|
|
|
|
|
|
by greglindahl
4912 days ago
|
|
|
I said that because I'm the CTO of a competitor (blekko) that some users think is a viable alternative. It's true that we don't the bazillion clicks that google has logged. But google doesn't have our human curation, and brand new content on the Internet doesn't have a result click history yet. |
|
|
Google may not have hand curation, but they do use manual raters as one of their signals.
It's also true that new content doesn't have a click history, but the click history as well as topological history of the internet can tell Google a lot more than just the history of individual items.
In any case, my main point here is that the position of competitors like yourselves would be strengthened if more people realized that Google wasn't somehow based on 'objective' algorithms.
You guys claim subjectivity and editorial quality as a strength and I agree that it is, but I think there's an argument that Google has been falsely advertising itself as objective and free of bias and could be forced to rectify that through advertising.
Indeed the reportage around this FTC settlement implies that Google has been 'cleared of allegations of bias', which is essentially the opposite of the truth.