The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted May 5, 2005 Sorry, but "oil, Jews, oily Jews" in succession is funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted May 5, 2005 Generally, silicon-valley dot-coms are pretty liberal, although until that actually influences the product, I don't have a problem with Google. Have you seen some of the sites that Google calls news? They accept even the nuttiest or most partisan pages on both sides just to avoid the whole bias issue. I also have never seen the "BUSH = HITLER" ads that appeared everywhere on Google ever, either. "LifeSiteNews" certainly doesn't sound like a bastion of impartiality themselves. I'm sure they had their reasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted May 6, 2005 I thought it was rather well-known that Google was liberal. I mean, they even had that whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" joke tied into their "I feel lucky" button, or at least they used to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted May 6, 2005 That was more because of Googlebombing. I don't buy it. Google is a big company, its very likely, this sort of thing just slipped them by, which isn't surprising when you consider how much advertising they sell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 6, 2005 Generally, silicon-valley dot-coms are pretty liberal, although until that actually influences the product, I don't have a problem with Google. Have you seen some of the sites that Google calls news? They accept even the nuttiest or most partisan pages on both sides just to avoid the whole bias issue. I also have never seen the "BUSH = HITLER" ads that appeared everywhere on Google ever, either. "LifeSiteNews" certainly doesn't sound like a bastion of impartiality themselves. I'm sure they had their reasons. Actually, it was rightmarch.com that posted it, I believe --- and I'm sure there was a reason they posted the ad. However, they did do a verbatim transcript of a Delay ad and replaced his name with Nancy Pelosi. And don't even get me started on what qualifies as a Google News site. Some examples on what has qualified? www.jihadunspun.com www.infoshop.org www.antiwar.com www.democraticunderground.com www.khalifah.com www.electronicintifada.net www.plenglish.com www.uruknet.info www.conspiracyplanet.com www.nationalvanguard.com (a neo-Nazi site) www.aljazeerah.info www.pej.net -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CronoT Report post Posted May 6, 2005 I think the more important question, Mike, is who even bothers to look at the ads on Google? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 6, 2005 I think the more important question, Mike, is who even bothers to look at the ads on Google? A group who got their ad denied, most likely. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jorge Gorgeous 0 Report post Posted May 6, 2005 SHES ON TO US! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 6, 2005 Some more Google news. I got a sneak preview regarding this service -- Here's what will be at the top of the list when you search for George W. Bush... Web search leader Google Inc. has applied for U.S. and international patents on technology to rank stories on its news site based on the quality of the news source, according to patent applications obtained by Reuters on Thursday. Google's (GOOG - news) search engine now automatically scours some 4,500 news sources and highlights stories, typically by popularity and timeliness, although Google does not disclose full details of its ranking system. Google News site gathers article from disparate news outlets such as ABC News, Voice of America, the Christian Science Monitor, the World Peace Herald, Xinhua, Reuters, Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. Industry watchers said that over time Google News has come to depend on more established news providers for its content. A Google spokesman confirmed that the company has applied for the patents but declined further comment regarding whether the company will use or is already using the technology. As Web logs and other commentary sites proliferate, postings from some have received prominent play within search result pages and on online news-gathering sites. Sometimes, such postings have carried biased or inaccurate claims. The technology Google is attempting to patent may help the company choose the most reliable information sources, although some Web commentators have said it will create a bias toward mainstream news sources. Google filed its U.S. patent application in September 2003 and it is in line for review by patent examiners. It covers "systems and methods for improving the ranking of news articles" based on the "quality" of the news source. According to that patent application, factors determining such rankings would include: the amount of important coverage produced by an identified news source; a human opinion of that source; network traffic to the source; circulation statistics; staff size; breadth of coverage; and the number of bureaus the news source operates. Google's related international patent application published in late March under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and was first reported in New Scientist magazine this week. "It sounded to me like it would be useful not just for news but for search results as well," said Topix.net Chief Executive Rich Skrenta, who had not reviewed the patent applications. The risk in depending only on large, established news providers is that a news site "might be leaving a lot of really good material on the floor," Skrenta added. Topix.net is an online news service that gathers stories from thousands of sources around the Web as well as from such places as college newspapers. In March, newspaper publishers Gannett Co. (NYSE:GCI - news), Knight Ridder Inc. (NYSE:KRI - news) and the Tribune Co. (NYSE:TRB - news) each bought 25 percent stakes in Topix, while company founders retained the last one-quarter stake. Online news has become an increasingly competitive market as newspaper circulation declines and mainstream news organizations look for ways to hold on to readers, many of whom favor sites that gather stories from many sources over those run by a single news outlet. Yahoo Inc. (YHOO - news) recently gave a visual make-over and technological boost to its online news site, which is the most-visited in the United States. Yahoo gathers news from disparate sources via direct feeds and a Web crawler. But unlike Google News, Yahoo News employs human editors and carries advertising. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted May 6, 2005 Generally, silicon-valley dot-coms are pretty liberal, although until that actually influences the product, I don't have a problem with Google. Have you seen some of the sites that Google calls news? They accept even the nuttiest or most partisan pages on both sides just to avoid the whole bias issue. I also have never seen the "BUSH = HITLER" ads that appeared everywhere on Google ever, either. "LifeSiteNews" certainly doesn't sound like a bastion of impartiality themselves. I'm sure they had their reasons. Actually, it was rightmarch.com that posted it, I believe --- and I'm sure there was a reason they posted the ad. However, they did do a verbatim transcript of a Delay ad and replaced his name with Nancy Pelosi. AND the Delay ad was taken down too. I don't think they have anything left to bitch about anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
