|
|
|
|
|
by programminggeek
4812 days ago
|
|
Meritocracy in search results? Are you kidding? I'm sorry but search results are not a meritocracy and to think otherwise is just plain foolish. First of all, if results can be hand ordered is it a meritocracy? No. Because it's a select individuals opinion. Can their opinion be bought? Yep. Second, can you buy popularity? Yep. Then is it a meritocracy? Nope. If EA or Zynga puts out a game and spends $10 million promoting it and uses their other apps to make it popular, is that a meritocracy when it shows up at the top of a search result? No. It isn't. Search engines aren't a meritocracy. The best results don't win. The most relevant thing isn't always given. They are an attempt to return relevant information, but how that relevance is determined is not necessarily merit related at all. It just has to solve the user problem. It can be done in any order that the search engine provider deems fit. For example, Google shows ads alongside the search results. The top ads aren't merit related. They are profit related. Google puts paid results above real results. Google puts money above relevance. When you are talking about millions of dollars being thrown around, it is no longer about merit, it's about influence and those are not the same thing. |
|