Adaptive Path Blog

Recently, I’ve been involved in some inspiring conversations about the merits and applications of different content curation models (community curation, an editorial hand, or algorithmic). Those conversations came just in time, it seems, for a raging debate about curation involving Google.

First, read the originating TechCrunch article where Marissa Mayer discusses the future potential impact of community curation on Google search results. She suggests that Google may blend algorithmic results with those suggested by large numbers of human actions.

Then, read Andrew Orlowski’s article in The Register. My favorite quote:

“That Google was impartial was one of the articles of faith. For if Google was ever to be found to be applying subjective human judgment directly on the process, it would be akin to the voting machines being rigged.”

Well, humans write algorithms. Google’s is written by humans, made wonderful by collective human behaviors. Like linking.

Then, read Tim O’Reilly’s response:

“The idea that Google’s algorithms are somehow magically neutral to human values misses their point entirely. What distinguished Google from its peers in 1998 was precisely that it exploited an additional layer of implicit human values as expressed by link behavior, rather than relying on purely mechanistic analysis of the text contained on pages.”

The human hand, revealed.

And finally, check out the pile-on: Censorship! Big Brother! Pragmatism not Idealism! The End of the Free World!

I love a good controversy. Gets my blood pumping so I can stay warm here in the office.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm and is filed under Conversations, Idealism (Uncensored). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.