So now, a site MUST be truthful, in order to rank.
Always trying to build a better mousetrap seems to be Google's ultimate solution. Now it appears their algorithms are about to change again. Enter the "new method" of search...which will be to NOT list a site according to its popularity, BUT, according to its truth and accuracy! The problem now begins....WHO will be the deciding factor on what being written, is deemed as truth?
Perhaps a mere coincidence, but it seems odd that this news comes right on the coat-tails of the recently announced Net Nutrality rules.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/net-neutrality-obamas-gateway-to-censorship/
Maybe it's all going to come down to politics...or maybe it won't. But we are living under an umbrella of increased government control these days. I'm just saying, or speculating, that it wouldn't surprise me to see aspects of these possibilities unfold as time goes by.
What's your thought?
Recent Comments
19
I think that Google is trying as always to have natural rankings and as always someone will figure out a way to game the system and on and on it goes
Personally I think SEO is one giant waste of time
Barry
It concerns me a LOT! How far does censorship go? Does the right to tell the "truth" go to the highest bidder? We'll just leave it at that.
Well I'm not too concerned as the government has had years to change TV ads ~ and did sign legislation for certain things (good things by the way) like removal of cigarette ads and there are many rules around false claims and such.
I think it's good if some things change for the better and I feel that anyone running an honest business online will prosper as the funk is singled out and identified.
As for weighting opinion versus fact (and who or what decides this), again no big concern to me as this happens everyday but societies individuals typically resort to someone's opinion anyway. In fact science isn't always correct and the facts changes as new information is discovered over time. In my lifetime alone (43 years) there have been studies that proved eggs were absolutely not to be eaten they were so bad for you. Then they were ok, and then only the whites and now ok but in moderation. Listen to one expert or follow one scientific fact and another will oppose it. This is why advertising of any kind has always worked and will continue.
As for the political aspect I think it's mostly posturing but I know some changes will come. Will it affect us - yes, how much - probably little for honest business people.
We need to keep on top of this for certain though.
Eric
You're welcome. We've already been living in "1984" for a long time and given todays threats we need to be.
We ~ as societies just need to make sure it doesn't get out of hand and I believe those at the top are looking to protect the same.
In fact (maybe not per Google lol) I could see an internet search engine monopoly (Google of course) which is illegal in other industries (barring utilities which is unfortunately where I believe the internet is headed, at least in the US).
I wasn't around for this but at one time, so I understand, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes as a relaxation agent - imagine that.
I'm certain Kyle and Carson are watching closely to what the Czar has to say and what become of the internet issues. Hey and if the changes that come clean out some of the rubbish and work from home make money on the internet scams we will still be here and have less bogus competition! Good for us!
Eric
Try to bring a clown to teach a skill in my school system and they won't be allowed because my school system is high ranking and only uses data driven material backed up by research. Really this kills ideas of teacher made things too, but that has not arisen yet. I remember when teachers had the freedom to stay on a skill or unit and explore other avenues. But today, it is just like kids have a tablespoon of a skill in their brain and no more time to teach it deeper because it is not on the test.
Wow! This is really interesting and you bring up a GREAT point! There are so many things that are objective. Does this mean that anyone sharing an opinion is going to take a back seat to scientific fact sites? I'm not sure how a computer algorithm could accurately judge this. Should be interesting to see how it unfolds and hopefully, doesn't hurt too many legitimate and helpful businesses.
The real hypocrisy of it all is that Google won't care about the "accuracy" of these facts to their PAYING advertisers. As long as you are not promoting anything illegal, you will get that same top spot for just $7 a click, lol!
The good news is that this net neutrality law is going to go through so many appeals before anything truly gets passed, these changes may still be a long way off. I agree with net neutrality and don't buy the cable providers explanations at all and here's why.
They claim that everyone having high speeds would slow up or effect the performance of the internet for everyone. My questions is if one day, out of nowhere, every single person in the country upgraded their internet services, paying the extra $10-30 per month to these same companies, would they say, "hold on a minute, we can't upgrade any more people because it will have a negative impact on the performance of the web for everyone in the long run!"
Heck no, they would smile, take your money and put you back on hold to listen to a flute solo elevator music for the next 25 mins, LOL!
See more comments
I think on one hand this is a great idea since I go to some websites that are ranked #1 and don't get any information I need. On the other hand, how can you determine truth when it comes to things like feelings? Faith? Is this going to be censorship? I see both sides. I guess will just have to wait and see what happens.