JCMC special issue on search engines

by Eszter Hargittai on February 8, 2005

I am editing a special issue of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication on The Social, Political, Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Search Engines. I hope to receive submissions from people in a variety of disciplines. Details below the fold.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Special Issue on

THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF SEARCH ENGINES

CALL FOR PAPERS

Guest Editor:
Eszter Hargittai
Northwestern University

IMPORTANT DATES:

Abstracts (optional, but preferred) due: June 1, 2005
Full papers due: Oct 1, 2005
Anticipated publication: Summer or Fall 2006

ISSUE FOCUS

Search engines are some of the most commonly accessed Web sites online. Millions of people turn to search engines daily to find information about news, health concerns, products, government services, their new neighbors, natural disasters and a myriad of other topics. At the same time, recent trends suggest that the search engine market is shrinking, with fewer large players guiding users’ online behavior than ever before. Despite the crucial role that search engines play in how people access information, little attention has been paid to the social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions of large-scale search engines.

This special issue will explore the social implications of large-scale search engines on the Web. It will bring together experts from the fields of communication, sociology, political science, economics, business, law, and computer and information sciences to consider what we know about people’s search engine uses and what recent trends suggest for the types of content that will be most accessible to users in the future.

The following are some questions papers might address: Who uses search engines and for what purposes? What are the effects of search engine use on mass- and interpersonal communication? How do users’ communication practices influence search engine functionality? How skilled are various population groups at the use of search engines? How do search engines shape identity management and representation online? Are all search engines created equal? Is all content created equal in the eyes of search engines? Is there a viable public alternative to the search engine market dominated by private actors? These are just some of the possible questions papers in this special issue may address.

GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION

Potential authors should submit a preliminary proposal of 500 words by June 1, 2005 to the issue editor Eszter Hargittai
(searchengines06@webuse.org). Those interested in submitting an abstract are encouraged to contact the special issue editor with questions and ideas. The proposal should include the central research question, the theoretical and/or empirical basis for the paper and preliminary findings.

Authors whose proposals are accepted for inclusion will be invited to submit a full paper of roughly 7,000-10,000 words by October 1, 2005. Since JCMC is an interdisciplinary journal, authors should plan for papers that will be accessible to non-specialists, and should make their paper relevant to this audience. Anticipated publication date for the issue is Summer or Fall 2006.

Final submissions should be emailed to the special issue editor, Eszter Hargittai at searchengines06@webuse.org.

http://webuse.org/searchengines06/
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/

{ 13 comments }

1

Jon 02.08.05 at 11:54 pm

A critical socio-economic issue to examine is the impact on free speech of search engine advertising and editorial policies.

The episode discussed in the excerpt below from “Google’s Gag Order” was also covered by The Nation and Slate.

[SNIP]

…Far more important to American society, Google’s pervasiveness has given it a unique and privileged role as the information gatekeeper of the 21st century. “To Google” someone or something has become synonymous with using the Internet to find information, images or news. The New York Times has detailed the emergence of Google as an alternative to the traditional library for research. As individuals, businesses and publishers leverage its search, email and advertising tools to reach readers, sell products and assemble communities, Google is on the verge of becoming the Internet arbiter of the First Amendment.

As I learned this week, however, Google may be playing a darker, more sinister role in American society: corporate censor. On June 15, the Google Adwords team informed me that it had discontinued all advertisements placed by Perrspectives.com due to “unacceptable content” on the site that includes “language that advocates against an individual, group or organization.” As we’ll see below, this may or may not be blatant bias against liberal viewpoints. There can be no doubt, though, that the current Google editorial guidelines, evenly applied, would bar almost any newspaper, magazine, opinion journal, political party, advocacy campaign or even religious organization from advertising on its site. And that puts Google dangerously at odds with core American values of free speech and assembly…

[SNIP]

For the full story and a proposal for reform made to Google, see:

– “Google’s Gag Order: An Internet Giant Threatens Free Speech”

– “Do No Evil: A Google Freedom of Information Act”

2

Bob McGrew 02.09.05 at 2:09 am

Is there a viable public alternative to the search engine market dominated by private actors?

Surely the worry isn’t that users will have to depend on some search engine which has possibly nefarious designs. There’s dozens of search engines out there, most of them about as good as Google nowadays. People don’t use them, but it’s not for lack of alternatives, public or otherwise.

A more concrete worry would be that Google would have some sort of monopoly that would hurt ad buyers. On the other hand, there’s lots of ways to buy ads on the Internet nowadays.

3

Backword Dave 02.09.05 at 8:59 am

I’m a kneejerk Google user (several times a day — even to check spelling when I’m too lazy to crack open a dictionary). I can’t see the need for a public alternative. Whose public? Even the BBC site which is funded by honest British TV owners uses Google. If I thought that Google UK were reflecting local political bias, I’d use Google.fr or Google.com, just like anyone else. As the internet doesn’t recognise borders, public funding sounds like a scam. The costs of searching are hardly socially exclusive: no search engine has refused a search because I’ve used a public machine (in the local library, say) and if Google or other search engine fails why should it be paid for by the public?

But my original point was — if Google’s near-monopoly is a worry, the problem is its grip on the browser market: my three favourite browsers — Safari, Firefox, and Opera — all have built-in google searches. While that’s the case, I have no need for other search engines.

4

Alex 02.09.05 at 10:53 am

Firefox does give you a choice of searches – there’s a pull-down next to the Gicon (can I trademark that one?) with Google/Yahoo/Dictionary.com/Creative Commons/Ebay/Amazon and an option to add more.

On-topic, I have some more to say about the question of a public alternative, but I’ll put that on my blog rather than choking up the thread with essays. Crucially, there is a problem of incentives here: search is a free good to the user, so the search engine has to make money through ads. Now, that implies an incentive to do anything to boost ad revenue.

But as the revenue isn’t from searchers – there is only a weak constraint on this. To get caught you’d have to rig the search process so comprehensively that enough users were driven away to render the advertising uneconomic. And that would require fairly serious, obvious fiddling absent a whistleblower. (In fact some users might prefer rigged search if they were after goods/services for sale)

Equally, the fact that search is free to users is deterrent to the idea of a public-sector search engine – why do we need a BBCSearch when Google is free?

And it will be difficult to design an open-source search engine because search isn’t a software-only service – there has to be a fuck-off big server farm somewhere. A peer-to-peer search engine would be the gold standard (but would raise privacy/security issues).

5

Alex 02.09.05 at 11:00 am

Firefox does give you a choice of searches – there’s a pull-down next to the Gicon (can I trademark that one?) with Google/Yahoo/Dictionary.com/Creative Commons/Ebay/Amazon and an option to add more.

On-topic, I have some more to say about the question of a public alternative, but I’ll put that on my blog rather than choking up the thread with essays. Crucially, there is a problem of incentives here: search is a free good to the user, so the search engine has to make money through ads. Now, that implies an incentive to do anything to boost ad revenue.

But as the revenue isn’t from searchers – there is only a weak constraint on this. To get caught you’d have to rig the search process so comprehensively that enough users were driven away to render the advertising uneconomic. And that would require fairly serious, obvious fiddling absent a whistleblower. (In fact some users might prefer rigged search if they were after goods/services for sale)

Equally, the fact that search is free to users is deterrent to the idea of a public-sector search engine – why do we need a BBCSearch when Google is free?

And it will be difficult to design an open-source search engine because search isn’t a software-only service – there has to be a fuck-off big server farm somewhere. A peer-to-peer search engine would be the gold standard (but would raise privacy/security issues).

6

Alex 02.09.05 at 11:07 am

Firefox does give you a choice of searches – there’s a pull-down next to the Gicon (can I trademark that one?) with Google/Yahoo/Dictionary.com/Creative Commons/Ebay/Amazon and an option to add more.

On-topic, I have some more to say about the question of a public alternative, but I’ll put that on my blog rather than choking up the thread with essays. Crucially, there is a problem of incentives here: search is a free good to the user, so the search engine has to make money through ads. Now, that implies an incentive to do anything to boost ad revenue.

But as the revenue isn’t from searchers – there is only a weak constraint on this. To get caught you’d have to rig the search process so comprehensively that enough users were driven away to render the advertising uneconomic. And that would require fairly serious, obvious fiddling absent a whistleblower. (In fact some users might prefer rigged search if they were after goods/services for sale)

Equally, the fact that search is free to users is deterrent to the idea of a public-sector search engine – why do we need a BBCSearch when Google is free?

And it will be difficult to design an open-source search engine because search isn’t a software-only service – there has to be a fuck-off big server farm somewhere. A peer-to-peer search engine would be the gold standard (but would raise privacy/security issues).

7

backword dave 02.09.05 at 11:15 am

Alex, yes I know that Firefox offers alternative searches (Opera does too), but Google is the default: open a new tab, hit the tab key and search! I very rarely use the others unless Google disappoints, and I doubt anyone else does either.

Google does offer a rigged search: Froogle.

8

Alex 02.09.05 at 2:26 pm

9

Anita Hendersen 02.09.05 at 2:47 pm

Last year crookedtimber had a post about search engine use, and I suggested that Google had too high a market share. And the commenters were all: “oh, no, only sophisticated people use Google. The great unwashed use whatever search button is in front of them.” Now, it seems, people are worried that Google is too influential because the masses have discovered it.

The masses discovered Google several years ago. And Google has a lower share of the US market than it did a year ago. However, I agree that we’d be better with more competition.

10

Alex 02.09.05 at 3:44 pm

I think the problem is more one that applies across competitors. What is needed is a competitor of a different type, a public-sector comparator if you like. Such an alternative would provide a degree of contestability and literally keep commercial search honest.

11

Matt McGrattan 02.09.05 at 11:54 pm

There must be some philosophical mileage that can be had from discussing search engines.

As in issue in ‘social epistemology’ or the epistemology of testimony search engines seem like an interesting case. Particularly when aggregating algorithms like that used by Google rely on the ‘opinion’ [in the relatively weak sense of hyperlinking] of many web-sites in the page-ranking process.

12

Jonathan O'Donnell 02.10.05 at 1:37 am

“What is needed is a competitor of a different type, a public-sector comparator if you like.”

There is a competitor of a different type – books. And it even comes with a public-sector comparator – libraries.

Google has market share at the moment. If someone comes out with a better search algorithm, the market will shift. It shifted to Google and it can shift away again.

13

innabar 02.12.05 at 1:22 am

While Google might be the new arbitrator of free speech (a wild exaggeration, imho), its advertising policy is also being subjected to intense judicial scrutiny – see IP attorney
Ron Coleman’s blog
on Google’s trademark issues.

So on the one hand, we’re pressuring Google to widen the scope of its advertising content, and on the other, Google is attacked by lawsuits that push it to tighten its control of the content and advertisers.

It’ll be interesting to see how Google reconciles these two pressures.

Comments on this entry are closed.