Google's Search Results Begin Prioritizing 'Original Reporting' (thehill.com) 34
In the future Google will promote news articles that feature original reporting in its search results, the Hill reports.
"While we typically show the latest and most comprehensive version of a story in news results, we've made changes to our products globally to highlight articles that we identify as significant original reporting," Richard Gingras, Google's vice president of news, said in a blog post. "Such articles may stay in a highly visible position longer. This prominence allows users to view the original reporting while also looking at more recent articles alongside it." On top of the change for individual articles, Google's search raters will also begin identifying outlets that have a track record of original reporting in order to boost their content in search results...
For Google, the shift will mostly come in a change in guidelines for the 10,000 employees at the company who operate its search algorithms. The guidelines will now emphasize promoting an article that "provides information that would not otherwise have been known had the article not revealed it." And it will push raters to boost outlets with strong journalistic reputations. "Prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer Prize award, or a history of high quality original reporting are strong evidence of positive reputation," the new guidelines read.
For Google, the shift will mostly come in a change in guidelines for the 10,000 employees at the company who operate its search algorithms. The guidelines will now emphasize promoting an article that "provides information that would not otherwise have been known had the article not revealed it." And it will push raters to boost outlets with strong journalistic reputations. "Prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer Prize award, or a history of high quality original reporting are strong evidence of positive reputation," the new guidelines read.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Conservatives have been complaining about that for the better part of the decade, and the reality is, it's true. Go back to the first round of adsense removal from conservative news sites...all the way back in 2009.
Re:Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
News should be independent without any political bent. Anything else is just editorializing.
Re: (Score:1)
News should be independent without any political bent. Anything else is just editorializing.
Wake me up when it happens. Because that's never been true, the best you can aim for is being as neutral as possible. I'll remind you about the NYT, a particular reporter, who was awarded for covering up Stalin's crimes.
Re:Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd say I read around 20-25 different publications per-day. Everything from Canadian to US, to French, German and Japanese. The absolute worst offenders in publishing garbage are the "international dailies" that mainly exist to keep expats or people wanting to expand their duo-lingual ability. That's rounded out by western "core" press, NYT, WAPO, USA Today, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail(tho give them credit for their current ball busting against Trudeau Jr) in terms of print. The only times that you see
Re: Wait for it... (Score:2)
The right thing to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Reuters and Associated Press probably won't be to happy, it will be interesting to see how this develops.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, they'll be thrilled. Almost all reporting, even in major papers, comes from Reuters and AP news alerts.
Re: The right thing to do (Score:2)
I know. My thinking is that only one of these stories would be listed high in the google search results, devaluing the rest.
Re: The right thing to do (Score:2)
On the face of it, it looks like the right thing to do. But since the decisions are made by algorithms, not humans, they will be gamed just as Google's algorithms have in the past. What they have most likely come up with is the perfect promotional platform for fake news and conspiracy theories, because from the description, these would appear to be rewarded quite favorably by the chosen criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Protectionism hasn't, doesn't, and won't, work. (Score:1)
Re: Protectionism hasn't, doesn't, and won't, work (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Original fake news then.
So, to get it straight, (Score:3, Insightful)
It's now better to report something as soon as you have a hint of what might be going on and speculate wildly to fill in the gaps instead of waiting for all the facts?
Doesn't sound like anything is changing.
Re: (Score:2)
Google already ranks reputable news sources higher. Reputable sources stick to the known facts.
They have been doing it for a while in order to fight fake news.
Thank Goodness (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All Google has to be thinking to make this decision is that they want more relevant search results. I don't generally want metacommentary, as it is usually less informed than the source article. I really only want the original most of the time. If I know I want something else, I can search for that specifically.
What I really want... (Score:2)
What I would prefer is for them not to link to forum posts that ask a question but never give an answer. It is annoying when looking for the answer to a problem to get inundated with results that are simply other people having the same problem. I want solutions, not solidarity.
Re: (Score:1)
What's worse is that they've deprioritized most forum posts altogether. If I have a problem with my FooBarXYZ123, or I want to know how the FooBarXYZ123 differs from the BarFu321ZYX, the first page is typically spam from vendors off
Good Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
This arose because original reporting was getting hijacked by copycats. Good intentions.
What are the un-intended consequences? Well, for one, original reporting by non-organizatons or very small organizations will be suppressed, as will criticism of "original" reporting.
How do I know this? I don't. I couldn't. Because Google isn't open-sourcing their "algorithm."
Re: (Score:1)
How far back in history? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer Prize award, or a history of high quality original reporting are strong evidence of positive reputation," the new guidelines read.
I have to wonder how far back in history they're looking for a "positive reputation". Several media outlets that used to have very good reputations have gone way downhill in recent years (NYT, WaPo and CNN in particular).
Re:How far back in history? (Score:4, Insightful)
Both NYT and WaPo got Pulitzers for reporting on Trump-Russia collusion, which turned out to be a conspiracy theory. Sounds like a good metric for quality reporting.
just like /.! (Score:2)
No results found. (Score:3)
Original? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Google is prioritizing the establishment (Score:2)
Like the pulitzer for fake news Russia gate? (Score:1)
A person talking about what they saw? (Score:1)
A short clip of a politician having health problems while trying to give a speech?
Coughing fits? Allergy? Is that original reporting?
A person who worked as a freelance journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and got the video?
The event happened, it can be seen, the video exists.
Who in an ad company and video platform gets to say when the 'Original Reporting' ends?
Only the freelance journalist at the political event who saw the political with the health problem can do