Do an Experiment - Obama fired Mattis

IIRC he got fired by Obama because he was too much of a Warhawk

BobRyan said:

Do an experiment -- google on this: Obama fired Mattis (No quotes)

"
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call "
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call

Now we want to find that with "Obama fired Mattis" google search and no quote marks.

At first all I got was a lot of articles about "Trump fired Mattis" -- but doing it four or five times - I finally get some "Obama fired Mattis" hits at the top.

Click to expand...

Thing that just happened vs thing that happened 4 years ago. What you are describing is one of the ways in which search engines work.

BobRyan said:

Do an experiment -- google on this: Obama fired Mattis (No quotes)

"
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call "
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call

Now we want to find that with "Obama fired Mattis" google search and no quote marks.

At first all I got was a lot of articles about "Trump fired Mattis" -- but doing it four or five times - I finally get some "Obama fired Mattis" hits at the top.

Click to expand...

I see that you don't know about using Quotation marks in your search to narrow it down.

BobRyan said:

Do an experiment -- google on this: Obama fired Mattis (No quotes)

"
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call "
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call

Now we want to find that with "Obama fired Mattis" google search and no quote marks.

At first all I got was a lot of articles about "Trump fired Mattis" -- but doing it four or five times - I finally get some "Obama fired Mattis" hits at the top.

Click to expand...

...I'm not sure this thread is in the right forum, if you're looking for instructions in how to use google wouldn't the Technology forum be a better place for it?
tulc(just a suggestion)

BobRyan said:

I did not google "mattis was fired"
I googled "Obama fired mattis"

Click to expand...

Yeah, without the “ “ the algorithm will go with the most recent occurrence of ‘fired mattis’.

I think he was fired from Central Command because of some conflicts with Obama. What was the point of this exercise?

BobRyan said:

I did not google "mattis was fired"
I googled "Obama fired mattis"

Click to expand...

That's why you use more than one search engine to find information. I used DDG and got quite a few stories about when Obama fired Mattis and some about Trump firing Mattis mixed in, I didn't use "" around Obama fired Mattis either.

Moral of the story if you want more than one side of the story use all information avenues available to you, if you want the latest "popular rhetoric" only use Google.

Gigimo said:

That's why you use more than one search engine to find information. I used DDG and got quite a few stories about when Obama fired Mattis and some about Trump firing Mattis mixed in, I didn't use "" around Obama fired Mattis either.

Moral of the story if you want more than one side of the story use all information avenues available to you, if you want the latest "popular rhetoric" only use Google.

Click to expand...

...or you could stop attributing a political motivation to something when it's simply the way the tech is? Honestly, you should use what ever search engine you feel most comfortable with, that would probably be the easiest way.
tulc(is just sayn')

tulc said:

...or you could stop attributing a political motivation to something when it's simply the way the tech is?

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is tech does what it wants nobody programs/sets the algorithms?

Or are you agreeing that popular rhetoric is politically motivated and not particularly factual?

Gigimo said:

So what you're saying is tech does what it wants nobody programs/sets the algorithms?

Click to expand...

wouldn't you have to show that that's what the algorithm was designed to do? Because when I use google I get a lot of different things but the results tend to be a lot more specific if I use " " in my search.

Or are you agreeing that popular rhetoric is politically motivated and not particularly factual?

Click to expand...

...uhmmm...I think I speak for all of us when I say "What does that even mean?"
tulc(no, really)

BobRyan said:

Indeed that is the lesson. Google has a bias.

Click to expand...

Not really. Using quotation marks is a tool to narrow your search down to an exact match.
Why does a Google search with the quotation mark operator sometimes deliver more results than the same search without it? - SISTRIX

BobRyan said:

The search engine should prioritize ALL words as a match OVER "some word as a match" as do other search engines. The question is not "can you override Google's logic with exact phrase quotes" --( one would hope that everyone's software for search would always let you do that, it is the easiest rule to write).

Click to expand...

But the "experiment" that you proposed in the OP was just showing that using quotation marks while using Google would narrow your search and give better results if one is looking for a specific subject.

Google's biases are well documented. That the CEO doesn't recognize his own political biases is not surprising as most liberals believe that reality has a left wing bias. They even tell you that in all seriousness. Liberals are incapable of recognizing their biases as biases. So the argument is "If Google's algorithms produce results that favor the left side of the argument it is obviously because the left side is correct and the right side is either an argument based upon ignorance or willful malevolence as we all knew to begin with and not because the algorithms are in any way tainted by the biases of those totally objective liberals that came up with them."

BobRyan said:

Indeed that is the lesson. Google has a bias.

Click to expand...

Yes, the bias demonstrated here is towards ‘more recent news’.