Read on Twitter
So this is crazy in terms of @googlepubpolicy suppression (and in light of news from the NYT that the WHO is basically full of shit).
In April, WHO took a few minutes to remind the world how helpful abortion would be during the pandemic. We covered it, straight up and down.
In April, WHO took a few minutes to remind the world how helpful abortion would be during the pandemic. We covered it, straight up and down.
. @MaryMargOlohan wrote the story, here's the link which I couldn't fit in the last tweet. https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/04/who-abortion-essential-coronavirus-covid-19/
When you scoop the entire headline and search it in @Google word-for-word, the search behemoth directs you straight to WHO's readout on abortion. Top result.
We are nowhere on the front page.
We are nowhere on the front page.
When you put the headline inside quotes, thus searching for matches to the EXACT phrase, you get a readout of WHO's abortion position AND an aggregator called "NewsBreak" that posts the first graf of our story and a link back.
Then there's the SEO headline. It's a field in wordpress that Google's crawler specifically targets in order to match exact or close searches.
FULL PAGE of pro-abortion advocacy read outs.
FULL PAGE of pro-abortion advocacy read outs.
Chuck the SEO headline in quotes, searching for exact matches. Top match is an aggregated piece that takes bits from ours (with attribution) on a site called (lol) "NewsOrb360"
I should mention that the newsbreak piece doesn't even lead to our site. It links back to an outlet that has a syndication agreement with us. https://tennesseestar.com/2020/04/06/world-health-organization-abortion-is-essential-during-coronavirus-pandemic/
All this to say, two things are clear to me through these searches:
1. There's anecdotal evidence that Google is promoting pro-abortion content.
2. If aggregators not big enough to hit Google's radar are superceding us on our own content ... (in fact we don't even make pg 10)
1. There's anecdotal evidence that Google is promoting pro-abortion content.
2. If aggregators not big enough to hit Google's radar are superceding us on our own content ... (in fact we don't even make pg 10)
... then whatever it is that's suppressing us is NOT algorithmic. We've been added to some list that deranks us from front page (and several pages after) search results.
It might be algorithmic after the addition, but the addition is some kind of human intervention.
It might be algorithmic after the addition, but the addition is some kind of human intervention.
For those who are interested, here is the link to and key quote from the NYT story. https://twitter.com/lucasfoxnews/status/1311626253523456001
And let’s not forget when YouTube (and in part Facebook) pledged to ban content that “directly contradicts World Health Organization (WHO) advice.”
Lol, the NYT literally published yesterday that WHO’s “advice” was in some ways suspect.
Lol, the NYT literally published yesterday that WHO’s “advice” was in some ways suspect.
For reference to what it looks like with algorithms that have no direct human intervention, here's DuckDuckGo and Bing.
lol, here's Yandex
A @google-r responded. More here from our in house dev. https://twitter.com/presjpolk/status/1311688921894588416
