Presently, we are but a few days before the US Presidential Election, a time when candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are pulling out final cards to win the White House. As the tensions have risen with the campaign, accusations have gotten progressively more absurd. Last September, Donald Trump made another dramatic statement against the Hillary Clinton campaign, this time accusing Google of deleting negative search results about Clinton. Trump said at a rally that "A new post-debate poll, the Google poll, has us leading Hillary Clinton by two points nationwide …. and that's despite the fact that Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton. How about that." He has also accused via Twitter that the tech companies - as Google - are trying to stifle the new revelations about the FBI investigation into the case of Clinton emails.
Similar claims have even been made by less politically affiliated sources, such as the popular video-news blog SourceFed, which stated in June that Google in particular has been “burying potential sources that could hurt Hillary in the Primary Elections by manipulating recommendations on their site”. Common negative search terms did not appear in the automatic fill-in bar as compared to other search engines. (For instance, “hillary clinton criminal” - while a more popular term did not appear in the automatic results, while the less popular “hillary clinton crime reform” did).
Considering the Threat
Rather serious accusations! If true, what are the consequences? Internet users around the world rely on search engines as a fast means of being informed. There is a conception that the top results are most relevant and trustworthy and can be believed. This means that the first results and words seen by a viewer can have serious consequences on what they think about a subject. Robert Epstein, psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, conducted a study regarding the “Search Engine Manipulation Effect”. In a study in which subjects were shown search engine results of two candidates. The results greatly impacted the opinions due to the subjects making instantaneous judgements based on what they saw first. Regarding the US Election, Epstein ‘s study estimates that “based on win margins in national elections around the world that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”
Considering the Facts
So was Google really manipulating search results? And now to explain what really happens.
Both the Trump campaign and SourceFed have accused Google of human-made modifications. However, Google’s massive functions are carried out via automatic operations. Trump’s statements about “suppressed bad news stories” are the result of PageRank, the link analysis algorithm which makes Google’s search engine so successful. PageRank’s automatic operation is quite simple; the more an article is mentioned by hyperlinks, the higher it will likely be displayed in the top results of Google searches. This arguably makes the results even more relevant than competing search engines. Google’s Privacy Policy explains that this algorithm is based upon "the search frequency of a term by users in order to reflect the diversity of the information on the Web. This diversity, the proposed search terms can therefore sometimes seem strange or surprising”.
Regarding the SourceFed accusations, Google released a statement saying that “autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms … Our systems are periodically updated to improve search, and our user’s search activity varies, so the terms that may appear in autocomplete may change overtime. Additionally, our systems filter a small set of offensive or inappropriate content from autocomplete predictions”. SourceFed’s accusations likely point to the results filtered due to the latter part of this statement. This shows that many elements are considered in the search autocomplete bar and Google was not biased.
In short, there is no evidence that Google has human-caused manipulation of results. Both accusations have simply noticed the results of an automatic process.
Conclusions to be made for Digital Marketing
The concern and denial over this subject shows us that, political alliance aside, there are concepts here to be taken seriously, because potential “manipulation” of search results can lead to dramatic opinion change. It is interesting to apply this to a Digital Marketing perspective since the US Presidential Election is effectively the Trump “Brand” and Hillary “Brand” fighting for “Positive Consumer Brand Equity” . This case shows us that accusing the Google of result manipulation is not accurate and that all non-paid results are subjected to the same algorithms. Therefore, understanding how the PageRank and AutoComplete can give us a practical lesson in SEO for firms which want to have a successful e-marketing strategy. Marketing teams should be aware of the various factors that produce different autocomplete text and search engine results. There are differences depending on geographic-interests and the personal profiles Google has created for each account. Results of your product will appear is varying priority as a result - this should be considered when targeting specific markets. Potential “offensive” text content most also be considered, as this will lead to a filtering of this content from this results. Furthermore, the case reminds that viewers of online media pass instant judgement based on what they see first - this applies to not only search engine results, but social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. A single post can tarnish the brand image or cause lasting support in an instant.
By Nadiya Kutishcheva & Staël Anicet
No comments:
Post a Comment