I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today 02:19 - Mar 24 with 5097 views | monytowbray | Considering it's very relevant to my work and there are so many facts that have been overlooked, such as how search engines work. Political yes, but from what I'd bravely consider to be an expert perspective... http://callismakesfilms.co.uk/blog/seo-marketing/google-terrorism-facts-daily-ma Happy to debate this or go into detail if anyone has any questions. | |
| | |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:45 - Mar 28 with 836 views | yorkshireblue |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 02:39 - Mar 25 by The_Romford_Blue | Good stuff Callis A couple of things suprised me: - 2 million google searches per minute. That's a ridiculously high figure. - 15-20% of searches are new. Years ago in school, me and my mates used to play googlewhack which is basically trying to get a search in with just 1 result. Suprised so many are new searches entirely though. |
He actually undersold it, it's closer to 2.5 million searches per minute, over 40,000 per second. http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-search-engine-facts-2016-3?r=US&IR=T/#first | | | |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:47 - Mar 28 with 826 views | monytowbray |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 10:17 - Mar 25 by Superfrans | Really interesting piece, Callis. Thanks for that. I take your point about it being a grey area as to whether Google should or shouldn't try to block or make it more difficult to find certain types of content. Personally, I believe that illegal content should absolutely be blocked/delisted *wherever possible* None of us would argue about child pornography being blocked, I'm sure, which suggests that it isnt grey at all - some content should be blocked and some not, it simply depends on where you draw the line. And, as I say, the line for me is illegal content - and that includes terrorist handbooks, as well as pirate material etc. The next question is what can be done. As you say, it is pretty much impossible to block every page. But services such as Google can do more than they do. Sites can be delisted. Many will quickly be replaced by other sites, of course, but you can only control what you can control - and in my view they should do what they can. It is no defence to not do what you can, just because there is certain other action that you are not able to take. If that makes sense. Google have just agreed to take action against pirate music and film sites, essentially agreeing to ensure that such sites don't come up at the top search rankings if and when you ask for a movie or music download. And they do take action and delist sites which they know to be distributing illegal pornographic content. And so they should. Where the Mail would have a point (and I'm afraid I'm not going to give them my money, so won't read their content) is if they have found some kind of terrorist guide/handbook using Google, that they then informed Google and Google refused to delist it. They should indeed delist content which attempts to enable illegal action. This is all aside from the fact that, surely, everyone knows how to drive a car into a crowd of pedestrians, of course. [Post edited 25 Mar 2017 10:20]
|
Interestingly the child porn example come up on my fb thread when I shared this, granted by a complete loon who refused to accept fact, but none the less, I will explain again for someone of more sound mind :) Google's AI is smart enough to understand image content or stills from videos (see google reverse image search if you want to have a go yourself). As you can guess, identifying a naked body in an image would be possible, even if a child (grim thought I know) and therefore this content can be blocked with more likelihood the content in question is guilty. What Google's AI can't do is understand the context of an article. Any algorithm that tried to do this with the current level of Google's AI abilities would almost certainly make an a*se up of it, be it letting things slip through the net or hammering sites that aren't actively promoting terrorism but simply talking about it. The ironic thing here is that if Google made any hasty moves to hash these kinds of blocks the Daily Mail itself would probably fall foul of it and lost web traffic as a result. Plus, as someone rightly said on the same FB thread through a few Google searches gone wrong whilst working on a seedy spam site, you can still find all kinds of illegal things on Google child porn included. Although I understand the concept of trying is better than doing nothing, in the case of Google it's basically "what's the point?" for now. On the most part I think it does a good job of keeping results clean, but if someone wants to go looking for something it's virtually impossible to stop them finding it within a few clicks. What we have with the press in articles such as the one discussed is the demand to police how the universe expands, it's that kind of scale. [Post edited 28 Mar 2017 16:51]
| |
| |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:48 - Mar 28 with 818 views | monytowbray |
Cheers for finding the latest stats, being late when I wrote it I went with 2014 data. Will update it at some point and add additional point mentioned above about how Google blocks other illegal content. | |
| |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 17:19 - Mar 28 with 799 views | Superfrans |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:47 - Mar 28 by monytowbray | Interestingly the child porn example come up on my fb thread when I shared this, granted by a complete loon who refused to accept fact, but none the less, I will explain again for someone of more sound mind :) Google's AI is smart enough to understand image content or stills from videos (see google reverse image search if you want to have a go yourself). As you can guess, identifying a naked body in an image would be possible, even if a child (grim thought I know) and therefore this content can be blocked with more likelihood the content in question is guilty. What Google's AI can't do is understand the context of an article. Any algorithm that tried to do this with the current level of Google's AI abilities would almost certainly make an a*se up of it, be it letting things slip through the net or hammering sites that aren't actively promoting terrorism but simply talking about it. The ironic thing here is that if Google made any hasty moves to hash these kinds of blocks the Daily Mail itself would probably fall foul of it and lost web traffic as a result. Plus, as someone rightly said on the same FB thread through a few Google searches gone wrong whilst working on a seedy spam site, you can still find all kinds of illegal things on Google child porn included. Although I understand the concept of trying is better than doing nothing, in the case of Google it's basically "what's the point?" for now. On the most part I think it does a good job of keeping results clean, but if someone wants to go looking for something it's virtually impossible to stop them finding it within a few clicks. What we have with the press in articles such as the one discussed is the demand to police how the universe expands, it's that kind of scale. [Post edited 28 Mar 2017 16:51]
|
One of the issues with Google (certainly in the entertainment sector, which I work in) is that few people trust them when they say they can't block certain content. This is driven by a total lack of trust. It is, of course, in Google's interest NOT to block, but to accept (and monetise) the huge volumes of traffic which go through their networks, in the knowledge that if they didn't allow access, someone else would (and therefore reap the rewards). | |
| |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 17:28 - Mar 28 with 783 views | monytowbray |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 17:19 - Mar 28 by Superfrans | One of the issues with Google (certainly in the entertainment sector, which I work in) is that few people trust them when they say they can't block certain content. This is driven by a total lack of trust. It is, of course, in Google's interest NOT to block, but to accept (and monetise) the huge volumes of traffic which go through their networks, in the knowledge that if they didn't allow access, someone else would (and therefore reap the rewards). |
Money plays a factor, but again Google has always had strong rules on their ad networks too. I think Google wants all the money, but it also has some level of a moral code in how it presents other businesses using their service. Which was the story two weeks ago before the above one, the press having a meltdown over Google's ad networks whilst yet again failing to understand how it f*cking works. http://oko.uk/blog/google-really-funding-extremists Plus Google only make money via paid clicks from search engines. In the case of this article one would assume the DM are talking about organic (non-paid) results. [Post edited 28 Mar 2017 17:29]
| |
| |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 17:50 - Mar 28 with 769 views | Superfrans |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 17:28 - Mar 28 by monytowbray | Money plays a factor, but again Google has always had strong rules on their ad networks too. I think Google wants all the money, but it also has some level of a moral code in how it presents other businesses using their service. Which was the story two weeks ago before the above one, the press having a meltdown over Google's ad networks whilst yet again failing to understand how it f*cking works. http://oko.uk/blog/google-really-funding-extremists Plus Google only make money via paid clicks from search engines. In the case of this article one would assume the DM are talking about organic (non-paid) results. [Post edited 28 Mar 2017 17:29]
|
Yes, I'm sure they do have a moral code - but they apply their morals selectively would be my observation. They've happily facilitated piracy on a massive scale when they could have done a lot more to do something about it - but that's an entirely other topic, of course. | |
| |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 23:22 - Mar 28 with 741 views | yorkshireblue |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:48 - Mar 28 by monytowbray | Cheers for finding the latest stats, being late when I wrote it I went with 2014 data. Will update it at some point and add additional point mentioned above about how Google blocks other illegal content. |
No problem, had them bookmarked for a presentation I gave. | | | |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 17:43 - Mar 30 with 679 views | blue_oyster |
I went on a late night blog rant about The D*ily M*il headline today on 16:34 - Mar 28 by monytowbray | 1/10. You've lost your touch old man! |
This method of reply is very common amongst those who do not want to listen. | |
| |
| |