Political affects of Google VS other Search Engines

 In chapter three of “Myth and Digital Democracy” Hindman uses the term ‘Googlearchy’ to define all search engine’s (but the most popular being google) influence over the both social and poltical realities. It also explains the visibility of a site with the amount of links that bring you to it or that it has within. In other words, search engines are directly correalated with politics. People use search engines to find political websites which can influence the user’s political opinions. Hindman uses google’s dominance over other web searches as a monopoly. It controls and influences the most people. Basically, if all the information is received from the same place (or other places like Yahoo and Microsoft – the other two most popular) the information can be biased. Thus there is not an even coverage on the sites in terms of politics. Hindman says that sites that are not in the mainstream get overlooked easily.

In chapter four, Hindman examines poltical sites more closely and evaluates the amount of people that actually use them by comparing them to other sites. He then raises the question ‘are political sites important?’ Based on what he discussed in the previous chapter and the small amount of interent users on these sites, I think we can conclude that these sites may not be all that important. Since the search engines are biased or just not built to give the user more obsecure results, maybe these sites lose importance. Hindman states that people like familiarity and do not like to venture onto other sites that may give the user more neutral content.

On the website, http://www.alexa.com/topsites, we see that Google is the number one most popular site followed by Facebook, YouTube and then Yahoo at fourth. This supports Hindman by proving the dominance Google has not only as a search engine, but as THE most popular website.

"Do Political Sites Matter?"

To answer that aforementioned question: no. At least that's what I've gathered from reading Chapters 3 and 4 of Matthew Hindman's The Myth of Digital Democracy. For males that fall under the 18-24 demographic such as myself, this especially seems true, as they represent just 9% of the 59% of overall males that frequent political sites (Pg. 68). 

Prior to addressing this question, Hindman in Chapter 3 explains the theory of "Googlearchy", which suggests that the number of links pointing to a site is the most important determinant of site visibility, and that niche dominance should be a general rule of online life. (Pg.55). He uses this theory to challenge the notion that the internet is a "narrowcasting" medium that gives voice to marginalized or resource-poor groups (Pg. 38). By such groups he's referring to the many websites and blogs that aren't backed by media juggernauts, as well as those put up by ordinary people. Despite the vastness of the internet, the Googlearchy theory shows that there isn't much of a level playing field amongst political sites.

Hindman's first suggestion of Googlearchy is supported by research that shows how hyperlinking snuffs out the voice of the marginalized before they get the chance to speak. This is made possible by the power-law distribution described in Pg. 41. He likens the small set of sites that receive most of the links (Pg. 42) to the elite few defined in Pareto's distribution of wealth theory (20 percent of the population controls 80 percent of the wealth, Pg. 41). With the way that search engines (one of two methods in which users usually locate sites) are structured (by ranking algorithms such as PageRank and HITS), sparsely linked, non-mainstream sites are at the losing end of what Hindman describes as a "popularity contest" (Pg. 42), and are the equivalent of hosting a talk show on public-access at 3:30 in the morning (Pg. 56). Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, as Concrete TV on Manhattan Neighborhood Network is like, one of the best shows ever, but it's a great analogy that describes the uphill battle such sites face against the "winner-take-all" sites present in every internet niche (Pg. 56-57).

In Chapter 4, Hindman explores political sites on a macro level, utilizing data from the internet traffic firm Hitwise to put together several charts that showcase how small of a slice political sites are in the web traffic pie, as well as the demographics and patterns of people that frequent such sites. Most telling is the chart on Pg. 61, which shows that political sites make up just 0.12% of all internet traffic. Subsequent charts reinforce the "winner-take-all" hierarchies present in general, news/media and political sites, yet again point out the small role the latter play amongst them all (news and media sites receive thirty times as many visits as political sites do- Pg. 66). The charts on Pg. 67-68 show that political sites are most frequented by males over the age of 55, as well as those with an income between $60-100K. Hindman also explores the web behaviors that lead people to political content, with the charts on Pg. 75-76 showing how lower-ranked political sites rely more on search engine queries than hyperlinks, and how such queries are more about "familiar information outlets" (i.e jibjab.com, antiwar.com, political personalities such as Michael Moore and Ann Coulter) and not "new information sources or divergent political perspectives" (Pg. 77).

Hindman concludes that many internet users like simplicity and familiarity, and are not compelled to dig through the crates of the internet to find alternative sources or perspectives on political issues, which they aren't interested in to begin with. While he isn't speaking for everyone, I have to agree with him.

Googlearchy

In chapters three and four of “Myth and Digital Democracy” Hindman discusses how politics are correlated with search engines. He discusses how individuals use search engines to find political sites, which alters or does not alter people’s political influences. Hindman discusses how Google has become the most powerful search engine, and how using search engines is the easiest way to receive information, but it is far from democratic. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo control 95% of the search engines people use. In turn, Hindman relates this control to a monopoly. People generally use these main sites instead of others that could have other searches. Hindman questions why one site gets more or less traffic than another.

      

      In chapter 3, Hindman uses the term Googlearchy “the rule of the most heavily linked.” This googlearchy heavily influences the online political landscape. The Google’s googlearchy narrowcasts user content, especially in regards to political sites.

            

In Chapter 4, Hindman discusses general Internet traffic and how political websites revolve in the World Wide Web. Search engines have a great impact on directing traffic to websites because the mass population uses these search engines to gain online information. 

Googlearchy: Search Engine Politics

In chapters three and four of his book, The Myth of Digital Democracy, author Matthew Hindman discusses politics in relation to search engines. Although these search engines (Google and Yahoo!) use different special algorithm machines, they still produce overlapping results. In these chapters, he also tries to answer questions about political websites and  the amount of internet traffic they receive in relation to search engines.  How do political websites fare on the World Wide Web? How do individuals access political sites? Which sites receive the most traffic? Do search engines play a role in which sites are more prominent? He attempts to answer these questions by analyzing the data on twelve lists of highly ranked "seed" sites of the political variety, using six different "general politics" categories.

These questions are difficult to answer, and search engines play favorites. In chapter three, Hindman talks about "Googlearchy." Googlearchy is referred to as the rule of the most heavily linked. This theory provides three main claims. First, Googlearchy suggests that the number of links pointing to a website is the most important determinant of site visibility. In other words, the more inbound links to your website,  the easier your website should be to find. Second, Googlearchy indicates that niche dominance should be a general rule of online life. For all defined groups of websites, there should be a small portion of that group that receives the most links and traffic. Third, Googlearchy suggests that this dependence on links should make niche dominance self-perpetuating. Sites that have more links should prosper with more traffic that help improve the site overall. Based on these claims, it can be seen that Googlearchy favors popular well-known websites that receive lots of traffic. Users then proceed to find information via these websites. Since there are very few popular websites that receive great amounts of traffic, Google's googlearchy is "narrowcasting" users' content. This is especially evident in regards to political websites.

In chapter four, Hindman talks about general internet traffic and how political websites fare in the World Wide Web. He attempts to answer how users end up at political websites through search engines. In his cited research, he states that many users lack the sophistication needed to use search engines, especially in regards to finding information about politics. Based on the research compiled by Hitwise Competitive Intelligence, traffic data shows that political websites do not rank high in reception of internet traffic. They only account for 0.12% while 2.9% go to news and media sites. He also states that the age of internet users vary greatly, with users ages 18-34 dominating the web, and rarely browsing political sites, while users ages 50 and older predominantly browse political and news websites. Hindman concludes that the reason why political websites are lacking traffic is because of more traditional media. People still are more likely to follow politics on traditional forms of media than the internet, especially looking at the different age groups.          

Searching for Online Democracy

Googlearchy, as Hindman states, is “the rules of the most heavily linked,” and has an impact on the online political landscape. Sites with the most inbound links, for example, are more easily found, receive more traffic and appear first in search results. The sites with more inbound links or hyperlinks, therefore, are more likely to attract more attention and remain their high rankings.  Surely, Google is probably the number one search engine a lot of Internet users use to simply look up or find more online information. According to Alexa’s Top 500 sites, Google is indeed the “top” search engine that drives traffic on the Web. Yet there is a limit to Googlearchy. Hindman suggests that not everything is being covered or found on Web sites because users, who most likely know little, take shortcuts to find information. In addition, since there is a lot of online information, users are more likely to just skim through what they find.

In Chapter 4 of The Myth of Digital Democracy, Hindman suggests that much of the traffic on the Web is primarily due to search engines. Search engines have a great impact on driving traffic to Web sites because a majority of people use search engines to retrieve online information and links to websites that match their searches. Hindman notes that most users who use search engines are “unsophisticated” and use short and general words and phrases on search engines. 85 percent of users do not look past the first page of results, which may limit a user’s opportunity to find the most suitable result.

In addition, Hindman suggests that the process of “narrowcasting,” influence the traffic on the Web as well as reserve information to a marginalized group, which not only limit the voice of others but also disrupts any democratic notion on the Web since not everyone’s voice is being heard. The structure of the Web allows certain groups to obtain online information in a way that follows link distributions based on the most popular sites, which seems unfair to the rest of the websites that receive little traffic or gets neglected by users.

In a sense, Hindman suggests that search engines do not contribute to the democratic norms and modes on the Web. It seems that a user’s ability to access to all Web sites is taken for granted because the structure of the Web and how online information is being transmitted, as Hindsman suggests, through hyperlinking and search engines, is gravitated towards a particular group, like in political websites and campaigns, and based on the popularity of Web sites, which are most likely to show up in the first page of search results on Google or other search engines and eventually limits a user’s chances of finding other unfound Web sites that may be of help.

Justin Bieber or: How I Learned About Things I Never Wanted To

I think it's weird how within a month our class can be introduced to the two conflicting ideas of the Internet popularizing the 'Long-Tail' and of a "Google-archy." Call it confirmation bias, but I would put more stock in a long tail internet model than Google. Actually, considering Google's stock, I'd probably invest more in them but it was a crappy metaphor to begin with.
Anywho, I will concede that Google is the starting point of the World Wide Web as we know it, and there is nothing Bing can do to topple that throne (as of now.) However, for the most part Google's search is neutral; their algorithm does it's best to find the most relevant site for your search. It just so happens that the biggest sites do happen to be the most relevant. And though they usually have either the advantage of time and/or affiliations with like, CNN or something; those sites deserve to be up there. They got there first and have been able to adapt and keep themselves relevant.
However, the fact that anyone is on top doesn't make it so others can't get noticed, and there is greater proof of a little guy hitting it big on the internet than there is a big guy hogging up all of the views.

My eponymous evidence is Justin Bieber, and his really is the type of story what typifies the type of thing that the internet allows to happen, for better or worse, and to a generally higher degree than most. Justin started off on Youtube as some nobody Canadian singing covers of popular songs. He inexplicably got popular and now everyone knows his name. There was no reason that he should have been popular other than people found him and liked him; the right people mind you, but enough where those people were willing to risk stardom on him. A similar story could be found in in people such as Bo Burnham and Lucas Cruikshank who started as comedians on Youtube and are now popular enough to each be getting their own TV shows or something I think. I know Burnham has one in production, and I don't care enough about Fred to check about the status of his, though I do know that there are DVD Fred movies that they sell at Toys R' Us.


But aside from measuring popularity by seeing who can be popular outside the internet; we can look at sites that suddenly sprung up from nowhere. The "Ur Example" one would probably have to be Facebook; which came out of a small college project and grew to over shadow it's contemporaries of Friendster and Myspace; and even became big enough to resist Google's attempted take of it's audience. Other examples in many different corners of the internet could be Perez Hilton, one of the web's biggest celebrity gossip blogs; NewEgg and online only retailer that can compete with the likes of Best Buy; or Destructoid, a gaming site that was originally started as a ploy to get into an industry-exclusive trade-show. 

Sure, there are plenty of sites on the web that don't get seen, and that are overshadowed by bigger sites. But those sites simply do things better. Google and the Internet aren't in the market of catering to the big-boys, they cater to the audience and the audience wants what's best. To get found you have to deserve to be found, and the only thing preventing that is how good of a content producer you can be.

Hindman's "Googlearchy"

Chapters 3 and 4 of Matthew Hindman's The Myth of Digital Democracy deal with how ordinary citizens use the Internet to find political websites and how the Internet changes or does not change the political landscape.

It has often been suggested that the Internet is a “narrowcasting” medium, which eliminates gatekeepers, levels the playing field, and gives a voice to the marginalized. These are all roles that I myself assumed the Internet took on but reading this chapter convinced me otherwise. It seems that there are other issues that keep people from being able to fully access all of the resources that can be found on the Internet. Hindman has come up with the term “Googlearchy,” or the rule of the most heavily linked, which suggests that only a small group of websites receives the most visitors because those websites are the most linked to. Websites that have few links are very much ignored. The way that sites are ranked is much like a popularity contest.

In visiting the website Alexa.com, it came as no surprise to me that I was completely familiar with all of the websites ranked in the top 25 sites in the United States. I would say that about 75% of the websites I visit on a regular basis were listed in the top 25. As Hindman writes in chapter 4, a lack of user sophistication contributes to why the top ranked websites continue to be the most visited. A majority of search engine users never click past the first page of results and some don't even scroll to the bottom of the first page. They simply click on the first links that come up. I find myself doing the same thing. When performing a search I can almost always find exactly what I was looking for within the first 5 links that appear. This shows how big a role search engines play in directing website traffic.

Because the amount of information that can be found online is so overwhelming, there is no realistic way for people to access it all. A Google search on the term “politics” alone brings up over 1 billion results. It only makes sense that a person would restrict their search to only the first one or two pages that come up as they list the most relevant and most visited websites related to the search.