PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 042
deeply informed about the reasons behind this preference, or what those machine solutions might be, the focus in the Google corpus is rather about Google’s manual actions. This claim seems substantiated by findings from the quantitative analysis: “manual” and its stemmed words occur 24 times in the GC, while “automatic” and its stemmed words occur four times. Word combinations including the word “machine” occur twice (which is twice in the combination “machine solutions”).19 Of these four occurrences of “automatic” only one actually concerns Google’s search algorithm. The other three refer to the automatic content creation of spammy sites. In the final chapter I will discuss to which extent conclusions can be drawn on basis of frequency analysis and, more generally, how quantitative methods relate to qualitative methods for the interpretation of data in a mixed methods study such as this one. Moreover, it was found that when automatic algorithmic actions are discussed (without using explicit words such as “automatically”) positive algorithmic actions are often expressed by modals that express possibility and render the algorithm powerful, as described in the former section, while negative outcomes of algorithmic actions are mitigated: in some cases, our algorithms falsely identify sites ... (“Policies” 2015) When one of these algorithms misidentifies websites (for example essex.edu) we sometimes make manual exceptions to prevent these sites from being classified as pornography” (“Policies” 2015). What is implicitly stated here is that the algorithm can be wrong, or make mistakes. However, mitigating words are used that render these mistakes less severe: “misidentify” or “falsely identify” are weaker. Additionally, the deletion of an agent in the second example (“to prevent these sites from being classified”) can make the agent appear to be “discursively absolved from responsibility”, as is often the case if agents are deleted in passivized sentences (Baker and Ellece 2011, 87). To sum up: algorithmic actions are thus not explicitly discussed as being automatic. Google rather focuses on elaborating on manual actions, which may be because a focus on manual action may be perceived as more humane and therefore be more agreeable. Moreover, negative outcomes of algorithmic actions are mitigated, while actions of spammy sites are disproportionally enlarged. The latter will be focused on next. 3.4 We, Google, versus them, hackers. One of this thesis’ subquestions is how the algorithm is discursively is constructed by Google with regard to spammers. In the academic literature, most scholars propose more transparency of the algorithmic code, of the data that is used by the algorithms and the criteria that are used. Yet, they acknowledge that full disclosure will be harmful, allowing the 19 This word was also searched for, since word combinations as “machine processes” or “machine solutions” can be a substitution for “automatically”. 42PDF Image | peek into the discursive construction of the Google Search Algorithm: A critical discourse analysis
PDF Search Title:
peek into the discursive construction of the Google Search Algorithm: A critical discourse analysisOriginal File Name Searched:
thesis-google-search-algotithm.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Cruise Ship Reviews | Luxury Resort | Jet | Yacht | and Travel Tech More Info
Cruising Review Topics and Articles More Info
Software based on Filemaker for the travel industry More Info
The Burgenstock Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
Resort Reviews: World Class resorts... More Info
The Riffelalp Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
| CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@cruisingreview.com | RSS | AMP |