![]() we'll end up hurting the very people we want to help," Mr Nayak said. If the goal of transparency is to help webmasters produce high-quality content, too much transparency will have exactly the opposite effect of enabling spammers to outrank high-quality sites. "If we have too much transparency, it only serves to enable spammers to game the algorithm better. However, there was an entire "cottage industry" among spammers to create artificial links between each others' web pages to improve their Google search rankings, as well as high-quality sites selling spammers links on their websites. "We actually are very much in favour of transparency because we want to support our webmasters in every way possible, because the web as a whole, the incentives for the web and our incentives are aligned – we can do only well based on the content that's available on the web," he said. The ACCC inquiry listed several issues relating to Google content searches, including a lack of transparency about ranking of news, attribution of original content, and paywalls – an increasingly important part of media business models – being treated unfairly in results. ![]() Google vice-president of search Pandu Nayak says the company cannot simply explain how everything worked because that would leave its products open to abuse. Mr Nayak is in Australia partly to talk with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about the watchdog's draft recommendations in its digital platforms inquiry, largely focused on Google and Facebook. ![]() Google cannot be too transparent about its search algorithms because low-quality websites might game the system and spam consumers, says its vice-president of search Pandu Nayak. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |