Technology

59605 readers

4202 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

883

Google won’t comment on a potentially massive leak of its search algorithm documentation (www.theverge.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de to c/technology@lemmy.world

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A purported leak of 2,500 pages of internal documentation from Google sheds light on how Search, the most powerful arbiter of the internet, operates.

The leaked documents touch on topics like what kind of data Google collects and uses, which sites Google elevates for sensitive topics like elections, how Google handles small websites, and more. Some information in the documents appears to be in conflict with public statements by Google representatives, according to Fishkin and King.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] flappy@lemm.ee 98 points 6 months ago (39 children)

Can't wait for selfhosted web search to become better.

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If they're taking tips from Google, why would they get better?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 32 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Google actually was good, so there's probably some good information in this documentation. If nothing else we can perhaps figure out what "went wrong."

Edit: I've been reading the blog post that appears to be the main person the leak was shared with and there's a lot of in-depth analysis being done there, but I'm not seeing a link to the actual documents. This is a huge article, though, I might be overlooking it.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

That was an interesting read. Thanks for linking to it.

load more comments (36 replies)