(Article) Search Engines Lead to Site Monopolies?

Is there a googlearchy?

,----[ Snippet ]

The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science isn't the place
you'd typically go for a discussion of PageRanks and surfing behavior.
But the emergent complexity of the web provides the raw material for
studies ranging from network dynamics to social psychology. A study
released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
predominate: "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
of information."
`----

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7532.html

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

Is there a googlearchy?

[...]
| A study
| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate: "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7532.html

Maybe when all the paper libraries and film archives and microfilm
archives and independent web sites in the world are destroyed there will
be siomething to worry about ... until then, i think the threat of
"infomopoly" is just a tempest in a teapot.

cat ("always look on the bright side of life") yronwode

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:33:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Is there a googlearchy?

,----[ Snippet ]
| The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science isn't the place
| you'd typically go for a discussion of PageRanks and surfing behavior.
| But the emergent complexity of the web provides the raw material for
| studies ranging from network dynamics to social psychology. A study
| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate:

What, they've only just worked that out? Some big-domes they are.

"[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

It did already! It'll stay that way till Google changes its algo.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/affordable-we...n-services.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-home-page.htm

__/ [ Big Bill ] on Friday 18 August 2006 07:53 \__

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:33:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Is there a googlearchy?

,----[ Snippet ]
| The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science isn't the place
| you'd typically go for a discussion of PageRanks and surfing behavior.
| But the emergent complexity of the web provides the raw material for
| studies ranging from network dynamics to social psychology. A study
| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate:

What, they've only just worked that out? Some big-domes they are.

"[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

It did already! It'll stay that way till Google changes its algo.

Well, the Web is built in a layered form, so it'll be hard to change. Old
sites like Netscape get linked to and, in turn, some new sites link to their
predecessors. It's a matter of how early you enter and how aggressively you
enter. Many sites with wonderful content will rarely have the chance to be
seen. Even spyware-type analysis for SEPR's will fail. It's cyclic if you
think about it. Popular sites get more visits, so their ranks improve, which
brings them / more visits. Like in that previous article -- deadlock...

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:58:16 -0700, catherine yronwode
<cat (AT) luckymojo (DOT) com> wrote:

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

Is there a googlearchy?

[...]
| A study
| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate: "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7532.html

Maybe when all the paper libraries and film archives and microfilm
archives and independent web sites in the world are destroyed there will
be siomething to worry about

or the links to them in Google. The worry though is that people will
accept what Google serves up as being the right and most up-to-date
answer even though the nature of the algo means that it won't be.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/affordable-we...n-services.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-home-page.htm

__/ [ John A. ] on Friday 18 August 2006 14:09 \__

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:36:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [ Big Bill ] on Friday 18 August 2006 07:53 \__

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:33:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

Is there a googlearchy?

,----[ Snippet ]
| The Proceedings of the National Academies of Science isn't the place
| you'd typically go for a discussion of PageRanks and surfing behavior.
| But the emergent complexity of the web provides the raw material for
| studies ranging from network dynamics to social psychology. A study
| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate:

What, they've only just worked that out? Some big-domes they are.

"[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

It did already! It'll stay that way till Google changes its algo.

Well, the Web is built in a layered form, so it'll be hard to change. Old
sites like Netscape get linked to and, in turn, some new sites link to
their predecessors. It's a matter of how early you enter and how
aggressively you enter. Many sites with wonderful content will rarely have
the chance to be seen. Even spyware-type analysis for SEPR's will fail.
It's cyclic if you think about it. Popular sites get more visits, so their
ranks improve, which brings them / more visits. Like in that previous
article -- deadlock...

I think Google should offer some sort of "rogue search" option in
advanced search, allowing a searcher to boldly choose not to have PR
be a factor in the results of a particular search, but rather go on
pure relevancy and whatever other factors Google uses. That way a
searcher can "break free of the herd" if they so choose.

I once thought about the same thing. If I search for something very generic
(even for the purpose of buying), I try to avoid simplified common phrases,
which are most likely spammed for (e.g. excessive inbound links with anchor
text). I intentionally try to avoid those who thrive on and capitalise on
optimisation. They are like 'SERP trolls' in my eyes. But it's hard to avoid
these. Even if you add some extra words, their PR counts as a major factor.
And there are factors like artificial design of a page that still unfairly
contribute to and assist certain Web sites. Sometimes I just go through
directories, which do not require payment for inclusion (forget about
Yahoo). Still, there is a chicken-and-egg scenario here because large
companies can sustain growth.

This happens to remind me of a pet peeve. If I look at an alphabetic list, I
try not to start looking at it from the start or the very end. You will
always find some f***wits with company names like Aardvark or AAA
consultants. See the imbalance in company names by looking at any list that
is vital to a corporation...

UI-wise it would be dead simple. Not knowing how their internal search
mechanics work, though, it could either greatly simplify a search
computationally, require a complete second index, or something in
between.

__/ [ catherine yronwode ] on Friday 18 August 2006 06:58 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

Is there a googlearchy?

[...]
| A study
| released online in advance of publication looks into how the influence
| of search engines is affecting the accessibility of online information.
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate: "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060817-7532.html

Maybe when all the paper libraries and film archives and microfilm
archives and independent web sites in the world are destroyed there will
be siomething to worry about ... until then, i think the threat of
"infomopoly" is just a tempest in a teapot.

cat ("always look on the bright side of life") yronwode

You may be right, Cat. I have just found the following rebuttal:

http://www.technologyreview.com/read...27&ch=infotech

A new study questions the common assumption that search engines control the
hierarchy of the Internet.

I trust Google, but I don't trust greed - and I sure as hell don't
trust greedy stockholders who tend to confuse money with progress.

Yahoo is slick too - but AOL & MSN (Microsoft) have the worst business
ethics that I have ever seen. Preying on kids to get ISP contracts by
bribing them with "free" video games in their cereal isn't cool;
neither is getting sued by the Supreme Court and fined $1,000,000/day
for ripping off their customers with monopoly style tactics.

AOL = Time-Warner which IS a huge and greedy monopoly already. I hear
they are planning to try a free model because they are losing like 20%
of their customer base monthly.

Isn't their logo the all-seeing eye an top of the pyramid on a dollar
bill?
Guess they didn't see their stock crash coming.

The House passed a bill on June 22, 2006 that could allow ISPs to
easily monopolize the internet (Congress is still voting on it).
Please help stop them from monopolizing the internet. Call your
Senators and tell them to vote for pro Net-Neutrality so we don't lose
our freedom of speech to the telecom monopolies.

learn more at www.savetheinternet.com

- The King of Men

"Roy Schestowitz" quoted: ...

| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate: "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

Further proof (if further proof were needed) that academics rarely have a
clue about the real world.

If they confined their argument to suggesting that Google et al *slowed* the
emergence of new soyurces, I'd be interested - but to talk about a dangerous
monoploy when most of the buiest sites didn't even exist a few years ago is
so pathetic, you have to see academic ambition beating common sense into
15th place.
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:20:36 GMT, "Andrew Heenan"
<andrew.heenan (AT) virgin (DOT) net> wrote:

"Roy Schestowitz" quoted: ...
| The authors are examining fears that search engines will create a
| situation where a self-reinforcing cycle of popularity will create
| an Internet in which a limited number of information sources
| predominate: "[S]earch engines bias the traffic of users according to
| their page ranking strategies, and it has been argued that they create
| a vicious cycle that amplifies the dominance of established and
| already popular sites. This bias could lead to a dangerous monopoly
| of information."

Further proof (if further proof were needed) that academics rarely have a
clue about the real world.

If they confined their argument to suggesting that Google et al *slowed* the
emergence of new soyurces, I'd be interested - but to talk about a dangerous
monoploy when most of the buiest sites didn't even exist a few years ago is
so pathetic, you have to see academic ambition beating common sense into
15th place.

People fund the idea of academic ambition, no-one is funding common
sense. People champion the idea of academic universities and so forth
and are happy to put their name to them, but no-one funds street
smarts. Google should hang out a sign, "Street-smarts wanted here".
God knows they need it. Every culture has its flaws and the flaw at
the mountain seems to be the pursuit and encouragement of individual
innovation, not a bad thing in itself, of course, but unchecked it
seems to keep turning into folly. It's like invention of the sake of
invention but when it comes to putting it to good use or maintenance
there's no-one there to do it. Yet whom do they approach? You notice
they've phoned Roy out of this group and they haven't phoned me?
Imagine a bunch of Googlers sitting around thinking, who at AISE is
going to fit in with us? And that's the flaw with most cultures, it
isn't how apt or how observant you are, in a lot of cases it isn't how
good at your job you are either, it's whether your face fits. It's,
"Is he going to fit in around here?" So right there, there goes your
sense of perspective because there's no-one to offer an alternative
point of view.
Someone once said "There can be no effective government without an
able and effective opposition", yet who do Google keep employing? More
and more like-minded people. And that, eventually, is what brings all
cultures down. Looks like Google's going the same way.

BB


--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/affordable-we...n-services.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/google-mountain.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-home-page.htm