Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Planning To Serve "High Quality News" Passively

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the grain-of-salt dept.

Google 72

krou writes "The Wrap has an interesting interview with Eric Schmidt on Google's new plan for news. Google is apparently planning on rolling out 'high-quality news' to users who are not actively searching for news. It's expected to launch in approximately six months' time, and the first two news organizations to be involved will be The New York Times and The Washington Post. 'Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google's page. The latest algorithms apply ever more sophisticated filtering — based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues — to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they're looking for it. And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content.' Although Schmidt said that companies like the New York Times won't get any of this ad revenue, he commented that it will push stories to users who want them, drive up traffic to those stories, and in turn bring higher advertising rates for those stories." As VentureBeat points out, Google hasn't officially confirmed any of this, and with no ad revenue going to the other companies, it only partially addresses complaints that Google is profiting unfairly from the work of news publications.

cancel ×

72 comments

weeee!!!!!!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27774729)

first post

Re:weeee!!!!!!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775027)

I much prefer having sex with Linus Torvalds over Richard Stallman. With Richard Stallman he always wants to call things GNU/Anal sex or GNU/blowjob and he requires you to give him a GNU/reacharound but won't reciprocate. Linus on the other hand will go balls to the wall and not only suck you off but swallow!

I... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27774773)

I for one Welcome our new Unfairly profiting Google News Serving Overlords!

Haw. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27774817)

it only partially addresses complaints that Google is profiting unfairly from the work of news publications.

I'll gladly pay for American news when it quits being a fucking joke. Oh Noes! The swine flu is out to get us!

Re:Haw. (2, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775183)

umm, yeah, uh, like the propaganda spread by news agencies anywhere outside north america is any less population pacifying propaganda and advertisments than the Washington Post or National Enquirer.
      My favorite example is perhaps Englands "The Sun"

Re:Haw. (2, Funny)

mpeskett (1221084) | more than 5 years ago | (#27778701)

Don't be silly, the Sun isn't news... it's more like a comic, but the jokes aren't as clever.

Re:Haw. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27815943)

Are they all not comic distortions? Sans humor.
See my point?

Re:Haw. (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775443)

What do you expect it to cover? Tracking an infectious disease actually seems like a good use of the media to me. Would you rather read about The presidents new Dog, or the fact the a lot of people doesn't like the presidents view or a lot of people who does. Do you want to fucus on everything that is wrong with the world and make you feel more depressed or all the good things so you get cavities. Do you want to read transcripts of the entire debates that goes on in the House of Representatives.

There is a lot of stuff that goes on in the world, that can be covered. And almost anything that goes on is of interest to someone. News outlets need to balance importance and popularity of such venues.

The problem I see with Google News is that it will give news that people want to see, not necessary news that will broaden their views.
I want to see news that makes the Republicans look like a bunch of whinny babies when they are in the minority, however if the republicans are in charge I want the democrat minority look like brave people standing up for our rights.

Re:Haw. (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27777673)

Ok, sure, let's cover a disease that's killed one person so far, and isn't likely to last very long, rather than something like police brutality, which kills people on a regular basis. How about covering the fact that police are trying to kill people for _misdemeanors_. I mean, hell, friggin' _whooping cough_ kills more frequently than the swine flu has so far. When was the last time you heard about that in the news?

Yea, it's better than talking about Obama's dog. No, that doesn't mean it's not still stupid.

I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (-1, Troll)

willda (1369247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27774841)

If this comes to pass, I guess that I'll try another search engine, I want what I want not all the junk that Google (or anyone else) thinks that I want.

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (3, Funny)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775053)

not all the junk that Google (or anyone else) thinks that I want.

Ummm pardon me for asking but isn't that what a search engine does? Gets you what you they think you want? If someone developed a tool that gave me exactly what I wanted regardless of my syntax...sign me up and where do I buy stock?

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (5, Insightful)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775125)

They get you what they think you want after you ask for it. That's a critical difference between what Google does now and the proposed new system.

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (3, Insightful)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775219)

Ya I know ;) Even when you ask for something they are just doing a best guess. Getting exactly what you asked for is akin to solving for Zeta in a Taylor series. But yes, I love google for it's simplicity, I don't need another yahoo.com throwing random data to generate revenu...

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (1)

willda (1369247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775307)

regardless of my syntax..?

That's not exactly how I interpreted it. I took it to mean that the news would be dished to me (along with adverts) because of what I had searched for before. Since I work in IT, that means I would get nothing but IT news when I log in at work & at home? Sorry, but I have a little trouble with force feeding. I don't have a Speedy Rewards card or any thing of the type. They are just used to find a subject that advertisers think they might make money from me. I send junk mail back to the sender in their own prepaid envelope (I'm tired of paying the trashman to haul it off). I'm also an old fart with 6 Grand kids and a GG Kid. I like my privacy and have a problem with the "Internet is everything generation". Seems a strange contradiction for an IT guy but, isn't life just a strange contradiction? :)

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27781645)

Can't wait to see all the fishing news of Buttfuck, Idaho, which is the only thing I'm interested in.
I'll keep you posted if it sends me the bait prices the kid down the road asks.

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775147)

Well great. So when boss pops by to shoot the shit & says, "Hey, punch up *super-cool-ApGizmo* for me", I have to remember not to use damn Google.

Hello, AC! Your Custom Preference Page:

SPORTS |TECH| NEW-PRON | PRON-PRON | PROGRAMMING | PRON | NEW POKER STRATEGIES! | COOL JOBS |FOOTBALL NFL | FOOTBALL LINGERIE | UNIX | A-HOLE BOSS | STOCKS | PRON STOCKS | STOCKINGS | STOCKINGS FETISH

Fan... fucking-tastic

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775897)

If you are doing that many personal searches at work, your boss can't be that much of an A-HOLE.

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27776045)

Yeah, you totally caught me exaggerating for effect.
I don't really care about poker.

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775555)

Fucking moron.

Re:I guess that Google knows what's best for us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27777507)

You should try Lycos.com. They're a pretty good search engine! They have a doggie and everything!

So Much for the "Passive" Exposure (5, Interesting)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#27774943)

Now who can I actively pay *not* to be exposed to stories from the NY Times or the Washington Post?

Maybe Google can get paid twice: once by the rags to get their stories shoveled to the top of the heap, and another time by the users to get them buried back down again.

Pretty clever, Google, now that I think of it...

Re:So Much for the "Passive" Exposure (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775551)

Now who can I actively pay *not* to be exposed to stories from the NY Times or the Washington Post?

Just don't use Google. Seriously. They are not here to be your friend. They want to mine your data and direct you to their sponsors.

Rupert Murdoch (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776645)

That's who.

It'll probably take a little time, but as more and more people see the high journalistic quality of papers and outlets like his relative to rags like the NYT and WaPo, the market will naturally take care of the latter papers.

Or, you know, if you're not sure you like Murdoch either, there's always USA Today.

Oxymoron (1)

Hellpop (451893) | more than 5 years ago | (#27778777)

"High quality news from the NY Times or the Washington Post"

Not just typo (-1, Offtopic)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27774963)

Grammar error in summary too: "Google is apparently planning on rolling out 'high-quality news' to users who not actively searching for news." There should be an "are" after who, I believe.

Re:Not just typo (0, Offtopic)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775143)

No, that is a typo. Grammar errors would be actual misuse of the language, not simply forgetting a word. Also why the fuck does someone tag with typoinsummary? You know we're gonna point it out in the comments. Why not use that tag for something useful that can aid in searching articles and what not. Pedantic bastards.

Re:Not just typo (0, Offtopic)

t3sser4ct (1522605) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775341)

Why not use that tag for something useful that can aid in searching articles and what not. Pedantic bastards.

I think having such technical tags such as "typoinsummary" can be handy for analysis. It's kind of hard to think of an example right now, but it seems to me that being able to search through thousands of summaries and instantly identifying which of them contains (or contained) an error could indeed be useful in some cases.

Re:Not just typo (0, Offtopic)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775569)

Why not use that tag for something useful that can aid in searching articles and what not. Pedantic bastards.

I think having such technical tags such as "typoinsummary" can be handy for analysis. It's kind of hard to think of an example right now, but it seems to me that being able to search through thousands of summaries and instantly identifying which of them contains (or contained) an error could indeed be useful in some cases.

Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems that the number of duplicate posts has gone way down since we gained the ability to tag posts as "dupe".

Re:Not just typo (0, Offtopic)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776279)

Ha haaa, another four mod points wasted! (I can do this all day, but you only have one point left...)

That said, my post was perfectly on-topic to this post which I was replying to. Unless I prefix them with "OT:", they always are. I was, of course, assuming that the reader had the wit to extrapolate out the point I was trying to make: perhaps the presence of these tags helps to improve the overall quality of submissions.

Re:Not just typo (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27779475)

Aei! The pain, you got me again! Like little pins and needles under my skin. Damn you!

Other News (1, Funny)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27774973)

In other news, Google continue to completely take over the World.

Re:Other News (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27777993)

Funded by advertising revenue. Never, ever forget that those of the 'Google is Great' cult.

What we REALLY need is (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775001)

For Google to take over ALL high speed access broadband and kill the
idiots like Time Warner, AT&T et al. They have the money and are closer
to being honest with subscribers. Oh well, that will never happen.

IF there is to be a monopoly, it should be from intelligent overlords,
not profit driven idiots. Yeah, we have all heard that before.

Re:What we REALLY need is (1)

HasselhoffThePaladin (1191269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775319)

Except for that part about what absolute power has a tendency to do. And that other part about meeting the new boss...

Re:What we REALLY need is (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776587)

And the part about glass houses. OH and the one about two birds and the hedge. I also like the one with the lips and the sinking ship, and the one with hatching chickens. The last one's probably my favorite.

Wait, were you trying to make a point?

So if my most common search terms are... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775035)

So if my most common search terms are "boobies" and "robots"
It's going to show me NYTimes articles about just that? Sweet.

love when reality mimics fiction (1)

djrabbit (1522869) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775061)

Can we get a 'caprica' tag? When you're enjoying your convenient personalized news, remember that you're *this* much closer to immortal cylon greatness.

Oxymorons (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775113)

" Quality News" is like " Military Intelligence" "Reality Television" or "Recent History", all oxymorons.
        Brushing up on information theory can show that
poor reporting ethics, editing, spin, and propaganda all lower the quality of "News" (should be 'olds' as it's already happened").
hmmm ,oxy=sharp moron=dull...

How will newspapers get their Google money? (1)

Glass Goldfish (1492293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775163)

You know what I'm talking about. The big bag of Google money supposed to go to every newspaper because they are so gosh darn important. The bag of monthly money that was being legislated because driving hits to their websites wasn't funding their business model. Many newspapers were fooled into going deeply into debt by the premise that nothing would ever change, why can't Government just fix this?

Slashdot is my news (2, Funny)

AwooOOoo (1081997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775173)

...so in six months time google will link me to slashdot?

I see new Firefox add-on coming (5, Interesting)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775227)

two news organizations to be involved will be The New York Times and The Washington Post. 'Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google's page.

If it comes from The New York Times or The Washington Post, then it is extremely unlikely that it will contain anything that interests me.

I see very little long-term benefit to Google from this, and I see a lot of potentially pissed off users who do not want to be spoon fed NYT or WP crap. Seriously, anyone can find whatever news sources one wants today on the net. Why the hell would I want to have that crap shoved into my face every time I want to do a search?

I will bet you within weeks of Google launching this idiocy, someone will write an add-on for Firefox to block it.

Re:I see new Firefox add-on coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775885)

If it comes from The New York Times or The Washington Post, then it is extremely unlikely that it will contain anything that interests me.

Well, you don't need to brag about your own stupidity.

Re:I see new Firefox add-on coming (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27778259)

Well, you don't need to brag about your own stupidity.

Said anonymous coward, a NYT and WP reader.

Re:I see new Firefox add-on coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27780429)

Being informed about the world you live in is a sign of intelligence. Thinking that the NYT carries absolutely no useful information (regardless of whether you agree with their bias, commentaries, etc) is not.

Where do you get your information from? Slashdot? Twitter? Blogs? The Colbert Report? Fox News?

While undoubtedly you can find a better source that NYT on any specific subject, believing that the majority of news in the New Your Times (or any other respected US paper) is wrong, or propaganda, or whatever, (pick your poison), is naive at best.

Re:I see new Firefox add-on coming (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27780789)

Oh yes, I don't read propaganda crap, that means I must be getting my information from Twitter (or Colbert Report, as if there was a difference). The world according to NYT readers.

That's why I don't read it.

Re:I see new Firefox add-on coming (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776531)

two news organizations to be involved will be The New York Times and The Washington Post. 'Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google's page.

If it comes from The New York Times or The Washington Post, then it is extremely unlikely that it will contain anything that interests me.

I see very little long-term benefit to Google from this, and I see a lot of potentially pissed off users who do not want to be spoon fed NYT or WP crap. Seriously, anyone can find whatever news sources one wants today on the net. Why the hell would I want to have that crap shoved into my face every time I want to do a search?

I will bet you within weeks of Google launching this idiocy, someone will write an add-on for Firefox to block it.

Adblock will probably kill it like it kills all the other Google ads. I'm happy to read from a wide range of news sources, but when I want to do so I already can. I have RSS feeds to show me very types of breaking or important news, and while I may search for WoW info a lot each week, I never ever want to see some news story on WoW when I'm searching for someone else. I spend a lot of the day searching for work related stuff, but I don't want to see news related to it at night (or during the day for that matter). I know what I want. Google never has.

Re:I see new Firefox add-on coming (1)

Triv (181010) | more than 5 years ago | (#27777259)

I have RSS feeds to show me very types of breaking or important news, and while I may search for WoW info a lot each week, I never ever want to see some news story on WoW when I'm searching for someone else.

See, I get sick of my rss feeds because, after a while, it becomes a whole lot of more-of-the-same - RSS gets me information I know I'm going to want like new episodes of shows uploaded to Hulu or updated web comics or, like you, WoW news, but reading the paper (the old way: bought from a newsstand on my way home from work at night) teaches me about things I didn't know I was interested in until I saw it in print. My feeds are reliable and informative and good for keeping me current, but the paper is much for effective for me at getting me outside the daily grind into the new and noteworthy.

WTF? (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775259)

Google is apparently planning on rolling out 'high-quality news' to users who not actively searching for news.

This to be followed by rolling out 'high-quality porn' to users who are not actively searching for porn (a small minority of google searches, to be sure.) Later, they plan to roll out V14gr4 and p3n1s enlargement ads targeted solely at women. Their new slogan: "Google... we know what you're really looking for!"

Passively (1)

Jay L (74152) | more than 5 years ago | (#27780349)

Next, they'll serve news passive-aggressively:

"Heart attacks claimed more lives this year than ever before, scientists say. Not that you care. No, fine, it's not important, it's only what killed your cousin Stanley. No biggie. Don't exercise on my account."

Oh boy (5, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775379)

Grammar aside, this is downright scary:

'high-quality news' to users who not actively searching for news

If I'm not actively searching for news it's probably because I'm not interested in news at that particular moment, whether they are high quality, sponsored or not.

It seems Google is actively trying to find exciting new ways to become annoying.

Re:Oh boy (2, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27777653)

"No actively searching for news" probably means that someone is doing a Google search on the normal Google home page but the search terms match up with some news story. For example, I'm going to Disney World soon, so when I heard about a possible Swine Flu case in Orlando/Disney, I was interested. I searched Google for "Swine Flu Orlando [google.com] ". Along with the search results were Google News results. I wasn't actively looking for news, but the Google News links were welcome additions to the search results.

Re:Oh boy (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27791159)

It already does that to a certain extent. This must be something different, designed to up the number of sponsored crap that shows up on their search results.

misconstrued statement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775383)

I'm having trouble reconciling the claim:
"And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content."

and
"Does the New York Times make more money from this arrangement, I asked? No, Schmidt confirmed, it wonâ(TM)t. But by targeting the stories that readers will want to read, it will get more hits out of the stories it has, which will drive its traffic and ultimately support higher advertising rates beside the stories."

The premium ads he's talking about are those served by the news publisher, not Google's. Likely the service wont even have Google ads, just like news.google.com doesn't.

That's nice, but will I be able to SHUT IT OFF? (2, Interesting)

BattyMan (21874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775499)

I'm (attempting) working on a slow dial-up connection. By "slow" here, I mean _maybe_ 5 or 10 Kb/s (according to the 'bloze "Task 'Manager'"'s Network meter, which I have no way to fracking calibrate.

This is all that the PHB will shell out for. AOHell works well enough for him (at home, on a different machine and phone line) and he sees no need for anything else. When the Boss comes in and says "hook me up to my email", he's already dismayed that I shun his AOHell, its proprietary dialer, and its (automagically launched!) Internet Exploiter, favoring instead Firefox and an AT&T account (that he got as a freebie with his web hosting deal). He has immense difficulties with the fact that "it doesn't look the same as at home". Hey, at least I got him to upgrade it to unlimited from the original 9 hrs/month. I was able to get that only by fighting him over the AOL connection for a week or so. When I dial up here, it throws him off at home, he'd redial and throw me off, etc. Can you say "counterproductive"?

I digress. My POINT is that AOHell has recently added (their) news to their main email interface webpage, complete with rotating photos to completely saturate my 5Kb connection, making it unusable unless one _immediately_ reloads the optional "low-bandwidth, basic mode" version. If Google does this too, and I cannot shut it off, it will make Google absolutely useless to me.

Excerpts from "Top Ten Things You're Likely To Hear From A Frustrated Digital Engineer":

"You _need_ a REAL Internet connection. Dial-up, particularly AOHell, does not count."

"As your digital technology consultant, I advise you to network together all those old DOS machines. It's their only hope."

"One must be ignorant, misguided, or masochistically insane to expose a Micro$oft system to the Internet."

"NO ONE should use Internet Exploiter."

And I've already been downmodded before for that last one, so flame away.

I'd also express agreement with the chap a few posts back who opined: "I'll pay attention to American news when it quits being a fucking joke".

Re:That's nice, but will I be able to SHUT IT OFF? (2)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776437)

Sorry, anything useful you might have to say was drowned out by all your retarded "AOHell" words making you sound like an angry highschooler.

Re:That's nice, but will I be able to SHUT IT OFF? (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776647)

Great, someone write Google and tell them they can't go through with their plan cause it'll piss off Grandpa.

Wow (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27781701)

I sure hope you are still in high school because if you are any older than 19, seek help. That or you are a brilliant troll, in which case kudos to you.

Re:That's nice, but will I be able to SHUT IT OFF? (1)

theaceoffire (1053556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27790503)

"NO ONE should use Internet Explorer."

Well, they shouldn't, and you are right. There are faster, smaller, more reliable browsers available for free. If they choose to use that browser, then they need to accept the flaws that come with it (Lots of security issues, slower, no plugins, renders differently from version to version, etc).

If a person's company needs IE6 to run inshop programs, they better pray for MS to support IE6 until they can upgrade the proprietary stuff for IE7/IE8... or at least that there won't be a major issue until it is someone else's problem (Next Virus/Trojan/Etc)

I have also become concerned that we are encouraging people to use crappy software longer, since the worst case scenarios are avoided when we help (Data is backed up, software is tweaked, 3rd party patches are used, major annoyances are moderated, etc). You ever wonder that if someone was allowed to lose everything, they may actually listen when you warn them?

High quality? News? (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775601)

Hypothetical situation which seems to pass as high quality news these days:

In news today, Paris Hilton has had another sex tape released, here's a clip of it here........

Click here to order the last Paris Hilton sex DVD 'leaked'

I think, therefore I am a Google profile (5, Insightful)

Snotman (767894) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775641)

What is a person and their interests? At what point does Google create a prison for a person by creating a profile that represents your interests you can't break free of? What does it say about "I" if "I" can be quantified? Does "I" ever need to break free of their profile because in reality, we all filter on an implicit profile within ourselves and it never changes. After all, the profile is about opt-out of information as much as opt-in. So, when your profile prevents information from reaching you because it is filtered out, the bars of the prison are realized. In the end, does this make you stupider?

For instance, let's say I am a person that believes that the dark ages were good and the world is flat. Will information to the contrary ever come my way if I am identified as a backward person? How would I ever become enlightened to opposing view points if I am always presented with affirming information on my world perspective.

Re:I think, therefore I am a Google profile (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27776711)

Interesting point, but our brains already do this for us. Take a flat-earther into space and they'll wonder why you turned the windows into funny lenses that make the Earth look round.

Google will never actively filter the entire internet based on your preferences, so those of us who like to get new information will go and get it while the rest will keep on going with their head in the sand.

Porn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27775803)

I'm not really that interested in pornography or nudism related news. Topics of interests and what current events I follow aren't always the same.

High Quality Google News in one step (1, Interesting)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 5 years ago | (#27775809)

block Fox 'News'.

Anyone else creeped out by Google yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27776719)

I've actually been creeped out for a few years now, but no one else seems to be. I find this service to be unsettling (don't run Javascript on Google and reject cookies, so maybe it wouldn't even work), anyone else?

Propaganda (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 5 years ago | (#27777009)

Consider:
  1. The New York Times and The Washington Post were key players in beating the drums of war in the leadup to the Iraq War. They passed along the Bush adiminstration's falsified intelligence unquestioned (remember Judith Miller?), and they underreported attendance at anti-war protests (in the most egregious case, the New York Times didn't bother to send a reporter to the protest of 100-200 thousand and ran one paragraph that stated "thousands").
  2. The CIA is rumored [slashdot.org] to be behind Google.
  3. Former CIA director William Colby is reported [yahoo.com] to have said "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

My conclusion: this is how the CIA will continue to pump the people in the U.S. with propaganda now that the Internet is eclipsing television.

cross ref rence my needs with my mail (1)

alabandit (1024941) | more than 5 years ago | (#27779819)

it will also cross reference with my mail and Viagra will make daily headlines. can't wait!

Bookmark all your "sign out" and "log off" links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27782717)

I recently noticed that after I'd logged out of the NYT, it still displayed my name.

I tried logging out again, closing the window, closing Firefox.

It still said I was logged out and still knew my name in its stupid "stalker" system.

This is getting tiresome. Not that I trusted logging off or signing out to really work.

But damn.

Scary (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27782953)

I foresee a slant against stories that don't bring in ad revenue. And how could anyone ever prove it, with scads of data-driven logic making the decision of what you see and what you don't. At least if I'm doing the filtering myself, I know what I've chosen not to read.

Taking bets... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 5 years ago | (#27785119)

I'm taking bets on how long it will be in "Beta"

My money is on at LEAST 10 years...

This kind of pre-filtering is OLDS, not NEWS (1)

Conficio (832978) | more than 5 years ago | (#27787321)

apply ever more sophisticated filtering â" based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues â" to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they're looking for it

This kind of pre-filtered content is not news it is more of the old stuff that I'm already interested in.

Part of the appeal of a news paper or other news publication is to alert me to something that I'm not thinking of anyway. For example would you have thought of "swine flu" three weeks ago?

I also don't understand the appeal from the perspective of a search engine. News probably should be part of my search results for the keywords I'm, looking for. But in order for it to really be useful allow me to tell in my search if I want new answers over old established one's. One search of mine might be looking for news another might be for historic records. An automatic bias for news is rather hindering in the second search request. And pages don't add a keyword "old" or "historic" to themselves just because they have been published a few years ago. Hell, way to many online organizations (blogs, etc.) don't even feel it is appropriate to post a publishing date to their post.)

propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27864863)

Passive exposure to propaganda. I say sweet!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...