{"id":162,"date":"2018-01-22T20:03:34","date_gmt":"2018-01-22T20:03:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/treating-googles-snippets-with-suscipion\/"},"modified":"2018-01-22T20:03:34","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T20:03:34","slug":"treating-googles-snippets-with-suscipion","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/treating-googles-snippets-with-suscipion\/","title":{"raw":"Treating Google's \"Snippets\" with Suscipion","rendered":"Treating Google’s “Snippets” with Suscipion"},"content":{"raw":"

Occassionally when you search for an answer on something on Google, you will not just get results, but also get a \u201ccard\u201d that appears to have what search expert Danny Sullivan calls the \u201cOne True Answer<\/a>\u201c, an answer that appears on a \u201ccard\u201d on top of the results.\n\nSometimes these answers pull the answer of of a source algorithmically. This card responds to the question \u201cHow many men landed on the moon?\u201d with \u201c12 men\u201d, citing a Quora article.\n<\/p>

\"\"<\/div>\nSometimes Google does not pull out the answer, but makes the answer apparent in the blurb or headline of the card, as in this answer to the query \u201clast person to walk on the moon\u201d:\n
\"\"<\/div>\nThis function of Google can be useful, but malfunctions frequently enough that it should not be trusted without verifying the source and context of the answer. There are two major problems: false simplicity, and false (or non-standard) information.\n

FALSE SIMPLICITY<\/h2>\nHere\u2019s a question: how many apostles are there in the Christian tradition? Google tells you, via a card, even pulling out the number, thereby making it look super-objective: there are twelve!\n
\"\"<\/div>\nIf you click through to that Quora question, though, you\u2019ll find that it answers a much more specific and simpler question: how many\u00a0original\u00a0<\/em>apostles did Christ have (according to tradition). And for that answer they are correct. Including Judas, there are twelve.\n\nBut according to tradition, when Judas dies Matthias becomes an apostle, so that\u2019s thirteen. And then Paul is an apostle, so fourteen. And Barnabas, and Timothy and James. \u00a0The truth is that this answer is pretty debatable: it\u2019s certainly not twelve, and with some versions of the Bible referring up to 25 different people as \u201capostles\u201d.\n\nIt gets worse. These numbers, which are already various, come from various Christian traditions. Many historians, on the other hand,\u00a0see the twelve apostles as a\u00a0creation of the early Church<\/a>, that had no reality or significance during the lifetime of the historical Jesus, and was later \u201cretrojected\u201d into the Gospels.\n\nThe fact is\u00a0the whole question of how many apostles and who they were is inextricably bound up with complex questions of religion, history, and 1st century power struggles about who counted in the early church and who didn\u2019t.\n\nThis may seem petty, but the truth is any extended discussion of this issue from any source, religious or historical, will surface these issues to the person who investigates. Google\u2019s cards, however, are oblivious to the complexity and present a simple numerical answer where no simple answer actually exists.\n

MISLEADING HIGHLIGHTS<\/h2>\nGoogle uses some programming to try and highlight relevant answers in the blurb, but the highlighting is confused or confusing. Here Google, when asked how old Lee Harvey Oswald was when he shot Kennedy, highlights 18, 24, and 22.\n
\"\"<\/div>\nIn reality the answer is 24 years old, though a quick glance at this might have you thinking 18 or 23.\n

BLATANT MISINFORMATION<\/h2>\nSometimes card present blatant misinformation. Often this material is the product of highly politicized areas or of conspiracy-believing communities, which tend to rank highly on Google search results more generally.\n\nTake for instance this search, where we ask Google which Presidents were in the Ku Klux Klan. The Google card provides what seems to be a definitive answer: there were five!\n

\"\"<\/h3>\nAs Case Western history professor Peter Schulman points out, this\u00a0isn\u2019t even remotely true<\/a>. None of these Presidents were members of the Ku Klux Klan (as far as we know) and if you click through to the article, you\u2019ll find the source here is a Nigerian newspaper of uncertain stature, that references a book by David Barton, a nationalist known for self-publishing dubious works of historical revisionism.\n\nThere are numerous examples of similar behavior. Adrianne Jefferies at\u00a0The Outline<\/em>\u00a0details some more bad snippets<\/a>, including this one claiming Obama is planning for martial law (complete fiction):\n
\"\"<\/div>\nGoogle will also tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald didn\u2019t assassinate John F. Kennedy, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary:\n
\"\"<\/div>\n

CONFIRMATION BIAS AND BAD SNIPPETS<\/h2>\nA lot of times Google is just bad. But sometimes bad answers are often the result of asking questions in ways that tap into the language or concerns of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, or fringe beliefs. For example, there is a very real problem some people have with monosodium glutumate, a food additive that triggers an allergic reaction in a small portion of the population. And if you search on a phrase likely to by found in the medical literature like \u201cmsg sensitivity\u201d, you get a fairly reliable result.\n
\"\"<\/div>\nHealthline, in this case, is a recognized provider of reliable health information.\n\nAll this changes if you use the language of belief communities that believe the medical community is suppressing a link between MSG and a variety of neurological disorders. Here\u2019s what you get when you type in \u2018msg dangers\u2019:\n
\"\"<\/div>\nThe blurb says it all (brain damage! alzheimer\u2019s! learning disabilities!), but if you look up the site (mercola.com) you\u2019ll find it is run by a physician who has been warned by the FDA repeatedly\u00a0to stop making false claims<\/a>.\n

OUR ADVICE<\/h2>\nIn general, simply treat the Google card (\u201cone true answer\u201d) as you would any other top search result. Despite Google\u2019s claims to the contrary, it is not significantly more or less reliable than an average source. Click through, trace the claims on the page to a source, and investigate the source. Never trust its result without validating the source of the claim.","rendered":"

Occassionally when you search for an answer on something on Google, you will not just get results, but also get a \u201ccard\u201d that appears to have what search expert Danny Sullivan calls the \u201cOne True Answer<\/a>\u201c, an answer that appears on a \u201ccard\u201d on top of the results.<\/p>\n

Sometimes these answers pull the answer of of a source algorithmically. This card responds to the question \u201cHow many men landed on the moon?\u201d with \u201c12 men\u201d, citing a Quora article.\n<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

Sometimes Google does not pull out the answer, but makes the answer apparent in the blurb or headline of the card, as in this answer to the query \u201clast person to walk on the moon\u201d:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

This function of Google can be useful, but malfunctions frequently enough that it should not be trusted without verifying the source and context of the answer. There are two major problems: false simplicity, and false (or non-standard) information.<\/p>\n

FALSE SIMPLICITY<\/h2>\n

Here\u2019s a question: how many apostles are there in the Christian tradition? Google tells you, via a card, even pulling out the number, thereby making it look super-objective: there are twelve!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

If you click through to that Quora question, though, you\u2019ll find that it answers a much more specific and simpler question: how many\u00a0original\u00a0<\/em>apostles did Christ have (according to tradition). And for that answer they are correct. Including Judas, there are twelve.<\/p>\n

But according to tradition, when Judas dies Matthias becomes an apostle, so that\u2019s thirteen. And then Paul is an apostle, so fourteen. And Barnabas, and Timothy and James. \u00a0The truth is that this answer is pretty debatable: it\u2019s certainly not twelve, and with some versions of the Bible referring up to 25 different people as \u201capostles\u201d.<\/p>\n

It gets worse. These numbers, which are already various, come from various Christian traditions. Many historians, on the other hand,\u00a0see the twelve apostles as a\u00a0creation of the early Church<\/a>, that had no reality or significance during the lifetime of the historical Jesus, and was later \u201cretrojected\u201d into the Gospels.<\/p>\n

The fact is\u00a0the whole question of how many apostles and who they were is inextricably bound up with complex questions of religion, history, and 1st century power struggles about who counted in the early church and who didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

This may seem petty, but the truth is any extended discussion of this issue from any source, religious or historical, will surface these issues to the person who investigates. Google\u2019s cards, however, are oblivious to the complexity and present a simple numerical answer where no simple answer actually exists.<\/p>\n

MISLEADING HIGHLIGHTS<\/h2>\n

Google uses some programming to try and highlight relevant answers in the blurb, but the highlighting is confused or confusing. Here Google, when asked how old Lee Harvey Oswald was when he shot Kennedy, highlights 18, 24, and 22.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

In reality the answer is 24 years old, though a quick glance at this might have you thinking 18 or 23.<\/p>\n

BLATANT MISINFORMATION<\/h2>\n

Sometimes card present blatant misinformation. Often this material is the product of highly politicized areas or of conspiracy-believing communities, which tend to rank highly on Google search results more generally.<\/p>\n

Take for instance this search, where we ask Google which Presidents were in the Ku Klux Klan. The Google card provides what seems to be a definitive answer: there were five!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/h3>\n

As Case Western history professor Peter Schulman points out, this\u00a0isn\u2019t even remotely true<\/a>. None of these Presidents were members of the Ku Klux Klan (as far as we know) and if you click through to the article, you\u2019ll find the source here is a Nigerian newspaper of uncertain stature, that references a book by David Barton, a nationalist known for self-publishing dubious works of historical revisionism.<\/p>\n

There are numerous examples of similar behavior. Adrianne Jefferies at\u00a0The Outline<\/em>\u00a0details some more bad snippets<\/a>, including this one claiming Obama is planning for martial law (complete fiction):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

Google will also tell you that Lee Harvey Oswald didn\u2019t assassinate John F. Kennedy, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

CONFIRMATION BIAS AND BAD SNIPPETS<\/h2>\n

A lot of times Google is just bad. But sometimes bad answers are often the result of asking questions in ways that tap into the language or concerns of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, or fringe beliefs. For example, there is a very real problem some people have with monosodium glutumate, a food additive that triggers an allergic reaction in a small portion of the population. And if you search on a phrase likely to by found in the medical literature like \u201cmsg sensitivity\u201d, you get a fairly reliable result.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

Healthline, in this case, is a recognized provider of reliable health information.<\/p>\n

All this changes if you use the language of belief communities that believe the medical community is suppressing a link between MSG and a variety of neurological disorders. Here\u2019s what you get when you type in \u2018msg dangers\u2019:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

The blurb says it all (brain damage! alzheimer\u2019s! learning disabilities!), but if you look up the site (mercola.com) you\u2019ll find it is run by a physician who has been warned by the FDA repeatedly\u00a0to stop making false claims<\/a>.<\/p>\n

OUR ADVICE<\/h2>\n

In general, simply treat the Google card (\u201cone true answer\u201d) as you would any other top search result. Despite Google\u2019s claims to the contrary, it is not significantly more or less reliable than an average source. Click through, trace the claims on the page to a source, and investigate the source. Never trust its result without validating the source of the claim.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>