Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by marderfarker2 on Friday April 16, 2021 @08:05AM
(#26832819)
Maybe they rank higher because their product is superior? I mean is there really anything better than Google Earth?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by tarboreus on Friday April 16, 2021 @08:22AM
(#26832974)
Right, and Froogle was the best shopping service in 2004. That's why we all still shop on Froogle to this day.
Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by egman_ekki on Friday April 16, 2021 @08:07AM
(#26832847)
The actual Earth is, arguably, a bit better, imo.
Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by jjk166 on Friday April 16, 2021 @11:18AM
(#26834925)
Weird, I typically get websites in my search results, how do I enable celestial bodies?
Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by e-clinton on Friday April 16, 2021 @08:11AM
(#26832887)
Key word in your statement being “maybe”. No one knows for sure if they’re exploiting their advantages or not. That’s really the biggest issue: the lack of transparency. I think if companies want to participate in their own marketplaces, they need to be required to publish all data they have that could potentially give them an edge. This obviously isn’t possible in many cases, so companies will just not go through the trouble.
Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by kthartic on Friday April 16, 2021 @08:08AM
(#26832860)
I don’t think that was their point. Why is Google Earth ranked higher than, oh I dunno, Earth?
Re:U.S. House committee approves blueprint for Big Tech crac...
by sgc on Friday April 16, 2021 @09:43AM
(#26833753)
Google earth is just one more website about the earth, and you can't get the real thing through your tiny tubes. If more people searching for earth want to use that website to explore the real earth rather than say, read the wikipedia article about the earth (and most obviously more people use GE than visit that one page on the wiki), it is correct for it to be ranked higher according to most typical search algorithms. OPs point is perfectly valid, it's just not a great example.