of a different system today mean anything. Ignorant people didn't know what they were doing when they voted; they are not a reason to assume they meant something specific and coerce the result to match. ("Dimpled chads" is one of those kinds of things, too.)
I'll just point out that even the "popular vote" system that the losers want to convert to for this election is a "winner-takes-all" s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, she now leads by 2.7 million votes
And yet she lost.
Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The only election that counts has not occurred. That's December 19, 2016, and it's not the foregone conclusion that some of Mr. Trump's supporters claim. For one thing, as Secretary Clinton's popular vote margin continues to rise, there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors. For another, eight electors have already announced intent not to vote for their party's nominee.
Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:4, Insightful)
The only election that counts has not occurred.
I realize that you love jumping down my throat for every little thing you can, but if "the only election that counts" has not occurred, then I am absolutely correct in saying that she has not won the only election that counts.
And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted. The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process?
Because the process is that those electors were elected to vote for a specific person. They pledged to do so when they were selected.
The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios.
What are "those scenarios"? Protests in the streets demanding the overturn of the results? Petitions demanding the same? No, sorry. Those scenarios are not part of the process. We have elections, not mob rule. The "popular vote" cannot be one of those scenarios because there IS no popular vote defined as part of the process. It is a fiction. It is something used by people who lost the actual election to try to get the real results overturned. (And by those who "win" by a huge number as proof of a mandate -- just as silly.)
Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.
What utter nonsense. Do you work for the Ministry of Truth? Were you someone Orwell warned us of?
The electors who are saying they will reject the result of their state are being the same hypocrites who claimed they would not support the Republican nominee, after demanding that Trump pledge that HE would support the Republican nominee when they expected him to lose.
Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:3)
Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score:4, Insightful)
First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil.
I've kept it civil, and I made that comment based on a posting history.
The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned.
So the pledge to vote the way the voters of the state that elected them want them to means nothing. The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.
And no, the system was not designed so that the results of other states are intended to influence the electors for anyplace else. Montana electors are not supposed to care what the voters in Oregon or California do. They're Montana's electors. And Ohio's electors are Ohio's, not New York's. Etc. etc. etc.
If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process
I'm accepting the process. The complaints are directed towards those who think some fictional "popular vote" means something. Or a petition calling for a different result. Or a protest march calling for a different result.
So "boohoo" yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
> The fact that they are disenfranchising their voters means nothing.
Not at all. The ability to vote the way _some_ voters of their districts selected, rather than the current "winner-take-all" common practices, would indeed enfranchise many voters from their districts. It's also supported by the Constitution. Even a casual reading of Article II shows that the electors can use their judgment to select a President.
Re: (Score:2)
I love w
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself?
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
and I'm only advocating respect
Boo hoo? Ok.
The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions.
The electors are selected by the voters. The names are on the ballot, the electors know who they are pledging to vote for. If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is tryin
Re: (Score:2)
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you wo
Re: (Score:2)
OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part.
So that would be, of course, the thing you use as an example.
When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors
You want to put words in my mouth, and you're being civil? No, sorry. I said "boo hoo" because you said it, and you were accusing me of being uncivil. I implied no such thing.
My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president,
Other than supporting the changes to the rules that would allow the losing candidate to become the winner, no. It doesn't matter which one won or lost, changing the rules after the fact so the loser wins is wrong. It is a bad thing. I don't care whether it was Trump people c
Re: (Score:2)
You want to put words in my mouth
Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries
There are words you are trying to put in my mouth. "Political adversaries" isn't something I said, it is something you falsely inferred.
So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever.
I didn't have to check anything, and I'm done with you putting words in my mouth.
I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process...
Except you did not do that, because you are wrong. The electors made a pledge to vote for the person who won the state election. That's a fact. If they didn't want to vote for Trump the solution was simple: do not be an elector for Trump. And the process includes state laws that require them to
Re: (Score:1)
And I am well aware that there are people trying to subvert the process that was accepted by all prior to Election Day, but didn't turn out the way that some people wanted.
All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it, many people rejected it through proposals such as the NPVIC, WR, and other means of expressing their dissent with the electoral college, not to mention a certain twittering twitster who called for revolution in 2012.
Seriously, you should not make such provably false claims, many people are on record as expressly opposing the Electoral College, and at most, the majority of people are merely giving their tacit consent.
The losers think they don't need to accept the loss and want the process to change so they win. Petitions have been signed! Protests have been held! Mob rule. How nice.
As a matter of fact, the right of revolution already
Re: (Score:2)
All? Nope. Not everybody accepted it,
Sigh. In context, please. "All" refers to everyone who was subject to the process. The electors, for example. The people who voted knowing that they were picking electors who voted in the Electoral College.
I don't care if ignorant people who don't understand the Electoral College don't agree to what they tacitly approved of when they cast their ballots. I don't care if YOU don't accept it, because you don't define the process.
It's fascinating to watch the tiny minority of people who actually object trying
Re: (Score:2)
there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors
I'm curious how you think that could possibly happen. Historically, individual electors have voted contrary to their commitment, but I doubt that there exists a legal means to unseat an elected slate of electors, short of a recount that flips the state's result.
There is a group of 8 Democratic electors (the so-called "Hamilton Electors" [inquisitr.com]) who say they're going to vote for John Kasich, and a Democratic elector from the state of Washington who says he won't vote for Hillary Clinton. There is a Republican elect [theguardian.com]
Paying the price (Score:2)
The only election that counts has not occurred. That's December 19, 2016, and it's not the foregone conclusion that some of Mr. Trump's supporters claim. For one thing, as Secretary Clinton's popular vote margin continues to rise, there remains the distinct possibility that close states will flip to her slate of electors. For another, eight electors have already announced intent not to vote for their party's nominee.
If you're hoping for that to happen, I hope you also are prepared to pay the price for it.
No one paid much attention to Hillary's rioters because deep down everyone knew that Trump won fair and square. The rules were clear, Hillary had her chance, and didn't make it.
If the electors switch the outcome, about half the country will be up in arms over the results, the half that has most of the arms. Some of the other half will be on our side, some will be apathetic, and only a small slice of the public will be
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, Hillary's rioters. As if anybody believes that right-wing narrative about them being paid protesters whose competence is...nil?
The comment you replied to said nothing about paid protestors, just that there were people rioting for Hillary. There certainly were riots after the election - not very many, mind you, but a few.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about Secretary Clinton becoming President. At this point, the best outcome would be for her to endorse a moderate Republican that even those representatives and senators opposed to Mr. Trump can support.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's fix. Brilliant! (Score:4, Insightful)
*Google finds folder with kiddie porn*
*Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*
"There we go, that should do it."
Re: (Score:2)
*Google finds folder with kiddie porn*
*Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*
"There we go, that should do it."
Well, it is the difference between the "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" sections, so in this case it does do it. (Yes, I know that lately all "News" is a bit of fiction, but that is another story...)
Re: (Score:2)
*Google finds folder with kiddie porn*
*Right-clicks on folder, re-names it stuff*
"There we go, that should do it."
Well, it is the difference between the "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction" sections, so in this case it does do it. (Yes, I know that lately all "News" is a bit of fiction, but that is another story...)
The fact that a lot of "News" is a bit of fiction (which is a caveat you felt rather compelled to add here), is more like the story.
I suppose time will tell if the audience actually gives a shit to separate fact from fiction anymore, regardless of Google's efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose time will tell if the audience actually gives a shit to separate fact from fiction anymore, regardless of Google's efforts.
None of the news orginazations give a damn about fact and fiction anymore, it is actually getting pretty hard to tell what is fact anymore as there is no authoritative source for looking up fact.
Re: (Score:2)
More like Google had it's porn in 2 different locations. One folder for softcore and one folder for hardcore, except they were both named hardcore. So they just removed the word hardcore from the incorrect folder and left it just as "porn".
News? (Score:1)
Who's deciding what's fake and what isn't? Yes, real journalism requires work. Propaganda can be pulled out of any asshole.
After Criticism (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:After Criticism (Score:4, Informative)
I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on a search to current item of interest. ... snip...
It sucks if Google is removing this feature, and it sucks even more if it is being done because of "Criticism".
They're not. They are removing the "news" stories you get as part of search results which are related to whatever the crawler picks up. The actual news button at the top will remain and the news search function will too as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Probably because they're real news sites, with real reporters, who go out into war zones, or visit earthquake survivors or flood victims or report on government waste. You know, what real news organizations do.
Unlike those fake news sites like Breitbart who twist other people's work to suit their propaganda needs.
Just because CNN, the New York Times and so on report facts about Trum
Re: (Score:1)
You do know that all three said Trump would lose right? That North Korea was fueling their nukes for a preemptive strike against us any time now every couple of years when the news cycle is slow. All three said Iraq had WMD's. All three said our elections could not possibly be tampered with. Then when Trump won, all three ran articles about Russia tampering with the election.
They are frauds and only ignorant fools and useful idiots believe them.
Improve your searches (Score:2)
> I often used the NEWS link in Google search to filter out the results I got back on
> a search to current item of interest. For example, if I'm concerned about a
> particular recent earthquake I use the NEWS link to focus my search result to just
> recent news rather than encyclopedia like entries about earthquakes in general.
1) On the upper-left side of the search-result screen you get the following list...
Any time
Past hour
AI Story (Score:2)
so their AI can't figure a fake news from real news...
good to know in the future when AI rule i can pronounce myself an AI inhabiting a meat Popsicle.
Re: (Score:1)
nor can most trump supporters apparently
Or CNN viewers...
Main Search Product (Score:3, Informative)
The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product.
Google's main product is advertising and user info (to better target advertising), not search.
Re: (Score:2)
The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product.
Google's main product is advertising and user info (to better target advertising), not search.
Google's main product is our eyeballs, which they sell to the advertisers.
We don't pay anything to Google the way a new Chevy rolling off of the assembly line doesn't pay anything to General Motors. They get their money when someone buys the Chevy.
ctrl-v strikes again (Score:2)
And this tired observation moves the discussion forward how exactly?
I've seen this helpful ctrl-v "eyeballs are the product" contribution more than a 100 and probably less than a 1000 times since I joined Slashdot.
Add some useful context? Ah, fuck it. ctrl-v has miles to go before it sleeps.
Re: (Score:2)
What discussion? What needs to be moved forward?
It's a simple fact that people need to be reminded of.
If anything, things need to be rolled back.
To those people who don't understand what this is (Score:4, Informative)
Google is NOT removing the "News" section. What they are removing (actually have removed) is "news" stories as part of the the search results. These were whatever relevant thing the crawler picked up. e.g. If you searched for "Brexit" you would invariably get some "news" stories at the top of your search results. Now you get a "Top Stories" section.
You can still click "news" in the heading to get the normal Google News results which are vetted by a person rather than Google's standard crawler algorithm.
Re: To those people who don't understand what this (Score:1)
Easy mistake to make, The Daily Mail is a hate filled gutter rag, not a news organisation.
He didnâ(TM)t (Score:2)
You misspelled "Renaming" (Score:2)
"Google Is Renaming 'In the News' Section From Desktop Search After Criticism" - FTFY
three large screens (Score:2)
Carousels can suck it.
I've whipped up CSS Userscripts to remove them from web pages more than once, lest I click on one in a moment of weakness (which I always regret 3 s later).
Old motto: there's another fish in the sea. This maxim is true, also, regarding web content. But it often helps to enforce this programmatically.