Fox News & Danger Of Citing Search Counts

[seobook]

I would say a large percentage of the population believes that if it is on TV it must be true. especially stuff on news channels or news programs.

[Dodger]

Originally Posted by seobook

I would say a large percentage of the population believes that if it is on TV it must be true. especially stuff on news channels or news programs.

I hear you on the News stuff ... I was going to say something about Wolf Blitzer here, but decided not to. I have picked on him enough in the past.

But I do believe that Relacore is not for me...I only need to shed a few pounds and Relacore is for those who want to lose 15, 20 to 30 pounds or more. That leaves me out.

[pleeker]

Originally Posted by St0n3y

It all stems from lazy journalists and they are everywhere.

As someone who worked in print, TV, and radio media for 7+ years, I'd have to disagree that the problem is "lazy" journalists. There are hard-working journalists everywhere, many of whom are expected to be experts in too many areas. (And yes, a few lazy ones, too....)

The key in this situation, as I said above, is educating them on what Google can and cannot do, and what Google is and isn't. They don't report "Google hits" because they're lazy, they report them because they think it means something.

And I appreciate Gary's posts and efforts along these lines. But how much can one man do?

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by pleeker

As someone who worked in print, TV, and radio media for 7+ years, I'd have to disagree that the problem is "lazy" journalists. There are hard-working journalists everywhere, many of whom are expected to be experts in too many areas. (And yes, a few lazy ones, too....)

The key in this situation, as I said above, is educating them on what Google can and cannot do, and what Google is and isn't. They don't report "Google hits" because they're lazy, they report them because they think it means something.

And I appreciate Gary's posts and efforts along these lines. But how much can one man do?

I agree with your conclusions... having worked in the field for a lot of years as well. But the things I learned when coming to US for my Masters of Journalism was the reverence given by the public to people who are not all knowing... just people trained to put together paragraphs in a set way (with as much information that can be verified)... guess Google is now a verified source!

[hulkster]

My site comes up #1 out of 12,500,000 for car stories... I only noticed this recently and really wasn't something I was trying for!

Maybe Fox News should give me a call next time they want to do a car story?!? ;-)

alek

P.S. For those wondering, the inbound/referral traffic is pretty minor - certainly not a competitve keyphrase that is actually searched very often.

[Dodger]

Originally Posted by hulkster

P.S. For those wondering, the inbound/referral traffic is pretty minor - certainly not a competitve keyphrase that is actually searched very often.

No, but I bet backseat stories are.

[seobook]

Originally Posted by Dodger

No, but I bet backseat stories are.

what are backseat stories?

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by seobook

what are backseat stories?

You have spent too much time in front of a computer.......

[Dodger]

Originally Posted by seobook

what are backseat stories?

Man you have led a sheltered life too. Google it Aaron ... or have a talk with your father. This is something that you should not learn from the streets.

[orion]

I am posting this information on two thread of SEW Forums

1. Fox News & Danger Of Citing Search Counts, started by Danny Sullivan
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...highlight=news

2. Keywords Co-Occurrence and Semantic Connectivity, started by Orion (me)
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/...hread.php?t=48

I hope this post clarifies in some way the missconception news writers and reporters have on search results interpretations. Let's see.

I agree with Danny and most readers. I would go little far from that. The use or misuse of query-driven absolute results, as absolute ranking results for that matter, often leads to misleading statistics. As Rich Ord, a writer from WebProNews put it, search results are not Gallup polls.

To assess association of terms and concepts we need to conduct semantic associations studies at both database and document levels.

For the terms and phrases discussed in Danny's thread, we conducted a semantic connectivity analysis at the database level and these are the results (as of today). Results may change over time. See my thread for the theory behind the results. I use terms co-occurrence at the database level (Terms co-occurrence and semantic connectivity at the document level will soon be discussed in the thread).


This is what we got.


IR/SEARCH ENGINE: GOOGLE
QUERY MODE: FIND ALL
DATE/TIME: 06-22-04 AT 10:30 AM
CASE: INSENSITIVE


k1=Fox n1=20,500,000
k2=anti-american n2=546,000
k12=Fox anti-american n12=50,800
c12=2.24 ppt

k1=bbc n1=25,400,000
k2=anti-american n2=546,000
k12=BBC anti-american n12=51,400
c12=1.98 ppt

k1=white house n1=12,400,000
k2=anti-american n2=546,000
k12=white house anti-american n12=143,000
c12=11.17 ppt

k1=bush n1=31,400,000
k2=anti-american n2=546,000
k12=bush anti-american n12=338,000
c12=10.69 ppt

k1=danny sullivan n1=1,290,000
k2=anti-american n2=546,000
k12=danny sullivan anti-american n12=8,990
c12=4.92 ppt

RESULTS

1. c-index values, in ppt: 11.17 (WhiteHouse) > 10.69 (Bush) > 4.92 (Danny) > 2.24 (FOX) > 1.98 (BBC)

2. the c-indices, fraction of co-occurrence indicates that there is a lose term co-occurrence between the cases (around 1% or less or if you wish around 11 ppt or less). If we take in a blindfold manner the c-index results then danny sullivan "would be" more anti-american than Fox or BBC. Similarly we can blindfold and incorrectly assume that Fox is slightly more anti-american than BBC.

3. Do the homework: Results in EXACT mode (find "phrases"), demonstrates no significant correlation at all. Cluster similarity results don't even help, either.


CONCLUSION

1. If we wrongly cite absolute results then we must wrongly assume that the white house and bush "are" more anti-american than Fox or BBc.

2. It is clear that absolute results cited by "reporters" to reinforce a story are meaningless. Without a clear understanding of terms and concept association, semantic connectivity and the underlying theory, those results qualify as fabricated facts --at least in my book.

3. The above results are valid in the queried database only, ie. Google.

4. For a true confidence level analysis, we need to conduct c-index values that change over time (time series co-occurrence study). Only then we can talk in terms of trends and patterns and "spikes" of signifcances. Certainly conducting such studies during Spring or Summer is not the same as conducting them during Fall or 30 days before or after Election Day 2004.


I invite news writers as well as marketers interested in conducting similar semantic connectivity studies in connection with phrases or concepts (to be targeted or marketed;ie., slogans, brands, catchy political gimmicks etc.) to revisit my thread on terms (or concepts) co-occurrence and semantics.

They may find some new and other applications for my c-indices I may have overlooked. I can provide any interested party with sounded scientific marketing research data or help them to assess their current data. Just need to ask.

Sorry to step in. I cannot help myself when others try to missguide the so-called "public opinion".


Some time during the day of today or tommorrow I will start with terms co-occurrence at the document level, an area may interest SEOs.

Orion

Errata/Clarification: Rich Ord, mentioned above, is staff writer of WebProNews and actually CEO of iEntry, Inc. His article can be found at http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusi...IsNotNews.html

[nuclei]

Originally Posted by dannysullivan

351,000 for bush anti-american

Actually this one seems right on the money.

[St0n3y]

I certainly did not mean to apply that all or even most journalists are lazy, there are some lazy journalists and there are good journalists who just don't do their homework from time to time. I don't know what journalists made the report mentioned above so I don't want to call them a lazy journalist but in this case they didn't know the facts, or assumed somethign to be true that wasn't. Assumptions can be proven true or falsw eith a little leg work, something that does not happen enough, regardless of the journalist or news company.

News accuracy is only important if it is profitable. It is not laziness or accuracy that is the issue, its profitability that is important. Churning out more stories by doing inadequate research makes more profit. Making news more like Maxim or FHM draws more eyeballs to sell more ads & makes more profit.

Don't think I agree with this any more than I believe that a search engine can turn a profit by producing poor quality results. Yes, it is unfortunate that News has turned more into entertainment, but the quality of news has to be in tact in order to gain an audience. CNN lost its audiance to Fox because the quality of their reporting the facts was sub-par and had an obvious bias. It was pretty easy to spot.

Quote:
351,000 for bush anti-american

Actually this one seems right on the money.

861000 for "kerry bad for america"

Seems right on the money to me. (I'm sure we can go on and on with this silliness)

I'd want to add that even if a bush anti-american search did indicate that all returned pages claim he is anti-american, it would mean that many people think so, not that he in fact is.

That's a difference which should be taken seriously, above all in court.

Strictly speaking, it wouldn't even mean that many people think so, just that there are many web sites saying it, for whatever reason.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by seb

I'd want to add that even if a bush anti-american search did indicate that all returned pages claim he is anti-american, it would mean that many people think so, not that he in fact is.

That's a difference which should be taken seriously, above all in court.

Strictly speaking, it wouldn't even mean that many people think so, just that there are many web sites saying it, for whatever reason.

I like the reply and yes numbers do not make things true... just is a count of numbers

[St0n3y]

that was the point I was trying to make but with example and no so much with words. Gotta remember, just because you find it on the internet does not make it true... and similarly, just because you hear it on the news doesn't make it true either. I don't believe anything until I see it from at least two sources.

But even still, you can't believe most as many news agencies use each other as sources rather than researching the truth for themselves. how many times have we heard an news anchor (from TV or radio) say "The New York Times is reporting today..."

[Peter (IMC)]

lol,.. if that picture really is from the Fox News site than that says it all. Funny,... but lets not get too political in an SEO forum,.

Back to the original post,. it is interesting how "the average" user doesn't know much about what all these numbers mean.

Most people seem to think that when a search engine says it found XXXXXXXXXX documents then it means there are that many documents about the phrase they searched for. That´s not correct of course.

I wonder how many more misunderstandings there are about search engines numbers. I know PageRank is very misunderstood by many people.

[dannysullivan]

I've split the debate about the quality of Fox News and others over here: Fox News & Accusations Of Bias. It was getting pretty far from the original topic of how all types of organizations, such as news organizations like Fox News, might rely on search counts as "facts" to include in their reports

[St0n3y]

I think to use info in the way it was presented was clearly the journalists misunderstanding of search itself. To me that is inexcusable, but you see it all the time, especially when you see news reports or articles about this industry. What the reporter knows and reports is often pretty far behind the curve.