Google changes its search algorithm to give priority to original reports

Google is changing its search algorithms again, in order to displease everyone. Today's announcement is that the company will try to focus on "original reports", which it will "elevate" in its search results. To do this, he has distributed new instructions to his team of more than 10,000 human reviewers, whose comments allow to form the algorithm of Google to classify the search results.

This will annoy everyone because basically nobody outside of Google really knows what the repercussions of this change will be (and maybe in the interior Google does not know it either). Sometimes these search changes are minor, sometimes these ads fundamentally alter the business models of hundreds of websites. Plus, whenever a big tech company gets close to the idea of ​​classifying the news these days, hell is unleashed.

Here is Google's specific explanation of what should look different when looking for certain news topics:

We typically post the most recent and most complete version of an article in the news results, but we have made changes to our products globally to highlight items we consider to be significant original reports . Such items can remain in a highly visible position for longer. This visibility allows users to see the original report while looking at newer articles.

There is no absolute definition of the original report nor an absolute standard for determining the originality of a given article. This can mean different things for different newsrooms and publishers at different times. Therefore, our efforts will constantly evolve as we strive to understand the life cycle of a story.

Google is more likely to "show the most recent and complete version of an article" in recent years, which often means that the following articles are tracked more than version original. Nevertheless, even assuming that Google succeeds (and that it is a big "if"), this does not mean that this change will not cause controversy.

All good reports are not just news. Publications often synthesize several different sources of information to give readers an overview, provide follow-up reports that are more thoughtful than the original, cut the thread and turn things around to go at the heart of a story or many other attempts step by step. bring more truth and meaning to readers.

There may be other unintended consequences, as often happens when a large technology company changes the software that affects the industries that are connected to it. For example, it may be profitable to get news even more quickly before it is properly verified and confirmed. If originality counts more than precision, we have a problem.

The Google blog tries to answer some of these concerns. the company says it's asking human appraisers to take into account a publisher's reputation for providing quality reporting, and to enhance an article when it "provides information that does not help." would not have been known otherwise if the article had not revealed them, "with an eye for" original ". "In-depth reporting and investigation" in particular. These stories are rarely fast.

But again – even if you assume that Google's algorithm will correctly identify late-breaking information, put it correctly at the top, correctly put the related value articles at the top of the page, and none of this will incite the bad actors to do bad things – the changes of today again cause anxiety.

President Trump, among many others, is not going to give Google the benefit of the doubt. And the nuances involved in the technical details of Google's changes are guaranteed to get lost if someone in Congress trapped them. Google's human reviewers review Google's search results and note their accuracy, but they do not directly show the results of the search. Only the algorithm can do it. It seems highly unlikely that the discussion will translate into an audience.

At the end of the day, Google Search is a black box. Google itself must be vague in explaining how it works to not be played. This forces people who are hooked on how Google works to engage in a frustrating kremlinology. People who are not naturally connected to the search engine optimization policy feel suspicious.

And maybe this will turn out to be a minor change after all. It is impossible to say whether Google is simply saying what publishers and readers want to hear, or whether it will really have a real and positive effect. Even if that is the case, you can bet that someone will be annoyed.