Google Search: Technologies and Societal Impact
CCST9003 Critique
Tzer-yen Chow 2010522393
“What happened to Steve Jobs!?”
187,000,000 search results within 0.07 seconds. That is how powerful Google Search is.
Google Search is definitely not the first search engine that existed around the market; many questioned why Google Search is so remarkably successful despite not having benefitted from the first mover advantage. In this short critique, I will attempt to answer the question by focusing on PageRank, an algorithm that Google Search implemented which set it apart from its competitors, and more importantly, address its societal impact (intellectually) on the world today.
PageRank algorithm is named after Larry Page but patented under Stanford University. Traditionally, when a query is typed onto a search engine, “relevant” webpages will appear based on keywords but they may be junk or spam webpages that contain lots of tags. With the implementation of PageRank, not only do relevant pages appear, but also the ones that are useful (under normal circumstances[1]). What PageRank does is essentially putting forward the notion of “importance”, ranking different webpages on the graph based on their relative importance, independent of the query. Under PageRank, webpages are treated as nodes and hyperlinks are treated as edges. Each node’s importance is ranked by how many other nodes linked to it. It also assigns different weightings to each hyperlink. Hence, it is also known as a recursive weighted voting approach.
This equation states that the PageRank of a node x is the sum of all the values of PageRank y out of Bx where Bx is the set which contains all the nodes linking to page x, divided by the number of edges from page y.
For example, for the sake of simplicity, assume a small world where only three nodes exist: A, B and C.
Initially, each node is assigned an equal PageRank value, i.e. 1/3. If both B and C link to node A, then:
Suppose now node B also links to node C, then:
Now, if node A also links to node B or node C, it is not hard to perceive recursion taking place. In fact, this is very common in reality where there are millions of nodes and edges.
It is perhaps easier for some to visualize this algorithm:
Some interesting facts to notice from the above diagram is that although node C has a lot fewer edges than node E, but it has a much higher PageRank value because the edge which links it is also a node with very high PageRank value. It is not difficult to observe the recursion taking place where node B points to node C and vice versa.
In fact, by taking into account the damping factor, the algorithm holds even when there is a random surfer that clicks randomly. The damping factor is the probability that a given person will continue surfing and is generally assumed to be around 0.85. By implementing this simple algorithm, Google became one of the dominating multinational corporations within a tremendously short period of time. The success of Google Search has had an enormous impact on the society, both positively and negatively. At first glance, having a powerful search engine means information can be found easily. However, that is not the whole story. As Google Search became more and more frequently used, a hot debate fostered: Does Google Search retard the intellectual development of individuals?
I believe that Google Search will NOT retard the intellectual development of individuals. Hence, the remaining part of this critique will be devoted to argue against the topic of debate.
First, many argued that Google Search diminishes the ability to concentrate and contemplate. In fact, a technology writer Nicholas G. Carr believes “reading on the internet is generally of a shallower form in comparison with reading from printed books in which a more intense and sustained form of reading is exercised.”[2] However, many E-books had in contrast, spread and became widely read with the advent of Google Search. In addition, many books that were previously unavailable physically were all made possible via Google Search. In my opinion, accusing Google Search for society’s decline in motivation or ability to contemplate is unacceptable. Although it is true that Google Search may present information that are less detailed than a book, but any individual (who believes that Google Search will retard the intellectual development and causes lack of concentration and contemplation) can just as well search for information in books, no one is forced to use Google Search. In addition, because Google Search presents many different search results from different authors, it is possible to view the query from many different aspects and perspectives, unlike a book, where you will need faith to believe what the author writes are true.
Second, some believed that the abundance of information on Google Search shifted individual’s professionalism to a superficial knowledge of many subjects rather than a thorough understanding of just a few. However, free access to large amount of information spurs innovation and creativity. For example, before the printing press, access to information is very limited, however, after the printing press; we have observed many positive effects which outweighs the negative. I believe we are in a similar situation now with the advent of Google Search. In addition, say, one day you heard the name Steve Jobs on the television and you want to know a little bit more about him. It is much more convenient to search for him on Google rather than buying a biography book about him. In terms of economics, if Google Search haven’t existed, the cost of finding out a piece of information will be so large (imagine walking out of your nice and comfortable house to a library to find a book about something) such that if the benefit is not as great the cost and benefit analysis will hinder you from finding out the information and jeopardize your intellectual development. Most people will just forget about the question and continue living their lives. However, with Google Search, most questions can be answered and the costs are simply typing a few keywords and wait for less than a second on Google! Google and textbooks are not mutually exclusive, if one is to find detailed information one can always refer back to the library. Hence, an abundance of information is also not a valid argument for Google retarding individual’s intellectual growth.
Lastly, a few critics pointed out that because of vast information stored online accessible using Google Search, the desirability or capability of individual to recall certain types of information diminished. In the long term, individual’s memory will deteriorate and there will be an over-reliance on Google Search. However, I would like to argue that in the age of bits and bytes, the ability for one to find facts and information in a short period of time is perhaps as important as memorizing those facts. In reality, it is impossible for one to memorize all the facts, but one can easily find all the relevant information online. Hence, Ben Worthen, a Wall Street Journal business technology blogger stated “the guy who remembers every fact about a topic may not be as valuable as the guy who knows how to find all of these facts and many others” and I strongly agree with him.
In conclusion, instead of retarding individual’s intellectual development, I believe Google Search spurred knowledge, stimulated innovations, encouraged the spread of ideas and had fostered positive effect on the intellectual development of individuals. Not only because it contains over a trillion of sites, which offers a wide variety of resources, but also because it is free, transparent and can potentially expose all individuals to information or cultures they would otherwise have no access to. Although there are definitely societal costs associated with the advent of Google Search, but I believe the positive effects outweigh the negative and that is perhaps why most people today uses Google Search!
[1] Some are actually paid to mess up the voting system of PageRank
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic." The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life – TheAtlantic.com. Web. 1 Nov. 2011.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
Carr, Nicholas. "The Reality Club: ON "IS GOOGLE MAKING US STUPID" By Nicholas Carr." Edge : Conversations on the Edge of Human Knowledge. Web. 1 Nov. 2011.
"Does Google Make Us Stupid?" Pew Research Center. Web. 1 Nov. 2011.
Google, Blaming. "Debate: Is Google Making Us Stupid? | Debate.org." Debate at Debate.org. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.
"PageRank." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
2 則留言:
Here's are one comment, which may be useful for your presentation:
1. Are there anythings that Google Search can improve, in order to improve my search?
2. Somebody suggest to social network information to optimize the search result. Do you think it is a good idea? Why or why not?
Dear Tzer-yen,
Your article about Google search is a very pleasant read. It focuses on two aspects: (1) a brief introduction to the ranking mechanism used in Google search; and (2) the argument that Google search retards intellectual growth.
I think you have done an excellent job in both aspects. Your explanations of the PageRank ideas are concise but clear enough. The running example is good. However, specialized term like "Damping Factor" may be too much for a novice reader.
Similarly, your reasoning to defend against the argument (that Google search is bad) is very good. I very much agree with you that we should not blame the tool itself. We should "criticize" how we use the tool. As to the availability of information enabled by Google, I think this is a good thing but it just demands us to re-think how we should access and process information. For instance, nowadays we do not need workers who mainly serve as "information provider" (e.g., a telephone directory service representative). That just means that people should equip themselves in different ways so as to provide more useful functions to the society.
This actually applies to people (like us) working in the education sector. With Google, teachers cannot just serve as an "information provider". A teacher needs to add value to the information and help the students to sip through a myriad of (possibly) useless information to locate the most important pieces.
Agree?
Thanks.
Ricky
張貼留言