1 thought on “Porque mi página wordpress no aparece en google?”

1. Google: Ethical Concerns
   Google’s early and strong commitment to their
   users and informal corporate mission to “Do No Evil” or to “Don’t be evil” has gained them wide trust.

   While their web search technology is well known, Google specializes
   in general data indexing. As a trusted and centralized source
   of information on the web, Google has assumed immeasurable
   power. Now as a publicly traded corporation with over three
   thousand employees, Google must assume a great responsibility to their users, to deliver
   fair and relevant results and to protect privacy at all costs.

   As their user base grows and their popularity increases, decisions at Google
   will not come without ethical consequences. The node ranking technology, dubbed PageRank,
   is used in some form to rank web pages, news articles, images,
   and user documents. It appears at first glance to be a democratic system, but it is a
   flawed one.

   Under most democratic systems, votes are weighted equally.
   PageRank, however, is mathematically inclined to give more power to relevant pages.
   To Google’s credit, since web pages frequently contain more than one link and thus vote more than once, the page’s total
   importance is at least disseminated among its links.

   In spite of Google’s patents giving away much of the ranking
   method, certain variables and factors remain a secret and draw skepticism to
   the impartiality of the ranking scheme. Further, it is known that scrubbing mechanisms other than PageRank prepare the search results for their final display on Google’s web page.

   Among the further scrubbing methods of search results, one that I
   found most surprising is that Google censors search results
   in China, France, and Germany. While I was aware that the
   targeted material is illegal in those countries, I
   had previously interpreted Google’s “Do No Evil” attitude
   to include objecting to authoritarian one party states and Third Reich-inspired
   censorship.

   It would be virtuous of Google and would further general human knowledge if they were to insist on the mass
   dissemination of information to all people of the world.
   Google is free to run their web search from the United
   States and freely put material on the web outside of the jurisdiction of China,
   France, or Germany, and in fact their Chinese
   operation is based in the United States.

   In the case of China, however, practicality won out over virtue when the Chinese censors completely banned Google.
   If the search engine was to have any Chinese user base whatsoever,
   in the interest of their ultimate goal of putting the user first, they needed to comply.

   While no concrete information is available on how much Google colluded with the Chinese, they did comply with the censors, restoring access to the Chinese citizens.
   When not legally obliged to censor results, Google strives
   for impartiality but leave many questions unanswered.

   In a letter titled “An explanation of our search results,” Google explains why offensive results can occur for
   seemingly inoffensive search terms, how “search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google.” Further, the letter
   recognizes petitions that requested the removal of hate sites, but Google notes
   that they only omit sites they are “legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate [their] results.”
   These claims appear promising and it is quite believable that
   Google does not omit results, but it is commonly
   known that certain factors of exact rankings are still hidden from the public.

   Google officials recently leaked to the public that
   they had an internal ethics committee that is periodically in charge of altering the PageRank algorithm.
   I expected privacy and ethics employees to be
   found at a company of Google’s size, but what I didn’t expect to find is that the committee
   is merely an informal gathering of employees interested in ethics.

   To ensure impartiality and to form trust in Google’s ethical decisions, they need an official ethics committee with training, experience,
   and direction. Without public statements from Google’s official ethics committee as to how they change the algorithm and what criteria they follow in doing so, the
   impartiality of PageRank is under suspicion. When complex technology delivers trusted results, as
   with government cryptographic standards, complete transparency can often be an ideal way to ensure
   impartiality.

   In the case of Google, however, complete transparency has immediate downfalls.
   Because achieving genuine relevancy is difficult and cheating the system is considerably easier, PageRank
   has become a dynamic target for malicious webmasters who consistently overcome
   the latest algorithm tweaks to achieve high rankings for irrelevant pages.

   Delivering usable search results consists not only of identifying the
   relevant pages to place near the top of the rankings,
   but also of identifying junk or spam pages in order to place
   those results near the bottom. With these facts in place, I learned an important
   lesson: complete transparency of Google’s ranking methods would result in direct
   widespread manipulation, rendering the results irrelevant and denying the technology its
   usefulness.

   If the PageRank specifications were to somehow assume complete and deserved trust of their impartiality from the public, I
   would still hold several issues with their nature.
   First, PageRank likens the web to a popularity contest.
   Resembling a student body election, Google is often guilty of burying the
   most relevant and useful results simply because no one has
   noticed them yet.

   Second, if ideological bias does exist in the
   news media, then I consider PageRank to be culpable in perpetuating
   it. Many theories of media bias are based around the concept
   of an echo chamber of unpopular but powerfully backed opinion that drowns
   out an unbiased or otherwise popular opinion. PageRank is perfectly
   suited for creating such an echo chamber, in that when a news search returns hundreds of pages, most Google users read the first few and do
   not ensure that the other 99% corroborate.

   Google has become a substantial news source and plays a part in telling the web which stories are relevant, when in fact the
   web should be telling Google what is relevant. The same
   issue holds for normal web searches; when Google was a relatively unknown outside observer to the social interactions on the web, PageRank was fresh and promising.

   As Google slowly begins arbitrating these interactions by dictating what
   is relevant to trusting masses, PageRank could become stale and merely project importance on its own monstrous creations.
   For many of these issues, the time for true remedies is over.
   Google cannot go back to a 50 employee company and embrace a proper ethics committee, and they
   cannot go back to a Stanford dorm room and better democratize PageRank technology.

   Worse yet, Google will likely never be a non-profit organization with only its users truly in mind; the responsibility of a publicly
   traded company like Google is to its stakeholders. The company is
   faced with the challenging task of gaining public trust in its technologies
   through transparency or other means, while skeptical users are faced with an even more difficult choice:
   whether to boycott the most useful search technology in history.

   References
   BBC News. “10 things the Google ethics committee could discuss.” May 20, 2004.
   website Brandt, Daniel. “PageRank: Google’s Original Sin.” Google
   Watch, Public Information Research, Inc. August 2002. website Elgin, Ben. “Google’s Chinese Wall.” BusinessWeek
   Online, The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
   September 30, 2004. website nf20040930_3318_db046.htm Garfinkel, Simson. Database Nation: The Death of
   Privacy in the 21st Century. O’Reilly and Associates, Inc. 2001.
   Google. “An explanation of our search results.” 2004. website
   Google. “Google Code of Conduct.” August 18, 2004.

   website Google. “Media Coverage.” website Newton, Jon. “Google and the Chinese Government.” TechNewsWorld, September 22, 2004 6:
   00 AM PT. website Orlowski, Andrew. “Google’s Ethics Committee Revealed.” The Register.
   May 17, 2004. website Orlowski, Andrew. “Google values its own privacy. How does it value yours?”
   The Register.
   April 13, 2004. website Rogers, Ian. “The Google PageRank Algorithm and How It Works.” IPR Computing
   Ltd. website Våge, Lars. “China’s search engine censorship continues.”
   InternetBrus. February 27, 2005. website Wikipedia.

   “Google.” May 27, 2005 website Xia, Bill.

   “Google Chinese News censorship demonstrated.”
   Dynamic Internet Technology Inc. September 16, 2004.
   website Zittrain, Jonathan and Edelman, Benjamin. “Localized Google search result exclusions – Statement of issues and call for Data.” Berkman Center for Internet & Society,
   Harvard Law School.

   October 26, 2002. website

   Responder