Google looking at ways to rate websites based more on trustworthiness

Google looking at ways to rate websites based more on trustworthiness

A team of researchers at Google has been looking into ways to change the way links are retrieved by its famous search engine—instead of ranking them based on popularity, the researchers are looking into ways of ranking based on the trustworthiness of the site, which would be based on information the web agrees is factual. In their paper they have uploaded to the arXiv preprint sever, the team describes their ideas and what they have found thus far.

Information returned by Google's has become more and more important over the past several years—where once it was considered entertaining or merely useful, now it is big business. Companies put a lot of money into making sure links for their products rank high on the list, which in turn means that the actual real-world value of the information Google returns has increased dramatically. Also at stake is real-world money attached to , aka "clicks"—higher rankings on Google generally translate to more people clicking on a link, which means more money for the owner of that link. Recognizing the value their search data represents, Google is responding by looking into ways to provide more value to people that use their search engine. Instead of simply ranking by a based on how many other sites link to it, Google wants to factor in whether in information on sites it lists is actually truthful.

We all know that there is a plethora of links on the web that take us to places we do not trust, or want be at in the first place—we get taken in by come-on's or by headings that promise one thing and deliver something different, or find ourselves visiting a site that it is very obviously bogus and feeling foolish for it. Because of its stature in the community, Google wants to change this. Their idea is to count the number of purported facts on a given web site and then compare those against a knowledge-based trusted source—returning a number (they call it a Knowledge-Based Trust index) that represents the of the site. Those with a higher trustworthiness number would appear before those with less trustworthiness in Google searches. The team notes that Google already has a "Knowledge Vault" that can be used as the trusted source. They report that their research thus far has revealed that their method can "reliably compute the true trustworthiness levels of the sources."

At this point, it is not clear if Google actually intends to implement such a change—if so, it could mean a round of misery for web site owners who post bogus material for the express purpose of reaping cash rewards.


Explore further

Google boosts health search with more medical sources

More information: Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources, arXiv:1502.03519 [cs.DB] arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519v1

Abstract
The quality of web sources has been traditionally evaluated using exogenous signals such as the hyperlink structure of the graph. We propose a new approach that relies on endogenous signals, namely, the correctness of factual information provided by the source. A source that has few false facts is considered to be trustworthy. The facts are automatically extracted from each source by information extraction methods commonly used to construct knowledge bases. We propose a way to distinguish errors made in the extraction process from factual errors in the web source per se, by using joint inference in a novel multi-layer probabilistic model. We call the trustworthiness score we computed Knowledge-Based Trust (KBT). On synthetic data, we show that our method can reliably compute the true trustworthiness levels of the sources. We then apply it to a database of 2.8B facts extracted from the web, and thereby estimate the trustworthiness of 119M webpages. Manual evaluation of a subset of the results confirms the effectiveness of the method.

via Newscientist

Journal information: arXiv

© 2015 Tech Xplore

Citation: Google looking at ways to rate websites based more on trustworthiness (2015, March 2) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2015-03-google-ways-websites-based-trustworthiness.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
47 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

KBK
Mar 02, 2015
This is an exceedingly dangerous idea and it will be very bad news, if it is put into place. For example, before any of this website becomes fact, or even gets researched, it is pure conjecture. In essence, such a system would invariably be draconian, and dogmatic, by definition and act. The human sphere of knowledge and knowing is very small compared to the potential of knowing, and the arrow of science is in need of constant correction.

Determinism is dead - it was stillborn; the requirement of statistical function in quantum states, defines that as the only extant reality possible.

This is 'ministry of information' Orwellian 1984 stuff, big time. I strongly suggest that this sort of system be shitcanned with as much fervor and derision that can be heaped up on it - with Pitchforks and firebrands.

If you love physics and you love science and see it as a way forward for humanity, then you cannot let the past/history dictate the future, and if you do, you are already dead.

KBK
Mar 02, 2015
there is no soft sell on this one, either, no foot in the door, no limited release, no limited application.

ANY application of any version of it...will spiral out of control, with respect to trying to dictate the future by being the painter of the record of history.

The nature of human life is projections from the past (all human reality function arises from the past), being the source points of ruminations of the future, and application into said future.

This truth thing from Google...this seeks to intervene in such all important open capacity, by violating the memory systems, which by definition require all colors and shapes to be extant and recognized, in all things.

This is a brutally bad idea, a horrific Orwellian idea --- and it should be burned at the stake, and the leftovers posted as a still smouldering waring for all to see and remember.

Mar 02, 2015
I think this is excellent news for anybody looking for facts.

But this may of course disappoint several others. Creationists, Tea Baggers, Charlatans, Snake Oil salesmen, astrologers, anti-vaxxers, and others come to mind.

I do think Google understands the delicacy here, and proceeds with small steps. But the direction certainly is laudable.

KBK
Mar 02, 2015
You sir, are not what I would call a critical thinker.

You entirely miss the reality of the outcome. Your stance is incredibly dangerous and short in the full scope of logic.

I trust no-one and no thing, when it comes to the idea of reality considerations by which to ponder. No filter will work without shortening the potentials for humanity.

To ask limited intellect men, who are subject to their own whims and that of others, to allow their creation of filters in such position in the flow of human life.....is asking for disaster, asking for hegemony, dogma, religion, and oligarchy, to be, to exist..but...to be just out of sight.

You are actually being asked to trade a fake falsified security and surety... for your open future.

See it for what it is.

Mar 02, 2015
I think this is excellent news for anybody looking for facts.

But this may of course disappoint several others. Creationists, Tea Baggers, Charlatans, Snake Oil salesmen, astrologers, anti-vaxxers, and others come to mind
@gwrede
ABSOLUTELY
one reason i only ever use Google Scholar

there may be a good selling point to having MULTIPLE CHOICES for a person when searching though
Give a choice between popular choices, Scientific choices, factual information and then perhaps a separate function for the kooks and pseudoscience, or crackpots

The whole popular choice is what confuses people with regard to a lot of different science...

if Google comes back with anti-science sites or pseudoscience (like DAW, electric universe, creationists etc), they assume it is legit based upon the positioning in the return, not because of the science or data within

most people don't think and are too lazy to actually use multiple search engines etc


Mar 02, 2015
It would be not that dangerous if bunch of guys did it in garage. The problem is "implied authority" of Google which reality has NONE. Another wall street fakery disguised as application of basic and useless fuzzy logic where you evaluate degree of truthfulness of logical statements by using ARBITRARY weight function concocted ad-hoc to serve their needs. Look how ridiculous is what they are saying that bunch of overpaid viz kids solved quintessential epidemiological question that escaped philosophers for over 2500 years.
How in the world they will be able to evaluate government statements based on secret info unless they already work for NSA. I really look forward to learn if God really exists by examination of religious websites or may be God nor Al Gore created internet. Future of such education seems blinding.
In summary Google pushes utter nonsense to gullible Americans for profit. I just downgraded trustworthiness of this entire website.

Mar 02, 2015
ANY application of any version of it...will spiral out of control, with respect to trying to dictate the future by being the painter of the record of history
@KBK
you do realize that it is already happening and no matter WHAT search engine you use, you are still being directed by the whims of the programmer and their algorithm

Google uses popularity right now, which is STUPID when looking for scientific facts
it is the reason sites for creationists get high ratings or returns while a college might come lower in the return
people cling to their false beliefs because it is POPULAR or because it is easier
or because they fear disruption and reality
or whatever reason

it is also affected by $$$$

there really is only one GOOD solution:
MULTIPLE algorithms to be used as the user see's fit

one for factual information
one for popularity
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 02, 2015
This is an exceedingly dangerous idea and it will be very bad news, if it is put into place
Of course, because every breakthrough research is less trustworthy - actually the more, the more breaking is. In this way we would systematically censor just the findings and ideas, which deserve highest attention. This is exactly the mechanism of spiral of silence of pluralistic ignorance (which wiped out the cold fusion research from science for nearly one century). The layman people already trust various "crackpot indexes" more, than it's healthy - it's a modern analogy of Malleus Maleficarum book which helped the Church to excommunicate the dissent.

Mar 02, 2015
there really is only one GOOD solution: MULTIPLE algorithms to be used as the user see's fit
This is actually quite good idea (especially for long term censor of all new ideas like you) - just let the people choose/decide, which information filter/bias they want to use during their search.

Mar 02, 2015
we would systematically censor just the findings and ideas, which deserve highest attention
@ZEPHIR/dethe
you mean like the debunked DAW/AW bs that you continually push?
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

you are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist looking for excuses as to why your pseudoscience is not considered mainstream... there is ONE reason why: because it has been falsified
(see study above)

whereas you are loathe to study actual physics to comprehend the WHY
you simply cling to the belief like a faith instead
especially for long term censor of all new ideas like you
spoken like a true religious fanatic and conspiratorial crackpot

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF


Mar 02, 2015
The layman people already trust various "crackpot indexes" more, than it's healthy
@ZEPHIR
no, it is NOT healthy
lets examine that from a LOGICAL perspective, shall we?

assuming it IS healthy... can you put a rocket into orbit around Mars with the Geocentric belief system?

can you cure/innoculate against small pox with (even as recent as) Tudor medicine?

can you build a nuclear reactor with Alchemy?

do i really need to keep pointing out the fallacies of believing in debunked science?
Your choice is fine... if you want to remain stupid, that is your choice... but to assume that the belief in debunked beliefs somehow leads to a better understanding of physics?

NO - only to the better understanding of psychology or behavior, like THIS study
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

tell you what Z...
prove me wrong
build that cold fusion reactor based on AW/DAW

Mar 02, 2015
How to build the cold fusion reactorThere are no secrets present. Simply mix powder from pure nickel and 10% of Li [AlH4] and heat it under pressure of hydrogen, generated with thermolysis of Li[AlH4]. It's so cheap and easy - and this is just the biggest problem for occupational driven economy. It's like the pushing of cheap generics into Big Pharma research.

Mar 02, 2015
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdfThere are no secrets present. Simply mix powder from pure nickel and 10% of Li [AlH4] and heat it under pressure of hydrogen, generated with thermolysis of Li[AlH4]. It's so cheap and easy - and this is just the biggest problem for occupational driven economy. It's like the pushing of cheap generics into Big Pharma research.
then why aren't you rich and famous?

why aren't these being built on every street corner putting out the energy needed to save the planet from its choking CO2 problem?

why aren't... well, you get the point, right?

WHERE ARE THEY?
why aren't they being sold everywhere?

yeah...
it's SO easy even a Zephir could do it....

may i AGAIN point out the logical fallacy here?
No... it would do NO good
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

zeph is simply another fanatic acolyte


Mar 02, 2015
then why aren't you rich and famous
Because you cannot get rich and famous with findings and ideas, which steal the job, business and fame for so many other people. You still didn't understand very much from emergent time-reversed phenomena of human society (despite it's just you, who does demonstrate them routinely). The darkest place is just under the candlestick.

Mar 02, 2015
Because you cannot get rich and famous with findings and ideas
@ZEPHIR
Gates, Disney and any author on the planet, especially one that writes Fiction would say you are WRONG
You still didn't understand very much from emergent time-reversed phenomena of human society
really?
then by all means, please elucidate!
don't forget to show links and references as well as empirical data

or is that too hard?

again, i point out that what you consider "pluralistic ignorance" is actually called:
the SCIENTIFIC METHOD

when something is ruled out with empirical evidence through various means of experiments etc, it is no longer considered viable

and it's not like we didn't give it a good chance to be proven
there have been 100 yrs of experiments debunking AW/DAW
the LATEST
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

Mar 03, 2015
The idea of Google is desire to acquire more control through the acquisition of the right to assess the independent sites. This creates prerequisites for the trading of influence. For example, the rating agencies are meaningless institutions because they need someone to give them a rating and then someone else has to give to it rating and so on to the infinity in the way of meaninglessness. The desire to make money from the air and any intermediary non-productive and useless activities is the basis of any economic crisis.

KBK
Mar 03, 2015
Because you cannot get rich and famous with findings and ideas
@ZEPHIR
Gates, Disney and any author on the planet, especially one that writes Fiction would say you are WRONG
You still didn't understand very much from emergent time-reversed phenomena of human society
really?
then by all means, please elucidate!


It's because there is a literal war going on.

A quiet but brutally serious war, a propaganda war....one with real casualties...a war for the control of the unfolding of people's awareness and their minds.

This Google filter game is a critical aspect of the next step.

Exactly what ~YOU~ represent in that war, really is the question here, for the more observant.

War has always contained a heart of propaganda - utilized as a lever into ignorance and the maintenance of states of ignorance. Ignorance control/maintenance is critical to war mongering and state systems.

Aware and thinking people don't go to war, or kill for others/ideals.

Mar 08, 2015
I cannot think of an idea more detrimental to science, freedom and the dissemination of fact than having a central body determine what you and I view in an internet search based on their view of "Truth". There is no better way to enslave a population than limit their access to conflicting viewpoints. The MSM is already controlled by the few and to allow this to happen to the internet is a travesty.


Mar 08, 2015
"I think this is excellent news for anybody looking for facts.

But this may of course disappoint several others. Creationists, Tea Baggers, Charlatans, Snake Oil salesmen, astrologers, anti-vaxxers, and others come to mind

@gwrede
ABSOLUTELY
one reason i only ever use Google Scholar"

Captain suppose that Nixon or Bush came up with this idea and they were to set up a Ministry of Truth that would be in charge of rating the websites and their search rankings. Would you still be in favor of the idea???????????????

Mar 08, 2015

It's always problematic to 'think' for others behalf. If they do so they are tacitly no longer a transparent search engine.

A good example is cable news, where each network has it's own idea of the 'truth'.

They should only use a purely disinterested means of testing for trustworthiness, .... like some measure of 'turn over rate'.... how many new users a cite gets and then loses verses how many return users.

Google should be careful, least the public end up rating it's search engine for trustworthiness and begin to use alternatives.

Mar 08, 2015
"They should only use a purely disinterested means of testing for trustworthiness, .... like some measure of 'turn over rate'.... how many new users a cite gets and loses vs how many return users."

That sounds more like a popularity contest than a test for truthfulness. People do not necessarily return to a site that does not tell them what they want to hear but they should read information produced by both sides of an argument and try to weigh the evidence as if they were on a jury. That evidence should include the motives behind the actions of each side.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more