Google expands automatic fact check insertion into search results

Google logoAfter launching a preliminary test in October, Google has officially rolled out an automatic fact check tag program on its search pages.

When Google determines that a search is worth a fact-check notice, that data will be placed at the very top of those search results. It will always tell users what the claim is, who claimed it, and what a fact-checking organization determined about that claim.

The trick is, you won't find these results unless you specifically type in an oft-repeated claim, as opposed to a question. If you search for the phrase "how many undocumented immigrants are in the United States," normal search results appear with a mix of answers and data points. Searching specifically for "34 million undocumented immigrants" will bring up a fact-check box that credits President Donald Trump with that claim, along with a direct link to Politifact's "pants on fire" fact-check rating.

Google expands automatic fact check insertion into search results

Google's fact-checking bots will only comb certain data and research sites. They must either present their data with Schema.org ClaimReview mark-up on public pages or use the Share The Facts widget. At that point, Google's internal processes will "algorithmically determine" whether a site is an "authoritative source of information." Google lists some of the data points that its bots seek, including a requirement that "analysis must be transparent about sources and methods, with citations and references to primary sources." How robots confirm that kind of content "algorithmically" without human intervention is unclear. Once a site is determined Google fact-check worthy, other terms and criteria apply.

Users are told to expect conflicting fact-checking conclusions for some search results. "Even though differing conclusions may be presented, we think its still helpful for people to understand the degree of consensus around a particular claim and have clear information on which sources agree," the company's Friday announcement states.

A cursory spin of Google's fact-checking feature reveals that it's mostly tied to terms and headlines that Google's database of recognized fact-checking organizations have tackled. For example, a search for "is Politifact biased" brings up a number of sites that offer data about that site's alleged bias, but Google may not recognize any of these sites as members of its databaseand the company's search doesn't make that absence of "approved" data apparent to users looking for an answer.

Source: Ars Technica

Tags: Google, search

Comments
Add comment

Your name:
Sign in with:
or
Your comment:


Enter code:

E-mail (not required)
E-mail will not be disclosed to the third party


Last news

 
 
Intel was the number 1 ranked supplier with a 9.2% share of the worldwide semiconductor market
 
Improved software will power more accurate facial rec
 
The iMac Pro may have an A10 Fusion processor running it's own iOS
 
Galaxy X already got some certifications
 
The smart speaker is based on an AI virtual assistant
 
You won't have to leave what you're doing to respond to a chat
 
Apple is working with Intel on 5G hardware for future iPhones
The Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) Review
The evolution of the successful smartphone, now with a waterproof body and USB Type-C
February 7, 2017 /
Samsung Galaxy TabPro S - a tablet with the Windows-keyboard
The first Windows-tablet with the 12-inch display Super AMOLED
June 7, 2016 /
Keyboards for iOS
Ten iOS keyboards review
July 18, 2015 /
Samsung E1200 Mobile Phone Review
A cheap phone with a good screen
March 8, 2015 / 4
Creative Sound Blaster Z sound card review
Good sound for those who are not satisfied with the onboard solution
September 25, 2014 / 2
Samsung Galaxy Gear: Smartwatch at High Price
The first smartwatch from Samsung - almost a smartphone with a small body
December 19, 2013 /
 
 

News Archive

 
 
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  




Poll

Do you use microSD card with your phone?
or leave your own version in comments (4)