Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: bibcode, jstor, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Ridersonthestrom | Category:Google | via #UCB_Category 156/187 |
m fix, clean, ssl |
||
Line 1:
The '''search engine manipulation effect''' (SEME) is the change in [[consumer behaviour|consumer preference]]s from [[Search engine manipulation|manipulations of search results]] by [[search engine]] providers. SEME is one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. This includes [[voting behaviour|voting preferences]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Crain|first1=Matthew|last2=Nadler|first2=Anthony|date=2019|title=Political Manipulation and Internet Advertising Infrastructure|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|journal=Journal of Information Policy|volume=9|pages=370–410|doi=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|jstor=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|issn=2381-5892}}</ref> A 2015 study indicated that such manipulations could shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more and up to 80 percent in some demographics.<ref name=poli>{{Cite web|title = How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election|url =
▲The '''search engine manipulation effect''' (SEME) is the change in [[consumer behaviour|consumer preference]]s from [[Search engine manipulation|manipulations of search results]] by [[search engine]] providers. SEME is one of the largest behavioral effects ever discovered. This includes [[voting behaviour|voting preferences]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Crain|first1=Matthew|last2=Nadler|first2=Anthony|date=2019|title=Political Manipulation and Internet Advertising Infrastructure|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|journal=Journal of Information Policy|volume=9|pages=370–410|doi=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|jstor=10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0370|issn=2381-5892}}</ref> A 2015 study indicated that such manipulations could shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more and up to 80 percent in some demographics.<ref name=poli>{{Cite web|title = How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election|url = http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?hp=rc3_4#.VduFK6sVhhH|access-date = 2015-08-24|first = Robert|last = Epstein |date=August 19, 2015 |publisher=Politico.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Epstein|first1=Robert|last2=Robertson|first2=Ronald E.|date=2015-08-18|title=The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=112|issue=33|pages=E4512–E4521|doi=10.1073/pnas.1419828112|issn=0027-8424|pmc=4547273|pmid=26243876|bibcode=2015PNAS..112E4512E}}</ref>
The study estimated that this could change the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of national elections worldwide.
On the other hand, [[Google]] denies secretly re-ranking search results to manipulate user sentiment, or tweaking ranking specially for elections or political candidates.<ref>{{Cite web|url=
{{toclimit|3}}
Line 22 ⟶ 20:
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups in which search rankings favored either Candidate A, Candidate B or neither candidate. Participants were given brief descriptions of each candidate and then asked how much they liked and trusted each candidate and whom they would vote for. Then they were allowed up to 15 minutes to conduct online research on the candidates using a manipulated search engine. Each group had access to the same 30 search results—each linking to real web pages from a past election. Only the ordering of the results differed in the three groups. People could click freely on any result or shift between any of five different results pages.<ref name=poli/>
After searching, on all measures, opinions shifted in the direction of the candidate favored in the rankings. Trust, liking and voting preferences all shifted predictably.<ref>{{Cite web |url = https://suchmaschinen-optimierung-seo-google.de/suchmaschinenoptimierung/ |title = Suchmaschinenoptimierung |language = de}}</ref> 36 percent of those who were unaware of the rankings bias shifted toward the highest ranked candidate, along with 45 percent of those who were aware of the bias.<ref name=poli/>
Slightly reducing the bias on the first result page of search results – specifically, by including one search item that favoured the other candidate in the third or fourth position masked the manipulation so that few or even no subjects noticed the bias, while still triggering the preference change.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web
Line 43 ⟶ 41:
European regulators accused Google of manipulating its search engine results to favor its own services, even though competitive services would otherwise have ranked higher. As of August 2015, the complaint had not reached resolution, leaving the company facing a possible fine of up to $6 billion and tighter regulation that could limit its ability to compete in Europe. In November 2014 the European Parliament voted 384 to 174 for a symbolic proposal to break up the search giant into two pieces—its monolithic search engine and everything else.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title = Google's $6 Billion Miscalculation on the EU|url = https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-08-06/google-s-6-billion-miscalculation-on-the-eu|website = Bloomberg.com|access-date = 2015-08-25|first1 = Vernon|last1 = Silver|last2 = Stone|first2 = Brad|date = August 6, 2015}}</ref>
The case began in 2009 when Foundem, a British online shopping service, filed the first antitrust complaint against Google in Brussels. In 2007, Google had introduced a feature called Universal Search. A search for a particular city address, a stock quote, or a product price returned an answer from one of its own services, such as [[Google Maps]] or [[Google Finance]]. This saved work by the user. Later tools such as OneBox<ref>{{Cite web|url = https://www.ereceptionist.co.uk/geo/onebox| title = OneBox}}</ref> supplied answers to specific queries in a box at the top of search results. Google integrated profile pages, contact information and customer reviews from [[Google Plus]]. That information appeared above links to other websites that offered more comprehensive data, such as [[Yelp]] or [[TripAdvisor]].<ref name=":0" />
Google executives [[Larry Page]] and [[Marissa Mayer]], among others, privately advocated for favoring Google's own services, even if its algorithms deemed that information less relevant or useful.<ref name=":0" />
| |||