Google's PageRank algorithm and its lasting impact on the world

In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin publicized the PageRank Algorithm as their website, Google, became official. From that point on, it has been one of the most known and used websites throughout the entire world, known best for its speedy and useful web searches of the entire Internet database.

 

Starting in 1998, Google has been the most popular search engine on the Internet since.

What's an algorithm?
Definition and explanation of algorithms and their importance in the world.

Simply put, an algorithm is a calculation written out in a very detailed, step-by-step procedure. They can be written in conversational language, a list, a mathematical equation or, in this case, computer code. 

Lewis Bell, Computer Science at UMD

The PageRank algorithm and what it does

The PageRank algorithm and how it uses the hyperlink, authority, and random surfer tricks to be as accurate as possible.

The PageRank Algorithm uses a combination of two things. First, the logical ways of reasoning on how to find the most accurate website matched to a specific search phrase from a sea of infinite pages. Second, the technical ways of making a computer do that (coding, programming, etc.) It uses the "hyperlink trick," the "authority trick," and the "random surfer trick" as the bases for how Google's web search works. In his book "Nine Algorithms that Changed the Future," John MacCormick explains the PageRank algorithm and its "tricks:"

The hyperlink trick ranks the potential websites by how many other pages link to them via hyperlinks, words or phrases on webpages that connect you to a different site if you click on them (they usually appear as blue, underlined words.) While very useful because having many sites linking to yours is a sign of reputable content, it doesn't prevent a "cycle" from happening, or constant change of link numbers due to pages linking to each other. 

The authority trick fixes this by assigning every page an "authority score." This is the sum of every other site's authority scores, or number of sites that link to it, that link to that page. So if 2 sites linked to site A and 3 sites linked to site B and both A and B linked to site C, site C would have the authority score of 5. The site with the highest authority score would show up first out of all of the pages that showed up for your search.

The random surfer trick measures the chance of someone randomly clicking on your site at a point of boredom on the web. This was the last and final tweak that Page and Brin had to do in order to make their algorithm complete and usable on the internet. Google was to be launched. 

Google today

How the algorithm is still used as Google continues to expand

Google is the most used search engine on the Internet today. It beats every other possible site by a long shot. 

That large blue area is Google and the rest are other search engines.

The site also uses over 200 varying factors to determine what sites appear where but they are quite secretive about the details nowadays. If you Google search "how does google search work," a humorous explanation written by the Google workers themselves will appear first on the list. They claim that pigeons, with their great recognition skills, go and find the sites for them. Ever since 1998, Google has been growing as a company. They now have Google Maps, Google Images, Google Mail, and more. Of course, they now have many more computer scientists and engineers thinking of all these genius algorithms. Google only continues to improve. 

This PageRank algorithm boosted Google into this glory and they have not left since. There are even websites that apparently check your PageRank for you. Whether or not they are accurate, I am not sure.

Algorithms are in our everyday lives, from tying your shoes to calling someone on your mobile phone. This particular algorithm made a huge impact on our lives. Using Google search has become a huge way of finding necessary information and this would not be possible without the PageRank algorithm. 

Monitoring your partner on Facebook and its social acceptability

The Study

In 2011, a study was conducted to analyze how many partners in a relationship monitored each other’s Facebook activity, and whether there were any psychological or demographic traits that could predict this behavior. It had a sample of 244 people composed of 190 females and 54 males. They were first given a questionnaire to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms, and their own perceived control over their own behavior to monitor their partner’s Facebook. 68% of them completed the follow-up questionnaire, which was a report of how much they monitored their partner’s Facebook in the week that had passed. The results were pretty obvious but still interesting.

Apparently, an individual’s perceived self-control over monitoring their partners Facebook is not a strong indicator of one’s intentions or behavior. However, their attitude and subjective norm was. How they viewed partner monitoring, as well as how their peers viewed it, played a large role in the amount that they did. Obviously, if you and your friends view Facebook partner-monitoring as acceptable or good, you are more likely to do it. Self-esteem was not a large predictor either, but the amount that you trusted your partner was. The less trust you have in your relationship, the more likely you are to Facebook monitor. Similarly, the longer you have been in the relationship, the less likely you are to monitor. Demographic features such as age, gender and how long you typically spent on Facebook per login were not big indicators.

I think the study was done quite well, but I believe it would have been more accurate if there was a larger sample and an even number of males and females. Also, 75.5% of the sample was aged between 18 and 22. Although this is the most popular age to be using Facebook, I think it could have been interesting if older people were more included as well, to see if trust and Facebook-monitoring changed with age.

What does this mean?

            

Only 17.6% of the entire sample never monitored their partner’s Facebook. Most people did between one and five times a week, but there was 7% who checked their partner’s Facebook either daily or with every login. The fact that Facebook-monitoring strongly correlates with trust shows that this is not just people being curious with their girlfriend or boyfriend’s life. This is people trying to check on each other, to see what the other person has been up to without them actually telling you. I think this is unhealthy for a relationship and what is more scary is that it seems to be socially acceptable! There are articles on the Internet that give Facebook stalking “tips” and other ones that slip in recommendations to check out your significant other’s Facebook friends. However, for the really excessive partner-monitoring, there are people who see a problem in it, such as this woman who asked a relationship coach for help. I agree with the coach, Virginia Clark. Monitoring your partner on Facebook is self-destructive and can only cause more harm than good. Sure, you may find out something that, in the end, you will be glad that you knew but what if you don't? All of this obsessive behavior with nothing but lost time and, if your partner becomes aware, problems in the relationship. 

Is it Facebook or is it us?

I think this shows that social networks and the information on them can be used in a way that is not good for our personal lives, but I also think this lies in the people themselves. Before Facebook-monitoring, we were reading each other's e-mails and text messages. Before that, we were reading each others letters and diaries. Now people are doing a combination of all of this. Facebook does not make people more privacy-invading, it just makes it much easier to do so. This article in the Telegraph shows that, in a sample of 2,000 people, 58% of Britons have snooped on at least two exes on Facebook. However, it showed that 48% of them also read their partner's e-mails and 39% had spread rumors as "revenge" on an ex. Maybe it is not the social networks that need to change but the people themselves. Does the ease of invading your loved one's privacy justify the act of doing it? I do not think so. I believe people need to reevaluate their values as well as those of their partner's.

Society and its need to filter

No, I do not believe that society should focus on addressing information overload. If you have access to the Internet, the knowledge you can attain is literally endless. Place that on top of all the books, music, news sources, etc. (which almost all are also available via the Internet) and you could definitely “overload” your brain with information. But that is your own choice.

Life is definitely changing. Whether you are looking for the latest news on U.S. politics or trying to keep track of your friends’ lives, the ways of doing this just keep expanding. This can be overwhelming for a lot of people but I think we all just need to calm down and take a deep breath. We need to appreciate all of these different sources of information and, once we get the hang of it, it really isn’t as stressful as it appears. You’ll get comfortable with all of your different options and figure out what methods of using information technology suit you best. This is where filter-failure comes in.

As Clay Shirky emphasizes, society is not being negatively affected by information overload, but rather by filter failure. This means that, although the information out there is ever increasing, we need to improve our ways of “filtering” out what we want to see and not see instead of claiming that the growing information should be stopped or slowed down. In some cases, on the Internet, this is already happening. As Rhodri Marsden points out, we all know our favorite TV channels, radio stations, and mainstream news sources. Also, we are getting better at ignoring the time-wasting things, like pop-up adds saying you have won one million dollars. As the information available increases, we need to increase our filtering abilities.

People like Tracey Gaughran, a full-time blogger, believe that if we find this filtering tedious or annoying, we are not doing it correctly. “Twitter is about following these tiny snapshots of people’s day-to-day lives. And that’s boring and tiresome only if you pick the wrong people to follow.” Twitter can also be for following celebrities you are interested in, news media for the latest breaking news, or just some random stranger that you think leads an interesting life. I too believe that if you get overwhelmed and frustrated by the Tweets you are seeing, change it yourself! Stop following a certain someone and maybe follow someone else. Practice makes perfect. Regarding other types of filtering, once you figure out your favorite way to read the latest world news, whether it’s just one informative news website or several different news blogs, the rewards are immense. Instead of worrying about how to handle all of the information available to us, we just need to get better at choosing which information we pay attention to. Everyone has there own personal tastes, it is part of what makes us so unique, so we need to apply this not only to how we judge what we are seeing, but what we are seeing in the first place. Once we all have our own personal, fine-tuned ways of filtering through this abundance of sources, I think that everyone will be more relaxed about this overwhelming amount of information.

So go out and explore. It will take you awhile to understand the huge amount of information being shared by people on the Internet, but isn’t it amazing? 

Graphic Sources:

Graphic #1

Graphic #2

Technology and our Right to Privacy

Today I read these two articles:
"Personal use of GPS trackers growing fast"
"Between Google and GPS, privacy takes a step backward"

Technology is progressing at such a fast pace that our rights are struggling to keep up. Reading about the Supreme Court case, which stated police are required to obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to someones car, gave me a feeling of great relief. I do not think anyone should be tracked by anyone unless they are aware, regardless of the circumstances. This includes businesses.
I understand that location-based information is extremely useful for institutions such as Google, but just because something sounds cool and resourceful does not necessarily mean it is good for the public. I feel very strongly about our individual rights to privacy, and do not think the business and technological world are paying them much attention or respect. However convenient it feels that when I search "shoes" in Google and a map appears on the side bar showing me where all the shoe stores in College Park are located, I would gladly give this up for Google to stop invading my privacy of e-mails, searches, calendars, etc. I think it is unfair that we are increasingly pressured by society to rely on technology such as Google (e.g. UMD using it as our school e-mail provider) but yet have no say in what they can or cannot see of my "personal" accounts.
The legal system moves too slowly to keep up with technological inventions, which are quickly released into society by businesses. The Supreme Court ruled against police using GPS trackers without a warrant some time within the past two weeks, but the court case that triggered this decision was in 2005! Yes, I do care about my right to privacy, and I know that a lot of other people do too. I appreciate Google's e-mails and notifications that it had changed its privacy policy, but I would appreciate more if my feelings had been taken into account in the first place.
I believe that even the smallest invasion of privacy takes affect on an individual, even if they do not even notice themselves. Whether its a business, your employer, or the government, knowing you are being watched is not a good feeling, even if you have nothing to hide. For example, employers are being convinced by businesses to track their fleets. How would you feel if you had to watch your speed every second of the day, knowing that if you went too fast you could risk losing your job? Are these drivers even being notified? I do not believe that the Supreme Court has ruled this as necessary, because a case has not been taken up. Even if it does, it will clearly take years for any difference to be made. Unless advanced technology can help speed up the legal system, it needs to slow down on its violation of rights.