Google is making a big change to how it displays results in its dominant search engine. It is rolling out a new feature called the Knowledge Graph which breaks from the traditional practice of matching keywords with webpages.
According to an article on Blog Tips about Google's Knowledge Graph, immediate answers or "facts" from pre-selected sources like the CIA Factbook, Wikipedia, and the World Bank will be provided in search results along side the organic results:
Instead of using the typical search strength of a particular answer, this new feature will draw 'facts' from places like Wikipedia for historical information, CIA World Factbook for geopolitical answers, the World Bank for economic facts, Freebase for information about people and other predetermined sources.
This move by Google seems eerily similar to Orwell's Ministry of Truth in that search results, or "answers and facts", will no longer be gathered based on the algorithmic popularity of content, but rather selected by Google.
Sure, most would argue that Wikipedia does a pretty good job through its open-source format to nail down basic facts. However, the CIA and the World Bank are organizations with agendas sometimes counter to the truth, and making them the authority on facts gives them tremendous power to shape public knowledge.
Google also explains how it will collect data on you using the Knowledge Graph:
Google-owned Freebase will also be used in the Google Knowledge Graph. Freebase is a massive database, which according to Singularity Hub already "has data on over 24 million people, places, and things."
Google then combines its Freebase with Metaweb algorithms to connect everything and everyone. For the purposes of improving searches, this may be wonderful, but it's the exact type of software that can easily build and organize a profile on all Internet users.
Watch how they're already connecting your data points below:
So besides relying on the CIA and the World Bank to force feed Internet users "facts", they will also construct and display how each person appears in these new searches.
Please share this and comment below with how you think this will affect the organic search for information.
|Comment: It seems obvious that Google will evolve, yet these methods are still primitive and delicate in nature. It is also seemingly appropriate to address the noun at some point in time, however, the way in which a noun is used is not bound to a person, place, or thing alone, it also may display quality or action in itself. To assess those feelings, quality and action are being separated from the lot which will leave a battle between the three where quality may not be assumed properly, and action may be to sleep.
We must also remember that many words that are verbs become nouns, and nouns become verbs, adjectives, and so on. If nouns are assumed as only persons, places, or things, what happens when they change? We see today that killing others is a sport and completely acceptable to the majority of people as long as they don't have to experience it in some way. Are these adjustments part of evolution or are they part of the fact that Google has already lost the battle and are adapting?
The history of man and words are a story of propaganda, how will we study it if quality and action are programming? Generally speaking, the names of things, places, or people are the least important aspects of learning. You cannot become them and your awareness associated to them is based on the interpretation of quality and action which are just disguises for other ideas such as quantum mechanics and relativity.
This may reveal the intentions that are not necessarily all Google, but part of our institutionalism which has picked up the idea of entity. This process is beginning to share some of the Facebook ideals which threaten Google it would seem, which may serve to help them compete as no one wants a Facebook Internet, however this may also be a method of deception geared to accommodate the transfer of the web to those who want to control the flow of truth by terminating it with cognomens, a kind of nationalism in the mind. The cognomen is more associated with the ability to recognize meaning such as with a blind person who understands how to recognize matter or objects.
This is a great jump to assume that because you are not blind that you see.