Changes at Google - What do they mean?
Hal writes in this article that Google is moving from measuring the links to a site that determine a sites reputation, to measuring it’s trustworthiness by determining the number of incorrect facts on the site by comparison to Google’s own knowledge base.
Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPOmSEL1IRb
What does that mean for Internet Marketers?
Well it’s just another change that we’ll adjust for. For me I guess it means more content on a site. It certainly means avoiding things that are not considered to be popularly true. Or scientifically true.
What does this mean for the world?
The Pros
This will bury sites that are full of statements that are untrue. The fact it draws on snopes types sites will drop a lot of content down the list. That is a good thing.
The Cons
This will bury new knowledge that is different in thinking. If someone comes up with new ideas on treating or changing dyslexia they will be determined to have poor facts. The reason being is they will be challenging current thinking. In fact they may well have a high level of poor facts. I have some serious concerns about this.
Taking this a step further Wikipedia has many pages that are controlled by individuals determined to supress the truth and keep distorted knowledge as facts. This is widely attributed to high ranking editors having personal agendas or being paid to supress or promote issues.
Imagine had this change with Google been around 40-50 years ago when information was coming out about the hazards of smoking. The current facts would be it’s good for your health and new beliefs even with research would have low true facts. Today we have issues with food additives, GMO, increased rates of autism and ADHD. There is new thinking about the links and yet they would be opposed by the “facts” generated by large Corporate Research, FDA approval etc. This new knowledge or the opposing of current knowledge would be suppressed.
This is seriously scary.
There used to be a time where information presented to the population at large was goverened by the news media. The internet has chaned that. New knowledge is readily available, as is of course a lot of rubbish. Corporates seem to be gaining a bigger foothold in goverments and controlling laws to their benefit even over the safety of citizens.
There exists a danger that this new system presents real risks that can be escalated by the careful culmination of well funded facts sites to further erode real facts and the truth.
Suppression of new knowledge shouldn't happen
I am a thinker, researcher and developer of new knowledge. I have created new knowledge in depression, anxiety, Insomnia, dyslexia, bed wetting, IBS, ulcers, asthma, and concussion treatment. In each of these cases I will be stating facts that are not current accepted facts. I currently have one of my treatments in Registered Clinical Trials. I support Clinical Trials to prove or disprove effectiveness. I would love to have a philanthropist knock on my door and fund me so that I can just do research and clinical trials full time and have this work go out into mainstream medicine. These new changes by google run the risk of suppressing that. In my world depression, anxiety and dyslexia are easy to change. That is a long way from current thinking.
Recent Comments
7
If you want to discuss a new thought, it would make sense to discuss the current thinking on it as well in your blog post.
They aren't suppressing new thinking but need to make sure that you validate your position.
Look at the current research and make a studied opinion, that way the facts as proven are presented and then make your opinion on the new way of thinking known.
Labman you mention discussing a new thought should discuss current thinking. I've referenced an article I think that does that. The new system is knowledge fact based and the current system is reputation link based.
I have an opinion that the proposed changes have the real risk of surpressing new thinking. And by that I mean making the web pages much less visible.
You suggest having a studied opinion on current thinking thereby presenting proven facts. Then adding my opinion. That seems like an okay idea and I will take that on board. I assume you are referencing my new knowledge. Often there is a gulf between current thinking and my thinking. With one of these the closest someone is coming is Harvard Research and they still need to make a substantial leap in thinking to get to where I am. What's been really useful for them is the access to MRI and being able to see what the brain is doing. This has meant they've taken a leap forward and at the same time they are still limited by the knowledge that they've come from.
Currently I have links into the medical world and universities. That process is just going too slow for me. My models and therapies are not proprietary. I am making them available to be used and taught. I am currently coming to the view that I just need to go beyond the system to the world and encourage debate and discussion that way. I see my work as too valuable to be progressed slowly.
If you have thoughts on how to speed that process up I'd be interested in talking and we can go to PM.
Thanks for the comment.
Pheeeew! Some way to still speak then...?
In some ways that is like being at uni - but something is still off - like they have established as truth the paid-for opinion and everyone else is guilty till proven innocent...
If we all have to churn up and reference 'the truth' this could also be viewed as copied duplicate content?
When I last viewed 'coffee enemas' on wikipedia [some time back] I was stunned at how bad the article was, how untrue it was, and just like you described - there are agendas in there - so it is just wrong that google is considered as the bank of truth - the world never succombed to just one religious text in the past - it can't do so now
Has google got too big? Too powerful? Is it time to support those who are NOT GOOGLE?
See more comments
Should help eliminate alot of spam sites, I hope.