Google reports major changes in Thai searches

[radiochaser]

11 hours ago, Lucky Bones said:

I didn't understand the statement.????????

Based on some research that I did (not the kind of research for a phd though) I could see that google must have an algorithm that would exclude results that google did not like.  I think that was in the news a few months or a couple of years ago.  I can't even remember what the subject was so I am unable to provide any links to any news articles.   

[radiochaser]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The second sentence on the page.

Ah, but that is not in the rules, is it not?  Which is what your claim was, was it not? 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, radiochaser said:

Ah, but that is not in the rules, is it not?  Which is what your claim was, was it not? 

You think that's not a rule. You don't need to follow it? Is it just a suggestion? Did you take my suggestion and seek clarification from moderators if you are in any doubt. Is it not clear to you?

[radiochaser]

On 1/30/2023 at 1:10 PM, Dan O said:

Google is driven by your own searches and preferences and feeds you an ongoing mass based on your own use tailored to keeping you engaged as long as possible. Couple that with sponsored advertisers (based on your own use patterns or related items) and that's what you see. It has almost nothing to do with government deep state bs. The main filter in govt context is censorship of the country you're in or location showing on your IP address. 

If it were driven by my searches, then would it not provide results based on my past searches.    Like youtube does?   
That does not seem to be what occurs for me with google.  Yes, I see results for searches that I make with google, but when I search for certain political themes, google will not provide results, or sometimes only 1 or 2 results.  Yet when I use the very same search words, bing or 1 or 2 of the other search engines will pull up multiple results on the first page.  

I have in the past gone as far as to click through the numbered pages (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) at the bottom of the google page and look at the results on each page until google stops providing any more pages.    Odd since many of the results that google presents are also found in the results of the other search engines. 

[NanLaew]

16 hours ago, ozimoron said:

On what planet does "must" not mean mandatory? Any claim of fact must be supported by a link. Is that not easy to understand? I suggest you seek the assistance of a moderator for clarification.

 

Why does anybody have a problem with providing links to support factual claims anyway? It it's not BS then the links are available.

I provided two links with regard to questions, including facts, about Google's bias. I believe the lack of links to support this claim as offered by @radiochaser was your core complaint? Just because you chose to ignore the links or not read them doesn't make them BS.

 

I pointed out that the forum's request for "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source" that you have re-posted in support of "mandatory" links appears on the Word News forum ONLY and not in THIS forum. It certainly doesn't appear in the Forum Rules.

 

If you have a spare moment, you can always trawl the 41 Forum Rules and 8 Standards of Conduct for the word "must" as well.

[ozimoron]

53 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I provided two links with regard to questions, including facts, about Google's bias. I believe the lack of links to support this claim as offered by @radiochaser was your core complaint? Just because you chose to ignore the links or not read them doesn't make them BS.

 

I pointed out that the forum's request for "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source" that you have re-posted in support of "mandatory" links appears on the Word News forum ONLY and not in THIS forum. It certainly doesn't appear in the Forum Rules.

 

If you have a spare moment, you can always trawl the 41 Forum Rules and 8 Standards of Conduct for the word "must" as well.

I was referring to links verifying facts in that forum. This is a thread about searches in Google. As long as you acknowledge that links must be provided in the world forum I'm happy.

[radiochaser]

On 1/31/2023 at 10:27 AM, Mike Teavee said:

Just never type Google into Google… or you could break the Internet!

 

 

Now you have done it.   Does anyone know what the google.com website address is so go to it and I can type google into it?  ????


 

[radiochaser]

21 hours ago, ozimoron said:

You think that's not a rule. You don't need to follow it? Is it just a suggestion? Did you take my suggestion and seek clarification from moderators if you are in any doubt. Is it not clear to you?

You are the one that is making the claim.  So I am seeking clarification from you.  
Why should I go ask a moderator to verify your claims?   
You could ask a moderator and post the results that verifies your claims, right?

[ozimoron]

5 hours ago, radiochaser said:

You are the one that is making the claim.  So I am seeking clarification from you.  
Why should I go ask a moderator to verify your claims?   
You could ask a moderator and post the results that verifies your claims, right?

I'm saying you don't understand the instruction to provide links in the World forum. It's not a "claim" at all. You're disputing the mandatory need for links.

[radiochaser]

On 1/29/2023 at 7:56 PM, daveAustin said:

Folk who say screw Google are one step away from flat-earth territory ????

The Earth isn't flat.  It's an upside down bowl! ????

Edited February 3, 2023 by radiochaser

[Mr Derek]

On 1/31/2023 at 2:22 AM, ozimoron said:

I don't believe you are unaware of that rule. Mods have mentioned it many times.

 

Christ man, put a lid on it.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Mr Derek said:

Christ man, put a lid on it.

Why buy into personal criticism that has nothing to do with you?

[zzaa09]

Too many are being played and don't even recognize such things.....nor will ever have gathered the aptitude. 

Oh well.