While my personal "Distractions Devil" (click on image) has temporarily withdrawn, I want to make some comments on the panel notes of the Santa Clara University's (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics) Conference on "The Ethics and Politics of Search Engines" held on 2/27/06.
It was very appropriate that Google's informal motto of "Don't Be Evil" came up during the discussion with the following participants:
"Participants included: Peter Norvig, director of research, Google
Terry Winograd, professor of computer science, Stanford University
Geoffrey Bowker, executive director, Center for Science, Technology, and
Society
Moderator: Kirk O. Hanson, executive director, Markkula Center for
Applied Ethics"
Peter Norvig said: "On top of that (Google's main mission) is our informal motto: "don't be evil." And this was something that was coined by Paul Pukite, one of our engineers, I think in 2001 or 2002. And having a motto like that is something like painting a big bull's eye on your chest. But we welcome it, because I think it's something that as a company, we want to live up to and we want to be held accountable." Accountability in marketing is a big deal these days, but since the "Devil is in the Details", just how accountable Google will be for Click Fraud, and for giving the specifics of what exactly constitutes it, remains to be seen. I find it ironic that on the same day as this "Ethics" conference happened, a BusinessWeek Online article entitled "Click Fraud Gets Smarter" was published.
The suggested concept of "randomization" of search results came up by the moderator:"MR. HANSON: One more question regarding the algorithm. Isn't it true that many of the results are very close in the ranking that they would get? And if that's true and if there is such power in being number one or being on the first page, wouldn't it be fair or fairer to have a random assignment of the top category or the top group of search results?
MR. NORVIG: Yeah, and we do use some randomization and experimentation in our results. So at any one time, we're probably running dozens of different experiments where we're trying out variations to see is this variation going to be better than the standard one? So you do see a lot of turn and mix, both because of our changes in the algorithms and also because of the changes in the Web. So the results that are number one today may be different than the results tomorrow for very subtle reasons having to do with both changes in the link structure of the Web and with the changes we're experimenting with.
MR. HANSON: But not due to deliberate randomization?
MR. NORVIG: There is some randomization part in it, but to a limited extent."
Personally, I don't see how you could have any kind of ethical "randomization" in the single set of organic results on the 1st or 2nd SERP that the search engines are currently showing? Why? Because in Google's "Technology Overview" it states: "By combining overall importance and query-specific relevance, Google is able to put the most relevant and reliable results first." It would be, in my opinion, an "oxymoron" to have the words "randomization" and "relevance" used together in an explanation of a strategy for "reliable results" by any search engine!
I put this post under "SEO-SEM" because if major "randomization" really occurred, one of the more important of SEO-SEM Consultant's jobs (improving the ranking of his client's web site) would be made very difficult or impossible to do depending on the amount of "randomization" in the first few SERP's!
I'll cover further panel notes in Brokerblogger.com on what was said about Google putting the interests of the online search user first, ahead of advertisers and stockholders.
Animated image courtesy of www.artie.com.
Comments