I never use google. On searching Bing for 'nutrition supplement' I found examine.com on page 4.
I also found the NIH's 'medlineplus' on page 4. It is certainly authoritative. So, in a way, that's a compliment.
But apparently 'authoritative' is not the only significant factor at Bing. Yes, I found 'nutrition.gov' and 'fda.gov' on page 1, as well as 'wikipedia.org' and 'supplementwarehouse.com'.
I suppose that 'authoritative' ought to be a primary factor in a search algorithm. But then, I think 'accurate' ought to be a primary factor in 'translation'.
It's no surprise to me that machines are no better at distinguishing science-based authority than they are at translation. You have to consider the culture the machines have grown up in.
I also found the NIH's 'medlineplus' on page 4. It is certainly authoritative. So, in a way, that's a compliment.
But apparently 'authoritative' is not the only significant factor at Bing. Yes, I found 'nutrition.gov' and 'fda.gov' on page 1, as well as 'wikipedia.org' and 'supplementwarehouse.com'.
I suppose that 'authoritative' ought to be a primary factor in a search algorithm. But then, I think 'accurate' ought to be a primary factor in 'translation'.
It's no surprise to me that machines are no better at distinguishing science-based authority than they are at translation. You have to consider the culture the machines have grown up in.