[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 19 May 2014 23:59, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The reason not to open search results up to external input, is that > everyone is biased, all you do is produce results more to their liking. > You also have to identify people and their biases to avoid being gamed. > It is messy and complex, and would add zero value to the result. You are positing as a counterfactual here -- what one would not want to happen -- what actually does happen. There is no "would" to this. Adding value to Google's quarterly results is Google's business. Adding validity to Google's search results *may* be something that their own unaided efforts are now and always will be sufficient to achieve -- though the judgement says the opposite -- at whatever expense they are willing to go to, which is already and always has been non-zero. Nevertheless, I think it is unarguable that adding validity to their search results through the open, public, reputationally-attributable efforts of external actors at near-zero cost to Google is not only possible but also optimal, should they choose to open up avenues to do so. Google's business model already is precisely to let external actors add value at near-zero cost to Google in every conceivable way where Google can both maintain complete control and also get away with quietly, even secretly, appropriating ownership and selling on. They're far from alone, of course. -- Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz @UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq