This is not the first time Google has faced questions over its auto-complete results. Last year, amid rising tensions due to the US presidential election – and the rise of so-called ‘fake news’ – the tech giant was forced to respond to accusations its results were being rigged. It was alleged the firm was manipulating searches to hide any negative news stories about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton – an accusation it strongly denied.

“Auto-complete isn’t an exact science, and the output of the prediction algorithms changes frequently,” wrote Tamar Yehoshua, product management director of search at Google in a blog post published on 10 June last year.

“Predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity and freshness of search terms,” she continued. “Given that search activity varies, the terms that appears in auto-complete for you may change over time.

“It’s also important to keep in mind that autocomplete predictions aren’t search results and don’t limit what you can search for.

BLM screenshot
Google results for ‘Black Lives Matter is’IBTimes UK

“It’s a shortcut for those who are interested. You can still perform whatever search you want to, and of course, regardless of what you search for, we always strive to deliver the most relevant results from across the web.”

Google’s algorithms are, in a broad sense, bolstered by the searches of its users. Its internal systems remain obtuse, secretive and constantly in a state of flux.

Yet in spite of this, its critics argue the firm should be doing more to police its search engine’s autocomplete function.

“It’s horrible,” Danny Sullivan, founding editor of SearchEngineLand.com, told The Guardian last December. “It’s the equivalent of going into a library and asking a librarian about Judaism and being handed 10 books of hate.

“Google is doing a horrible, horrible job of delivering answers here. It can and should do better.”


Originally published HERE