I'm the person they talked to. I work for the search quality team. I report directly to the head of the search quality team. We don't somehow not rank a site because it has "old" content. We do, conversely, reward fresh *pages* rather than *sites* if a query itself seems to warrant showing fresh content. We explain this more in our documentation here: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide#freshness

Newer stuff absolutely does not always rise above older stuff. This is easily verifiable by anyone who wants to try some searches that have no particular freshness aspect that would be expected to be associated with them.

I totally get that sometimes, people do want explicitly older content when we might show newer content. That's why we created the before: and after: operators to help. You'll find more about them here: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1115706765088182272

I work for Google Search (I'm the one quoted in the article) If you use quotes, we won't drop terms. Happy to look into your example if you can recall the query. If you didn't use quotes, we might have transposed because the digits transposed are very similar to some other digit-related query. That's how spelling correct similarly works. When it work as you want, it's great. When we get it wrong, understandably annoying. We try not to get it wrong, so would love to pass the example along.

I work for Google; I'm the person who shared this information. The translation isn't correct, because it's confusing indexing (the process of being included for possible ranking) and ranking (whether something actually shows up in response to a query). IE: the story is straight.

The primary question in all this has been about ranking. Does getting rid of "old" content somehow cause our systems to see a site overall as "fresh" and rank it better. No, it will not. That's what my initial tweet was about: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800

The follow up question I was asked was about covered both ranking and indexing separately:
https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689068723657904129

The *ranking* response was that the page might not rank well. The additional response was about indexing -- that maybe if you remove the page, we potentially might index other pages from a site if a site is really large, etc. That doesn't mean the other page will rank well. It doesn't mean the site is somehow now "fresh" and overall ranks better. The ranking story is no different.

Congress already gave him the authority: 50 U.S. Code  1701 and 50 U.S. Code  1702

From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.

CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).

Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.

Hi! I actually have no idea why you think that. I had to search in my emails to even find out who "Goma" is.

It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.

I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was

I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)

Where does it say that?

The problem with your rant, Pete, is that I have told the absolute truth at every point here. We are not pursuing a search engine to rival Google et al. This grant is not about that type of project, and that type of project would be - quite frankly - ludicrous to attempt on a $250,000 grant.

Discovery at Wikipedia is awful, this is universally understood and acknowledged. This grant is the beginnings of an exploration of how to improve it.

The bullshit - and it is bullshit, and I have said it before and will say it again, that this is some kind of google competitor or was ever conceived to be - is a fantasy based on absolutely no facts of any kind, and a very very very skewed and aggressive reading of a preliminary document.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this comment.
.

>NOMINATE scales people based on their choices relative to contemporaries

That's exactly *why* it works across decades. Because it allows a continuous chain of comparison even between people who never served together. (E.g, person A served with person B, person B later served with person C, person C later served with person D, etc)

> "JFK was more conservative than most conservatives are today"

BULLSHIT!

Keith T. Poole at the University of Georgia has built his career on quanitfying the liberality/conservativeness of politics.

I couldn't find his numbers for John Kennedy, but he gave John Kennedy a -.318 during the 83rd Congress, making him the 15th most liberal member of that body. By comparison, in today's Senate, he'd rank as the 31st most liberal senator, between Senators Wyden and Murphy, and more liberal than EVERY SINGLE Republican in Congress.