Users Confuse Search Results, Ads
Not surprising, but sad nonetheless. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=562u=/ap/20050123/ap_on_hi_te/search_engine_trustprinter=1 -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ . Title: Yahoo! News - Survey: Users Confuse Search Results, Ads News Home - Help Survey: Users Confuse Search Results, Ads 46 minutes ago By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer NEW YORK - Only 1 in 6 users of Internet search engines can tell the difference between unbiased search results and paid advertisements, a new survey finds. RelatedQuotes YHOO GOOG MSFT 35.30188.2825.65-0.48-5.64-0.21 Delayed Data Providers - Disclaimer The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported Sunday that adults online in the United States are generally naive when it comes to how search engines work. The major search engines all return a mix of regular results, based solely on relevance to the search terms entered, and sponsored links, for which a Web site had paid money to get displayed more prominently. Google Inc. marks such ads as "sponsored links," Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) terms them "sponsor results" and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN uses "sponsored sites." Such ads are placed to the right and on top of the regular search results, in some cases highlighted in a different color. But only 38 percent of Web searchers even know of the distinction, and of those, not even half 47 percent say they can always tell which are paid. That comes out to only 18 percent of all Web searchers knowing when a link is paid. Forty-five percent of Web searchers say they would stop using search engines if they thought they weren't being clear about such payments, yet 92 percent of Web searchers say they are confident about their searching abilities. Deborah Fallows, a senior research fellow at Pew and the study's author, said the findings were surprising given that the same people are likely to know the difference between television programs and infomercials. "We're still in the infancy of the Internet," Fallows said. "People are still kind of so pleased that they can go there, ask for something and get an answer that it's kind of not on their radar screen to look in a very scrutinizing way to see what's in the background there." She said the results reflect blind trust on the part of the Web searcher rather than "anything nefarious on the part of the search engine." Nonetheless, the Consumer Reports WebWatch studied the top 15 search engines and found many of them could do better in disclosing sponsorships, particularly when they practice "paid inclusion." That is when sites pay to make sure they are included in a search engine's index, though without guarantees that their links will be displayed more prominently. The telephone-based Pew study was conducted May 14-June 17 and involved 2,200 adults, including 1,399 Internet users. Results based on Internet users have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Story Tools Email Story Post/Read Msgs (2) Formatted Story Ratings: Would you recommend this story? Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Copyright 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Ad Feedback --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sci Am on creationism
An update from Scientific American: Sticker Shock IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE CAUTIONARY ADVISORY BY STEVE MIRSKY Bushfires are raging all across America over the teaching of evolution, as various antievolution interests attempt to give religiously based views equal footing in science classes. These fires are fueled by so-called creation scientists, who allege that they have scientific evidence against evolution. (They don't.) Their co-conspirators, the intelligent design crowd, go with the full-blown intellectual surrender strategy-they say that life on earth is so complex that the only way to explain it is through the intercession of an intelligent super-being. (They don't mention you-know-who by name as the designer, but you know who you-know-who is, and it isn't Brahma.) One little blaze can be found in Cobb County, Ga. As this issue of Scientific American went to press, a federal judge in Atlanta was in the process of deciding whether biology textbooks in the county could continue to sport a warning sticker that read: This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Maybe that last sentence should be stamped into every textbook (and some other books I can think of). And maybe they could rewrite the advisory so that it's accurate. Perhaps something like, Variation coupled with natural selection is the most widely accepted theory that explains evolution. Evidence for evolution itself is so overwhelming that those who deny its reality can do so only through nonscientific arguments. They have every right to hold such views. They just can't teach them as science in this science class. But why pick on evolution in the first place when there's so much to be offended by in virtually any science class? I propose that Cobb County-style stickers be placed in numerous other textbooks. Here are some suggestions: Sticker in Introduction to Cosmology: Astronomers estimate the age of the universe to be approximately 13 billion years. If evolution ticks you off because you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, cosmology should really make smoke come out of your ears. There's a fire extinguisher next to the telescope. Sticker in Geography for Today: Some people believe that the earth is flat. An ant probably thinks the beach ball he's walking on is flat, too. Anyway, this book says the earth is more like an oblate spheroid. Now go find Moldova on a map. Sticker in Earth Science: You are free to exercise your First Amendment rights in this class and to identify all strati-graphic layers as being 6,000 years old. We are free to flunk you. Sticker in Collegiate Chemistry: Electrons. They're like little tiny ball bearings that fly around the atomic nucleus like planets orbit the sun. Except that they're actually waves. Only what they really are are probability waves. But they do make your MP3 player run, seriously. Sticker in Our Solar System: Remember they said in chemistry class that electrons fly around the nucleus like planets orbit the sun? Some people think the sun and other planets go around the earth. You'll have a much easier time with the math if you just let everybody go around the sun, trust me. Sticker in Physics for Freshmen: We know that a lot of what's in this book is wrong, and with any luck they'll eventually find out that even more of it is wrong. But it's not so far off, it took some real geniuses to get us this close, and it's way better than nothing. Sticker in Creationism for Dummies: Religious belief rests on a foundation of faith. Seeking empirical evidence for support of one's faith-based beliefs therefore could be considered pointless. Or even blasphemous. Sticker in Modern Optics: CAUTION! Dark ages in mirror may be closer than they appear. (c) Scientific American February 2005 -- ___ David E. Campbell, Ph.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of PsychologyPhone: 707-826-3721 Humboldt State University FAX: 707-826-4993 Arcata, CA 95521-8299 www.humboldt.edu/~campbell/psyc.htm http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Ecampbell/psyc.htm --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
