Disturbing find about Google
- Thread starter mubs
- Start date
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
1. This site squeezes "Alltheweb" in a few more times than I might think healthy, particularly for a search engine that almost no one uses. I've used it. It's spiffy. So is altavista, so is inktomi. None of them perform the same way google does.
I'd really like to see what kind of relationship google-watch has with those other search sites.
2. google-watch dings google for using PageRank. PageRank is essentially an algorithm that says "Sites linked by more popular sites, more frequently, should be displayed at high ranking." Everything I've read suggests that this technology is responsible for google's normal, astonishing accuracy in search results. Giving that up would be like turning google into inktomi or something. Calling pagerank "undemocratic" is like assuming the internet is some kind of democracy to begin with. It isn't. All pages are not created equal.
As an example: Tannin has his redhill pages. Hundreds of short, detailed, technical essays about hardware of all stripes and sizes. Not to mention a bunch of sweet photos.
fractal - formerly an SR regular - had a page that basically listed the hardware configs in the PCs around his house.
Both are pages about computers. Both are frequently linked on popular sites (SR and in fractal's case also slashdot).
Are the jokers who wrote google-watch really suggesting that those pages should be treated EQUALLY?
3. Google writes obnoxious cookies. Tough shit. Use a better browser or some other tool to deal with cookies you don't like, or don't complain about them. Google has every right to collect usage information. Frankly, I don't care what they do with it, either, just like doubleclick or any of the banner networks. I have a right to stop them. And unless someone can prove to me they're doing some thing more eeeevvvvilllll than correlating my enjoyment of dirty pictures, classical music, device drivers and plastic plants to the fact that I live in northwest Indiana (all things that are apparent from my most common searches), I don't see a problem.
4. Google hires people with security clearances. Yup, and so does everyone else. National security is everybody's meal ticket right now. A company with a proven datamining technology like google's would be moronic not to cash in.
These guys about halfway to a real point. I'll give them credit. Google is exceeding popular. As was altavista before google. Internet searching *IS* a democratic function. People vote with their clicks. These guys who are so concerned about google's power only have to make something better. People will use it. Word will spread. Google won't be as powerful.
I'd really like to see what kind of relationship google-watch has with those other search sites.
2. google-watch dings google for using PageRank. PageRank is essentially an algorithm that says "Sites linked by more popular sites, more frequently, should be displayed at high ranking." Everything I've read suggests that this technology is responsible for google's normal, astonishing accuracy in search results. Giving that up would be like turning google into inktomi or something. Calling pagerank "undemocratic" is like assuming the internet is some kind of democracy to begin with. It isn't. All pages are not created equal.
As an example: Tannin has his redhill pages. Hundreds of short, detailed, technical essays about hardware of all stripes and sizes. Not to mention a bunch of sweet photos.
fractal - formerly an SR regular - had a page that basically listed the hardware configs in the PCs around his house.
Both are pages about computers. Both are frequently linked on popular sites (SR and in fractal's case also slashdot).
Are the jokers who wrote google-watch really suggesting that those pages should be treated EQUALLY?
3. Google writes obnoxious cookies. Tough shit. Use a better browser or some other tool to deal with cookies you don't like, or don't complain about them. Google has every right to collect usage information. Frankly, I don't care what they do with it, either, just like doubleclick or any of the banner networks. I have a right to stop them. And unless someone can prove to me they're doing some thing more eeeevvvvilllll than correlating my enjoyment of dirty pictures, classical music, device drivers and plastic plants to the fact that I live in northwest Indiana (all things that are apparent from my most common searches), I don't see a problem.
4. Google hires people with security clearances. Yup, and so does everyone else. National security is everybody's meal ticket right now. A company with a proven datamining technology like google's would be moronic not to cash in.
These guys about halfway to a real point. I'll give them credit. Google is exceeding popular. As was altavista before google. Internet searching *IS* a democratic function. People vote with their clicks. These guys who are so concerned about google's power only have to make something better. People will use it. Word will spread. Google won't be as powerful.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
This is 13 people, mostly in Texas.
Next thing you know, we may start voting for the Natural Law party....
Next thing you know, we may start voting for the Natural Law party....
zx
Learning Storage Performance
It's nice to know, but there is no need to panic. I agree with Merc with the fact that google has a too big market share. That's the only thing wrong that I saw with google.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Cawood Ledford
What is this storage?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9
As the article referenced by Mercutio describes, the priority behind Google is to establish usefulness to the Internet community, not to set moral guidelines.
Groltz
My demeaning user rank is
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
It seems entirely possible that google is limted to 32bits worth of webpages in their database, however I would think it would be reletively easy to upgrade to say 64 bits.
I think it's quite foolish of the author to call this an error, just as he/she says that IP technology is itself in error because it is limited(not infinite).
By the same token I could call the author an error because he/she is not God.
I think it's quite foolish of the author to call this an error, just as he/she says that IP technology is itself in error because it is limited(not infinite).
By the same token I could call the author an error because he/she is not God.
zx
Learning Storage Performance
I don't think that the point was to prove that google is evil. I think the message is that Google could be used for evil intentions (and that would have huge impacts), so it's worth monitoring.
A big market share is always source of concern. Just look at Microsoft... How many people find this company evil just because of it's big market share?
I will continue to use google however (and I still use Windows :S)
A big market share is always source of concern. Just look at Microsoft... How many people find this company evil just because of it's big market share?
I will continue to use google however (and I still use Windows :S)
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
zx said:
Only Microsoft's competition. The rest of people who find MS evil, do it for a rational reason.
you're speaking on behalf of a whole lot of people there, and i've met plenty who hate any corporation just for its sizeblakerwry said:
i got in a conversation with one of them at a party shortly after the first matrix movie was released, and i entered the conversation after his anti-commercial preachings broke into how the matrix zionist vs machines stuff was a perfect example of what he felt was the american plight - so much that he believed the film was actually inspired by and about fighting coroporations. after i pointed out his example was a warner brothers / big budget blockbuster involving movie stars, marketing, etc he just stuttered a bit and went off to the restroom.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Not so, Blakewry!
It is precisely because of their market share that Microsoft is evil. All monopolies (and, for that matter, all quasi-monopolies) are evil, almost by definition. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single privately-owned monopoly that was not evil, and quite a few of those owned by the public as well. (Can we say "Telstra pre-selloff"?) (Not that the post-sellout Telstra is any better: which only goes to illustrate my point that it is not the nature of the company qua company that matters, it is the type of behaviour that is forced upon it by the distorted non-market structure it is operating within.)
Do I think Bill Gates and his accomplices would be nice, honest, decent, trustworthy businesmen if their company had a market share of, oh, say 20%? Not a chance: we know from the facts of history that he is a nasty bit of work, and that his cheating, disloyalty and dishonesty started way before he became Mr 95% of the Market.
But the point is, if MS had a 10% or 20% market share in a competitive free market, it would not really matter, because if you objected to one aspect or another of their business ethics, you could simply spend your money with one of the other companies. Exactly the same logic applies to every other company in every other field. The economic magic of capitalism can and does only function when the fundamental base conditions it requires are met, and the most fundamental base condition of them all is a thing called a "market". A market, by definition, has many buyers and many sellers.
Everything else is crap.
The whole idea of capitalism (or "free enterprise" if you prefer, the two terms mean exactly the same) is that the government does as little regulation as possible, because a free market is almost always a better, more fair, and more efficient way to allocate resources and share out benefits than any other way so far invented. But it only works, can only work, when there is a functional market.
Without a freely comptitive market, you have only two realistic possibilities: facisim or communisim. Neither is a nice way to live. And, as it happens, neither is (generally speaking) very good at maximising resources and providing sustainable economic growth.
It is precisely because of their market share that Microsoft is evil. All monopolies (and, for that matter, all quasi-monopolies) are evil, almost by definition. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single privately-owned monopoly that was not evil, and quite a few of those owned by the public as well. (Can we say "Telstra pre-selloff"?) (Not that the post-sellout Telstra is any better: which only goes to illustrate my point that it is not the nature of the company qua company that matters, it is the type of behaviour that is forced upon it by the distorted non-market structure it is operating within.)
Do I think Bill Gates and his accomplices would be nice, honest, decent, trustworthy businesmen if their company had a market share of, oh, say 20%? Not a chance: we know from the facts of history that he is a nasty bit of work, and that his cheating, disloyalty and dishonesty started way before he became Mr 95% of the Market.
But the point is, if MS had a 10% or 20% market share in a competitive free market, it would not really matter, because if you objected to one aspect or another of their business ethics, you could simply spend your money with one of the other companies. Exactly the same logic applies to every other company in every other field. The economic magic of capitalism can and does only function when the fundamental base conditions it requires are met, and the most fundamental base condition of them all is a thing called a "market". A market, by definition, has many buyers and many sellers.
Everything else is crap.
The whole idea of capitalism (or "free enterprise" if you prefer, the two terms mean exactly the same) is that the government does as little regulation as possible, because a free market is almost always a better, more fair, and more efficient way to allocate resources and share out benefits than any other way so far invented. But it only works, can only work, when there is a functional market.
Without a freely comptitive market, you have only two realistic possibilities: facisim or communisim. Neither is a nice way to live. And, as it happens, neither is (generally speaking) very good at maximising resources and providing sustainable economic growth.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
I think any company with the best product for a niche should be allowed to grow and have as much market share as the market deems fit.
MS is only a monopoly in a small handfull of niches at best. They're virtually a monopoly in the Desktop OS market and almost as bad in the browser market. They also have a big hand in the streaming video/audio content field and a slightly smaller role in the server OS field...
MS is a brand name in peripherals like keyboards/mice, but certainly not the be all - end all... there are microsoft branded networking components as well.. but MS's market share in this department is probably smaller than a speck of dirt.
If a company has a good product that fufills a need better than any other product available, why would you hate them? (afterall, without their product you would simply not be able to accomplish the same tasks)
I can't hate a comany that simply provides a just and good oportunity for people... But I can hate a company that squashes the competition by immoral/illegal actions. And that is why I dislike MS.
MS is only a monopoly in a small handfull of niches at best. They're virtually a monopoly in the Desktop OS market and almost as bad in the browser market. They also have a big hand in the streaming video/audio content field and a slightly smaller role in the server OS field...
MS is a brand name in peripherals like keyboards/mice, but certainly not the be all - end all... there are microsoft branded networking components as well.. but MS's market share in this department is probably smaller than a speck of dirt.
If a company has a good product that fufills a need better than any other product available, why would you hate them? (afterall, without their product you would simply not be able to accomplish the same tasks)
I can't hate a comany that simply provides a just and good oportunity for people... But I can hate a company that squashes the competition by immoral/illegal actions. And that is why I dislike MS.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
You forogt their enormous share in the desktop office suite market, the stick that beats everything else over the head.
Also their considerable share in email clients and corporate messaging software.
And I'd hazard a guess that Microsoft is in some kind of strong leadership position with development tools as well.
Also their considerable share in email clients and corporate messaging software.
And I'd hazard a guess that Microsoft is in some kind of strong leadership position with development tools as well.
Prof.Wizard
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,460
Maybe you have to channel your hate elsewhere, though, cause for the time being there is no real alternative.
Windows, Office, Internet Explorer... all are top apps. Nothing works that good and has such support/compatibility with 3rd-party content.
I've said it in the past and I won't get tired. When companies start supporting out-of-the-box other platforms (Linux, MacOS, etc.) as well, then we may start seeing a shrinking in Microsoft's holdings... :cheese:
Windows, Office, Internet Explorer... all are top apps. Nothing works that good and has such support/compatibility with 3rd-party content.
I've said it in the past and I won't get tired. When companies start supporting out-of-the-box other platforms (Linux, MacOS, etc.) as well, then we may start seeing a shrinking in Microsoft's holdings... :cheese:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Exactly how is there "no real alternative"?
I use Wordperfect for word processing, Mozilla for browsing and do most of my actual "work" on Linux machines, something I've been doing comfortably since the mid-90s.
I use Wordperfect for word processing, Mozilla for browsing and do most of my actual "work" on Linux machines, something I've been doing comfortably since the mid-90s.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I'm not limited in any meaningful way. My singular whine about things is that there's no driver for video-in on ATI AIW cards. Oh well. My setup is exactly how I want it, otherwise.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
I am 50/50 split to,e-wise on my use of Linux (RH9, which I found to be very easy to use out of the box) and Windows (XP). There are a few things for which I haven't figured out how to do better in Windows - easily playing Real Media Files (for lectures online), dual monitor support (ATI Radeon 8500), and a good excel spreadsheet program that's perfectly compatible with what people in the lab run (Office X on Mac OSX). My wife and I use Quicken, which we only have for Windows. Open Office is mostly fine, although when writing my thesis I did it in Word only (as I'm still more comfortable in Word, and I was importing some stuff from Excel). And I haven't yet figured out how to play DVDs in Linux, although I figure that's just a matter of time.
I find it amazing how such a few small things can keep me tied to Windows.
I find it amazing how such a few small things can keep me tied to Windows.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
I agree it's the small things that tie me to windows. I was about 50/50 for awhile.. but now I'm probably 95/5 windows. When I get comercial hosting for my website I will tinker around more with linux.