96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

[Hiryuu]

What you said was word salad.
Is there an emoji for that?
.
.
..

I am willing to accept it may escape your faculties in the matter.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

None of them are from liberal news outlets

They are from credible news organizations with long histories of professional journalism

... from "professional journalists" that attended a private dinner at John Podesta's house to discuss strategy for handling Hillary Clinton's upcoming announcement to run for President and her subsequent campaign.

BS

How about that "professional journalist" named Hannity who talks to Trump every day and has dinner with him many nights a week?

Guess that puts things in perspective.

Trump dined with Hannity at Mar-a-Lago: report | TheHill
thehill.com/homenews/media/381144-trump-dined-with-hannity-at-mar-a-lago-report
Mar 31, 2018 - President Trump reportedly dined with Fox News personality Sean ... tweeted that sources had said the president had dined with HannityFriday ...

Trump dines with Sean Hannity, Scaramucci at White House | TheHill
thehill.com/.../344068-trump-dines-with-sean-hannity-scaramucci-at-white-house
Jul 27, 2017 - President Trump reportedly had a private dinner late Wednesday with Fox News's Sean Hannity, former Fox executive Bill Shine and new ...


and this:

Sean Hannity Has Trump's Direct Phone Line And They Talk Multiple ...
https://www.newsweek.com/sean-hannity-has-trumps-direct-phone-line-and-they-talk-...
May 14, 2018 - President Donald Trump and Fox News host Sean Hannityhave a much deeper connection than having taken legal advice from embattled ...
Donald Trump and Sean Hannity Like to Talk Before Bedtime - NYMag
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/.../sean-hannity-donald-trump-late-night-calls.ht...
May 13, 2018 - All White House phone numbers begin with the same six digits: 202-456. ... Trump and Hannity don't usually speak in the morning, which the ...

Donald Trump, Sean Hannity speak nearly every weeknight: report
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../05/...trump...hannity-speak.../607595002/
May 14, 2018 - New York magazine reports that their phone conversations, a way to ... Report: President Trump and Sean Hannity talk nearly every weeknight."""


Fox needs to let Hannity go.
.
.
.
.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

What you said was word salad.
Is there an emoji for that?
.
.
..

I am willing to accept it may escape your faculties in the matter.

You don't have faculties that anything could escape from.

 

[Hiryuu]

How about that "professional journalist" named Hannity who talks to Trump every day and has dinner with him many nights a week?
...

You can stop there. Sean Hannity (for better or worse, because I cannot stand the guy) doesn't even consider himself a "journalist". He calls himself a commentator and talk show host.

 

[Hiryuu]

You don't have faculties that anything could escape from.

If you weren't such a goofball, you would understand that is a complement.

 

[Astrostar]

96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump? It sure looks that way based on recent search results for news on the president.

Conservatives and Trump supporters have for the last several years questioned whether Google was deprioritizing conservative news sites, hiding them from users who utilize their search engine. Google has maintained that all outlets are treated fairly, but nevertheless, conservative sites have reported reduced search traffic and, in the case of Google-owned YouTube, content creators have been banned and demonetized. Google's high-profile firing of conservative James Damore, purportedly over his conservative political views, only reinforces the idea that Google is picking winners and losers.

No wonder num nuts is upset. He's googling himself all day long, and he can't get Faux News!! Bigly Covfefe.

 

[RDD_1210]

Which search engine do you feel presents a more balanced view of Trump?

If one is looking for NEWS SEARCHES that are more balanced, DRUDGE REPORT is one source..

MATT DRUDGE is a "NEVER TRUMPER" and a CONSERVATIVE, so he puts bad stuff about Trump on his site, but also posts the good things going on with the economy and Trump's policies because Druge is happy that America is doing well.

That is one alternative source to GOOGLE NEWS that I would suggets ot get well rounded coverage.

DRUDGE REPORT 2018®

DAILY WIRE has good news.

Daily Wire

Those are some additonal sites to I would suggest viewing if you have only been getting your news through GOOGLE NEWS.

Those aren't search engines. Do you know what a search engine is?

Those are places that search news sources worldwide with their own algorithims, just like GOOGLE NEWS.

Why does it have to be a "SEARCH ENGINE" to get news?

We are tlaking about getting even cross sectional news.

I don't GAF if they are "SEARCH ENGINES" or not.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but I am glad I didn't help you.

If I ask you what your favorite kind of car is and you tell me a Schwinn bicycle, don't act like they're the same thing. You do know that a bicycle is not a car, right?

I already posted the search engine that I like earlier in the thread. I can't help you beyond that. I am under no obligation to answer you any more than I did.

Enjoy.

DuckDuckGo shows very similar results to Google. What do you think is different?

 

[ColonelAngus]

96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump? It sure looks that way based on recent search results for news on the president.

Conservatives and Trump supporters have for the last several years questioned whether Google was deprioritizing conservative news sites, hiding them from users who utilize their search engine. Google has maintained that all outlets are treated fairly, but nevertheless, conservative sites have reported reduced search traffic and, in the case of Google-owned YouTube, content creators have been banned and demonetized. Google's high-profile firing of conservative James Damore, purportedly over his conservative political views, only reinforces the idea that Google is picking winners and losers.

No wonder num nuts is upset. He's googling himself all day long, and he can't get Faux News!! Bigly Covfefe.

Alrighty then...

 

[ColonelAngus]

96 Percent of Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Are from Liberal Media Outlets

Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump? It sure looks that way based on recent search results for news on the president.

Conservatives and Trump supporters have for the last several years questioned whether Google was deprioritizing conservative news sites, hiding them from users who utilize their search engine. Google has maintained that all outlets are treated fairly, but nevertheless, conservative sites have reported reduced search traffic and, in the case of Google-owned YouTube, content creators have been banned and demonetized. Google's high-profile firing of conservative James Damore, purportedly over his conservative political views, only reinforces the idea that Google is picking winners and losers.

Ive noticed this shit on Youtube as well. Type "racist black man" in their search engine and it produces shitloads of videos about racist white people. Its kind of weird.

Nothing about Clayton Bigsby?

That's total bullshit.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Right....

Are you saying that XYZ outlets being on the first page of search results is not an indicator that they are better at SEO? Is that the quality you are talking about? If so, you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization. It's the act of optimizing a web page, and the overall site, to rank well in search engine results.

You would be correct that a better ranking in Google results does not necessarily imply a better quality of news reporting. It does, however, imply better quality SEO. Or--perhaps it would be more accurate to say it implies better SEA (search engine attraction). Google gave up on providing quality search engine results a long time ago, now more interested in providing high volume low quality results that overwhelm the user, thereby encouraging users to click the top "results" (i.e. ads), while also drive an increased reliance on advertising by businesses and websites who can no longer rely on organic search traffic. Part of that strategy is for Google to prioritize large, well known companies whose public awareness and brand recognition for whom lost organic search wouldn't matter much (thus, they have little incentive to use Google advertising to replace that lost traffic). Google passes this off with the ideas of domain authority and reputation. The full details aren't known, but generally speaking it boils down to large websites that receive high traffic, have been established for a long time, and are generally well known in the public. Sites and businesses that most need the organic search (and may have far more relevant content to offer the user) are buried underneath those sites that aren't going to pay for advertising anyway. Since adopting this approach about a decade ago, Google's profits have gone through the roof.

Google rationalizes this by saying that prioritizing the largest, most popular websites and businesses, they are providing "safer" results to users because users can already have a good idea of what they are getting if they click on that result. It's really just about profit. Google's algorithms are pretty big and constantly changing, and word has it that for proprietary reasons nobody has access to the whole picture, except for an exclusive handful of high ranking individuals whom you could count on one hand. So, inserting a substantive political bias would be difficult. There is a degree of direct human evaluation that's involved, which could yield subjective results based on some individuals' biases. But at the end of the day, the old fashioned profit motive is 100 times more effective at explaining this whole thing.

Not at all goofball. I am saying that because some odd million more people buy McDonalds hamburgers in a day, in no way means McDonald's makes better hamburgers than Three Oaks Bar and Grill. Sorry if you got confused over my precise wording in identifying quality over quantity.

I wasn't commenting on search engine optimization to any degree other than the fact it has nothing to do with the quality. It's just product placement and self promoting by location alone. From a business sense, someone picking up a product in front of them only makes sense. From a political sense, to assume that someone who clicks on an article at the top of the list, agrees with a single word printed therein, is convenient but less than accurate.

Oh, now I understand. You were just making a straw man.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

How about that "professional journalist" named Hannity who talks to Trump every day and has dinner with him many nights a week?
...

You can stop there. Sean Hannity (for better or worse, because I cannot stand the guy) doesn't even consider himself a "journalist". He calls himself a commentator and talk show host.

What matters is that he plays a journalist on TV and his audience is so fucking stupid they think he is one.
.
..

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Right....

Are you saying that XYZ outlets being on the first page of search results is not an indicator that they are better at SEO? Is that the quality you are talking about? If so, you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization. It's the act of optimizing a web page, and the overall site, to rank well in search engine results.

You would be correct that a better ranking in Google results does not necessarily imply a better quality of news reporting. It does, however, imply better quality SEO. Or--perhaps it would be more accurate to say it implies better SEA (search engine attraction). Google gave up on providing quality search engine results a long time ago, now more interested in providing high volume low quality results that overwhelm the user, thereby encouraging users to click the top "results" (i.e. ads), while also drive an increased reliance on advertising by businesses and websites who can no longer rely on organic search traffic. Part of that strategy is for Google to prioritize large, well known companies whose public awareness and brand recognition for whom lost organic search wouldn't matter much (thus, they have little incentive to use Google advertising to replace that lost traffic). Google passes this off with the ideas of domain authority and reputation. The full details aren't known, but generally speaking it boils down to large websites that receive high traffic, have been established for a long time, and are generally well known in the public. Sites and businesses that most need the organic search (and may have far more relevant content to offer the user) are buried underneath those sites that aren't going to pay for advertising anyway. Since adopting this approach about a decade ago, Google's profits have gone through the roof.

Google rationalizes this by saying that prioritizing the largest, most popular websites and businesses, they are providing "safer" results to users because users can already have a good idea of what they are getting if they click on that result. It's really just about profit. Google's algorithms are pretty big and constantly changing, and word has it that for proprietary reasons nobody has access to the whole picture, except for an exclusive handful of high ranking individuals whom you could count on one hand. So, inserting a substantive political bias would be difficult. There is a degree of direct human evaluation that's involved, which could yield subjective results based on some individuals' biases. But at the end of the day, the old fashioned profit motive is 100 times more effective at explaining this whole thing.

Not at all goofball. I am saying that because some odd million more people buy McDonalds hamburgers in a day, in no way means McDonald's makes better hamburgers than Three Oaks Bar and Grill. Sorry if you got confused over my precise wording in identifying quality over quantity.

I wasn't commenting on search engine optimization to any degree other than the fact it has nothing to do with the quality. It's just product placement and self promoting by location alone. From a business sense, someone picking up a product in front of them only makes sense. From a political sense, to assume that someone who clicks on an article at the top of the list, agrees with a single word printed therein, is convenient but less than accurate.

Oh, now I understand. You were just making a straw man.

Search engines like Google rank a site by how many inbound links it has, thus giving it an arbitrary sort of relevance, and how much organic traffic it generates.
Paid traffic is not calculated into the ranking. If it worked that way it would just be a cyber version of the Yellow Pages.
Google also doesn't allow keywords anymore, they downgrade a site for using them.
The best way to get a good result from Google is to use long-tail search phrases. That filters out your search quickly.

So this is why Trump is so full of shit. The way Bing, Google, Yahoo, work has nothing to do with him personally.
It has everything to do with what people are looking for.
.
.
.

 

[Hiryuu]

What matters is that he plays a journalist on TV and his audience is so fucking stupid they think he is one.
.
..

You seem to be the one attempting to make that connection here, and I don't mind if you want to call yourself stupid.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Search engines like Google rank a site by how many inbound links it has, thus giving it an arbitrary sort of relevance, and how much organic traffic it generates.

Yeah, that's only one of about 500 ranking factors.

Paid traffic is not calculated into the ranking.

I never said it was.

If it worked that way, then the search engine would not give people the result they are looking for and it would be a cyber version of the Yellow Pages.

Yeah, that's pretty much what it is.

Google also doesn't allow keywords anymore, they downgrade a site for using them.

Yeah, you really have no idea what you're talking about. It would be basically impossible for Google to not rely on keywords. How else can someone perform a search? You are confused.

There was/is a practice known as keyword stuffing which was a tactic people used to artificially manipulate search engine spiders into thinking that a page had high relevance. It was often used in conjunction with meta tags that identified alleged keywords. People would stuff their html code with tons of keyword meta tags, many that had nothing to do with the page's content, hoping to get any traffic whatsoever. Google quickly gave up on using meta tags for keywords. Since then, they've applied the concept of keyword stuffing to a page's content. They claim that they are similarly trying to penalize spam that "overuses" a keyword in the page's copy, in a non-natural way, as an allegedly secondary kind of keyword stuffing. For example, if you have a 1000 word page that talks about the history of roses, and you use the word "rose" 100 times, Google may penalize you for allegedly using keyword stuffing. Really, they're just looking for excuses to keep a lid on relevance scores.

The best way to get a good result from Google is to use long-tail search phrases. That filters out your search quickly.

Oh, you're one of these dumb asses. Not only is this a flat out lie, it feeds right into the bullshit thinking that humans exist for Google's benefit. If I want to do some basic research on the history of roses, there's no reason why I should have to use any more than a two word search. That aside, you're going off topic completely. The subject is not what users should to do find search results, it's what Google does to maximize ad revenue.

So this is why Trump is so full of shit. The way Bing, Google, Yahoo, work has nothing to do with him personally.
It has everything to do with what people are looking for.

No, it has everything to do with driving more and more ad revenue.

 

[Hiryuu]

Oh, now I understand. You were just making a straw man.

Or identifying the absolute lack of value determined by product placement. Sorry if you want to try and make it means something it doesn't.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Oh, now I understand. You were just making a straw man.

Or identifying the absolute lack of value determined by product placement. Sorry if you want to try and make it means something it doesn't.

Sure, sure. Fun times. Okay, my turn...

The rain in Spain falls mainly in places that don't affect the price of tea in China.

 

[Hiryuu]

Sure, sure. Fun times. Okay, my turn...

The rain in Spain falls mainly in places that don't affect the price of tea in China.

True to form goofball. What I originally posted was in addition to what you posted. I didn't argue against your point (no matter your instant desire to be defensive due to your insecurities), and only made additional observations. Your utterly ignorant attempt to argue with the obvious, and then discard any attempt to qualify the relevance, is the only strawman either of us has created.

Carry on, silly.