PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 043
misuse by hackers etc. Does Google play a part of this construction of them (hackers) versus us (Google, users), and if so, how? To gain more insight, the qualitative analysis also focused on how Google was described in relation to how spammers and hackers were discursively rendered. It was found that aside of stressing the ‘human side’ of the algorithm (as argued in the previous section) Google presents itself as caring, using words that appeal to emotions and intensifying words such as “hard” and “deeply”: We try hard to make information available ... (“Policies” 2015) We care deeply about the information you find on Google. (“Policies” 2015) We’d love to get your feedback ... (“Policies” 2015) We hate spam as much as you do ... (“Policies” 2015) We want to be careful ... (“Policies” 2015) Fighting spam (“Policies” 2015) Moreover, as discussed in a previous section, Google also renders herself as a protector, by using words and phrases such as “we keep you safe” (“Answers about Privacy and Security” 2015). In contrast, spammy sites are discursively constructed as some sort of enemy. Google labels spammy sites as “dangerous”, that can “hurt” the user (“Policies” 2015), that cause relevant websites to “get buried”, and are “aggressive” (“Fighting Spam” 2015); therefore Google needs to “fight” spam (“Policies” 2015). Fighting is generally associated with war and the enemy. Also the former words have connotations of violence. As a consequence, the distance between Google as good and hackers/spammers as bad increases, resulting in reinforcement of Google’s positive, protecting intentions, while the negative properties of this unknown ‘other’ are magnified. This ‘othering’ is reinforced by stressing the difference between “them” and “us”, for instance, by repeatedly referring to the search results as “our search results”, while in the rest of the corpus this is not done, except for one case.20 remove them from our results. (“Policies” 2015) Sometimes we remove content or features from our search results for legal reasons (“Policies” 2015) We also disclose certain details about legal removals from our search results through our Transparency Report. (“Policies” 2015) Possibly, “our” is used to strengthen Google’s argument. Removal is a sensitive topic— removal might lead to or be a result of censorship—and by using “our search results” 20 This other occurrence of “our results” refers to Google’s policy on advertisements: “Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a ‘Sponsored Link,’ so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank” (“Ten Things We Know to Be True” 2015). Also in this case, it seems that “our” is added to reinforce Google’s statement that concerns a controversial issue, namely sponsored links. By using “our” the user may more easily accept Google’s policies, since it is their product. 43PDF 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 (Standard Web Page)