Customized results and filter bubbles

Many search engines such as Google and Bing provide customized results based on the user's activity history. This leads to an effect that has been called a filter bubble. The term describes a phenomenon in which websites use algorithms to selectively guess what information a user would like to see, based on information about the user (such as location, past click behaviour and search history). As a result, websites tend to show only information that agrees with the user's past viewpoint, effectively isolating the user in a bubble that tends to exclude contrary information. Prime examples are Google's personalized search results and Facebook's personalized news stream. According to Eli Pariser, who coined the term, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble. Pariser related an example in which one user searched Google for "BP" and got investment news about British Petroleum while another searcher got information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and that the two search results pages were "strikingly different". The bubble effect may have negative implications for civic discourse, according to Pariser. Since this problem has been identified, competing search engines have emerged that seek to avoid this problem by not tracking or "bubbling" users, such as DuckDuckGo. Other scholars do not share Pariser's view, finding the evidence in support of his thesis unconvincing

Conclusion

The global growth of the Internet and electronic media in the Arab and Muslim World during the last decade has encouraged Islamic adherents in the Middle East and Asian sub-continent, to attempt their own search engines, their own filtered search portals that would enable users to perform safe searches.More than usual safe search filters, these Islamic web portals categorizing websites into being either "halal" or "haram", based on modern, expert, interpretation of the "Law of Islam".I’m Halal came online in September 2011. Halal googling came online in July 2013. These use haram filters on the collections from Google and Bing (and other). While lack of investment and slow pace in technologies in the Muslim World has hindered progress and thwarted success of an Islamic search engine, targeting as the main consumers Islamic adherents, projects like Muxlim, a Muslim lifestyle site, did receive millions of dollars from investors like Rite Internet Ventures, and it also faltered.Other religion-oriented search engines are Jewogle, the Jewish version of Google, and SeekFind.org, which is Christian. SeekFind filters sites that attack or degrade their faith.

References

1. "RFC 812 - NICNAME/WHOIS". ietf.org.

2. http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/Internet-documents/matrix/services/KIS-id.txt

3. "World-Wide Web Servers". W3.org. Retrieved 2012-05-14.

4. "What's New! February 1994". Home.mcom.com. Retrieved 2012-05-14.

5. "Internet History - Search Engines" (from Search Engine Watch), Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands, September 2001, web: LeidenU-Archie.

6. Oscar Nierstrasz (2 September 1993). "Searchable Catalog of WWW Resources (experimental)".

7. "Archive of NCSA what's new in December 1993 page". Web.archive.org. 2001-06-20. Archived from the original on 2001-06-20. Retrieved 2012-05-14.

8. "Yahoo! And Netscape Ink International Distribution Deal" (PDF)

9. "Browser Deals Push Netscape Stock Up 7.8%". Los Angeles Times. 1 April 1996

10. Allen, Kevin (25 September 2015). "A look at Google search numbers". Kansas City Internet Marketing. Retrieved 26 October 2015.

11. Gandal, Neil (2001). "The dynamics of competition in the internet search engine market".International Journal of Industrial Organization 19 (7): 1103–1117. doi:10.1016/S0167-7187(01)00065-0.

12. "Our History in depth". W3.org. Retrieved 2012-10-31.

13. Brin, Sergey; Page, Larry. "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine" (PDF).

14. Jawadekar, Waman S (2011), "8. Knowledge Management: Tools and Technology", Knowledge Management: Text & Cases, New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education Private Ltd, p. 278, ISBN 978-0-07-07-0086-4, retrieved November 23, 2012

15. Chitu, Alex (August 30, 2007). "Easy Way to Find Recent Web Pages". Google Operating System. Retrieved 22 February 2015.

16. "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis", Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119-142, 2011.

17. http://www.ask.com. Retrieved 10 September 2015.

18. "FAQ". RankStar. Retrieved 19 June 2013.

19. "Desktop Search Engine Market Share". NetMarketShare. Retrieved 2015-11-23.

20. "Live Internet - Site Statistics". Live Internet. Retrieved 2014-06-04.

21. Arthur, Charles (2014-06-03). "The Chinese technology companies poised to dominate the world". The Guardian. Retrieved 2014-06-04.

22. "How Naver Hurts Companies’ Productivity". The Wall Street Journal. 2014-05-21. Retrieved 2014-06-04.

23. "Age of Internet Empires". Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved 2014-06-04.

24. Segev, El (2010). Google and the Digital Divide: The Biases of Online Knowledge, Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

25. ^b Vaughan, Liwen; Mike Thelwall (2004). "Search engine coverage bias: evidence and possible causes". Information Processing & Management 40 (4): 693–707.doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(03)00063-3.

26. ^ Berkman Center for Internet & Society (2002), “Replacement of Google with Alternative Search Systems in China: Documentation and Screen Shots”, Harvard Law School.

27. Introna, Lucas; Helen Nissenbaum (2000). "Shaping the Web: Why the Politics of Search Engines Matters". The Information Society: An International Journal 16 (3).doi:10.1080/01972240050133634.

28. Hillis, Ken; Petit, Michael; Jarrett, Kylie (2012-10-12). Google and the Culture of Search. Routledge. ISBN 9781136933066.

29. Reilly, P. (2008-01-01). Spink, Prof Dr Amanda; Zimmer, Michael, eds. ‘Googling’ Terrorists: Are Northern Irish Terrorists Visible on Internet Search Engines?. Information Science and Knowledge Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 151–175.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75829-7_10. ISBN 978-3-540-75828-0.

30. Ballatore, A. "Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engines". First Monday.

31. Parramore, Lynn (10 October 2010). "The Filter Bubble". The Atlantic. Retrieved2011-04-20. Since Dec. 4, 2009, Google has been personalized for everyone. So when I had two friends this spring Google "BP," one of them got a set of links that was about investment opportunities in BP. The other one got information about the oil spill....

32. Weisberg, Jacob (10 June 2011). "Bubble Trouble: Is Web personalization turning us into solipsistic twits?". Slate. Retrieved 2011-08-15.

33. Gross, Doug (May 19, 2011). "What the Internet is hiding from you". CNN. Retrieved2011-08-15. I had friends Google BP when the oil spill was happening. These are two women who were quite similar in a lot of ways. One got a lot of results about the environmental consequences of what was happening and the spill. The other one just got investment information and nothing about the spill at all.

34. Zhang, Yuan Cao; Séaghdha, Diarmuid Ó; Quercia, Daniele; Jambor, Tamas (February 2012). "Auralist: Introducing Serendipity into Music Recommendation" (PDF). ACM WSDM.

35. O'Hara, K. (2014-07-01). "In Worship of an Echo". IEEE Internet Computing 18 (4): 79–83. doi:10.1109/MIC.2014.71. ISSN 1089-7801.

36. "New Islam-approved search engine for Muslims". News.msn.com. Retrieved2013-07-11.

37. "Halalgoogling: Muslims Get Their Own "sin free" Google; Should Christians Have Christian Google? - Christian Blog". Christian Blog.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 879