     Googling for the Right Metaphor: The World’s Leading Search Engine, and the Reason We Trust It“Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody” Introduction In 1958 the American social psychologist, Merton Deutsch, described trust as a set of actions that increase one’s vulnerability to the actions of another (Deutsch 1958). These days, definitions focus more on the significance of trust for the proper economic and social function of modern society. Trust is seen as a set of logical expectations shared by all those involved in an economic exchange (Zucker 1986:50); it is a cultural resource that acts as a lubricant for economic growth, innovation, and is a precondition for successful technological change (Volken 2002). One such technological change was the emergence of the World Wide Web as a popular new medium, a change that has brought about a ‘new wave of sociological interest in trust’ (Sztompka in Gilding 2004). In order for web based social and information networks to be more efficient ‘Trust and the existence of shared norms of ethical behaviour between network members’ are imperative (Fukuyama 1996:195). In its early years (1970-1990), the internet community was composed of researchers who were ‘homogenous enough in their backgrounds and interests to abide by a set of unwritten rules regarding net etiquette’ (Fukuyama 1996:196). The net was used as an apparatus for circulating reliable information within a virtually exclusive hamlet of academics and government officials. The rising popularity and declining usage costs of the internet in the early 1990’s opened this small community to a large number of new users, ‘including some who did not feel bound by the ethical constraints of the original Internet community’(Ibid: Ibid). Today, ‘the complete anonymity of the internet makes the trust given to the sources of personal information extremely problematic’ (Sztompka, 2000:75). While some online information providers derive credibility from their offline presence (Ibid), many new content providers must earn the confidence of internet users. This includes not only new brands of conventional information providers, but also, and more importantly, new and often unique services that have been developed specifically for the Web. Search Engines, for example, are not an online incarnation of an old medium; they were invented on the web and for the web and have no corresponding entities beyond it. Piotr Sztompka defines Reputation, Performance and Appearance as the 3 immanent sources of trust (2000:86). In addition, Sztompka recognises a variety of external factors that range from the trusting agent’s religious, socio-economic, and religious background to social trends (2000:87). This definition provided the theoretical framework for Gilding & Henderson’s recent study (2004) on trust and hyper-personal communication in online friendships. Gilding & Henderson, in line with Sztompka, conclude that online trust is based on four main pillars: reputation, performance, pre-commitment, and situational factors. In this essay, I will examine how these four factors come into play in engendering user trust in Google.com, the World Wide Web’s leading search engine- partly, when examining Google’s capacity as a tool that rates the relevance and credibility of online information providers, and ultimately, when assessing the trustworthiness of Google as a content provider per se. Pre-Commitment is achieved through self-disclosure (Gilding 2004). Once another agent shares general and personal information with us, it is easier for us to trust it. It is an ‘uncontentiously common-sensical claim that the less information we have, the more … trust we need ‘(Hawthorn 2000) and so the more we know about the other party, the lesser the risk we take in trusting it. In Google’s case, as we are dealing with a trust between an individual and a website, appearance is a significant part of Pre Commitment. The way a web site is laid out and designed, as well as the information it discloses initially about its services has a considerable influence on our initial decision to interact with it. So let us look at the Google experience. Since its emergence as a private company in 1998, Google has maintained a simple design. While other leading portals at the time such as Yahoo! And AltaVista featured a variety of index categories, and at some cases graphic advertising, Google offered a clean page, with a mere search box and a company logo. At the bottom of the page was, and still is, a display of the number of the pages currently indexed. The Corporate Information available on the web site teaches us that Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful’ (Google Corporate Info). One may get the impression that Google is not a commercial entity whose end mission is to generate profits for its owners, but simply another extension of our own body whose sole aim is to benefit us in our constant search for reliable information. The few curious users who are diligent enough to examine Google’s Privacy Policy and User Agreement will learn that: Google collects limited non-personally identifying information your browser makes available whenever you visit a website. This log information includes your Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your query and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser. We use this information to operate, develop and improve our services. (Google Privacy Policy)
Google has, from the outset, strived to establish itself as a happy-go-lucky entity that fosters freedom and innovation- from media releases about the unconventional work environment Google employees enjoy in the “Googleplex”, to the clean and simple design of its main web page. One of the most exciting features of Google is the Monthly Zeitgeist report. The report, featured on Google’s web-based press centre elaborates the most popular search strings in any given month. One can learn that in the last month most Japanese searchers were after online maps and fire works, while Australians were more interested in the Olympics and Jessica Simpson. This impressive display of information reminds us that Google is practically mapping the consciousness of the computer using society. Google knows all about our interests, fears, and even sexual preferences.
Performance is another key factor in the establishment of trust; in Google’s case, we assess its performance in our service. We judge its ability to assist us in achieving our goal, in this case- to find relevant information. Google is famous for its ability to pinpoint the most relevant sources out of billions of available web pages. ‘The reliability and accuracy of online sources is determined using a unique back-linking technology called PageRank’ (Poleg 2004). Several factors are incorporated by a clandestine algorithm that hence determines a web page’s PageRank. ‘The specific factors and their relative weight are not published but generally include the amount of pages linked to the specific page (Ibid). Google takes into account the PageRank and credibility of the referring (linking) websites (Langville & Meyer 2004) - a link from a popular and respected website like Microsoft.com is worth more than a link from a personal or small business web site (Bury 2003) - and the internal linking scheme within the web site itself (Kamvar et al 2004). An outline of this technology is available at the Google web site: ‘PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important." Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query’. (Google Technology) The problem with Google’s ‘democratic procedure’ is that ‘while in a democracy all votes are equal, in Google’s democracy some votes equal more than others’ (Poleg 2004). Google, in a way, creates a virtual community in which various web sites cast their opinion on each other. But this network of electronic social support is not flawless and is open to external influences. Users may judge Google’s ability to provide them the most relevant information, but they hardly question Google’s motivation to do so. Google is not judged like an online news paper or content provider. It is seen merely as a potent tool that we use to find what we want to know about. Situational Factors ‘Services that help users find their way to content of interest are crucial to the Web's ability to be a useful tool for people'(Hargittai 2004). The ‘opening’ up of the World Wide Web as a popular new medium brought an unprecedented increase of online content. And so, ‘search engines became increasingly important in sifting through online material' (Ibid). Google offered internet users a unique new technology that soon enthroned him as the “World’s Best Search Engine”. As Diego Gambetta points out ‘The lack of belief [or trust] should not be confused with the lack of motive for cooperations…[which is] crucial’ (Gambetta 2000:217). This also means that the existence of trust as illustrated in internet user’s choice to use Google, should not be confused with the existence of motives for cooperation. Thus, users did not essentially use Search Engines because they trusted them (trust may not have been an issue at all); but they used Google because there was a growing need for them to sift through information and Google seemed to offer the most satisfying solution. More so, people trust Google to perform it’s duties in the best possible way, but most do not dwell upon what these duties really are. As we have learned, Google would like us to think that these duties are ‘to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful’. And so, when search engines are discussed, their role in being tools in our hands is usually seen as a given. But the growing use of information technologies also ‘enables vendors of digital content to exert tighter control over access to and use of that content'(Cohen 2001). This in turn increases ‘control over inputs to creation and communication — and thus over social “meaning-making processes”' (Ibid). In addition, the premium placed upon intimacy in this case is perceived as low. Searching for this or another thing does not require us (as far as we know!) to share any intimate information with the other party, and so there is hardly any perceived risk involved. As Gambetta points out ‘The condition of ignorance or uncertainty about other people’s behaviour is central to the notion of trust. It is related to the limits of our capacity ever to achieve a full knowledge of others, their motives, their responses to endogenous as well as exogenous changes’ (Gambetta 2000:218) – Thus, in a way, a certain degree of ignorance is imperative to the creation of trust. In this case, the fact that users are ignorant of the way in which Google works makes it easier for them to trust it. More so, as search engines are novelties and have no ‘old media’ parallel – most people do not even question their trustworthiness since there are not perceived as content providers per se. So, Situational Factors also play a big role here. The growing amounts of information on the web called for an agent that will manage to sift through them effectively. Surfers used Google simply because in 1998 there was just no other entity that provided a similar level of service. Google’s Semantic search capabilities were simply in the right place at the right time. Reputation But when it comes to Google, semantics are significant in more than one way. The last few years have seen the nativity of a new verb in the English language: to google. From hunting and gathering, through farming, and manufacturing- we are now in the days of Googling. It is imperative not to mistake this for a mere curiosity; this verb, I believe, may serve as a crystallisation of not only why users trust Google, but why they are not even likely to a priori question its credibility as a content provider. If Googling is an action taken by us, why would we ever question its motives? Users feel that they are actively using Google to find their way around the web. Google is perceived as a passive tool and so, surfers have no more reason to question the motives of a Search Engine than they would to question the motivation of a pair of shoes or a car. But Google is not a car; it is not a tool that transports us from one virtual location to another. The Car in this case is the Browser, and Google is the map we use to find our way. It is still possible to reach places without a map, but being excluded from it holds severe consequences. For the majority of internet users, a web site that is excluded from Google does not exist virtually and thus it virtually doesn’t exist. Google established itself as ‘the web surfer’s best friend’ through referrals from happy customers. Google did not advertise itself on or off line, but built its reputation on effective PR campaigns that emphasised the company’s young, free, and innovative nature. In addition, Google’s reluctance to place traditional ads (as opposed to text ads) on its web pages helps users to forget they are dealing with a commercial entity. Google also cleverly used the fact that it is not affiliated with a trusted offline corporation as an advantage. In a world of Microsofts and Time Warners, Google is seen as a friendly giant with no commercial inclinations or imperial aspirations. Truth of the matter is that with an approximate value in excess of 30 Million US Dollars (Dalton 2004), Google is one of the largest corporations in the world. End Result The Google case offers a dazzling example of how trust is built between individuals and a new medium. Google is one of the most powerful and influential companies of our time. It has the power to bar us from sources of information or, at least, encourage us to look at other sources of information which it sees as more suitable. If traditional advertising is often described as delivering audiences to advertisers, Google enhances this process and, at some cases, practically delivers buyers to the seller’s shop front. In addition Google collects private information on the way we use the internet, our interests and social interactions. These days, Google also provides News, Web Based Email Accounts, Stock Quotes, Location Based Shopping Information, and eCommerce services. All of which derive their credibility from Google’s trustworthiness as a search engine. Along with traditional trust building through performance, presentation, and the establishment of a positive reputation through user referrals, Google also gained from being a novel, unfamiliar new medium. The emergence of the Search Engine was greeted with technological romanticism that is reminiscent of Marshal McLuhan. McLuhan argued that ‘All of man’s artefacts – whether language, or laws, or ideas and hypotheses, or tools, or clothing, or computers – are extensions of the physical human body or the mind’ (1996:362). Search Engines are broadly seen as yet another extension, another tool in man’s ever expanding arsenal. A recent article in The Independent describes how ‘the ever-greater capability of search engines, coupled with the ever-growing pile of information on the internet, is changing the whole relationship between people and knowledge. We cannot all be experts of course, but with a decent basic education, a reasonable command of English and a bit of time, we can have a working knowledge of almost any specialist subject. Just as the car democratised physical mobility, this collection of technologies democratises intellectual mobility’ (McRae 2004). It would be wrong to dismiss exclamations of this kind as mere curiosities. Such metaphors play a significant role in the creation of trust online, especially when dealing with unique new mediums. By paralleling the novel and the known, metaphors provide users with the frame through which they asses that which is otherwise strange to them. These metaphors hinder our understanding of this new medium as such, and thus render the process of trust building completely redundant. Bibliography Cloran, R. & Irwin, B. (2004) ‘Trust on the Semantic Web’. Rhodes University. http://russell.rucus.net/masters/writings/conferences/satnac2004Cloran.pdf [1/9/2004] Cohen, J.E. (2001) ‘INFORMATION RIGHTS AND INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM' Dalton, R. (2004) ‘Google up 18pc after NASDAQ float’, The Australian (Originally published in The Independent) , 21/8/2004, pp.33. Deutsch, M. (1958) ‘The Effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion, Human Relations. Fukuyama, F. (1996) Trust: The Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity. Free Press. Gambetta, D. (2000) ‘Can We Trust Trust?’, in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, pp. 213-237, http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/gambetta213-237.pdf [1/9/2004] Gambetta, D. (2000) ‘Foreword’, in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, pp. vii-x. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/gambettavii-x.pdf [1/9/2004] Gilding, M. & Henderson, S. (2004) ‘I’ve Never Clicked this Much with Anyone in My Life’: Trust and Hyperpersonal Communication in Online Friendships, New Media & Society, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 487-506 (20). Hargittai, E.(2004) ‘The Changing Online Landscape: From Free-for-All to Commercial Gate keeping’, in Day, Peter & Schuler, Doug. Community Practice in the Network Society: Local Actions/Global Interaction. New York: Routledge. Pp. 66-76. http://www.princeton.edu/~eszter/research/pubs/hargittai-onlinelandscape.pdf [1/9/2004] Hawthorn, G. (2000) ‘Three Ironies in Trust’, in Gambetta, Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, pp. 111-126, http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/papers/hawthorn111-126.pdf [1/9/2004] Hochman, David.(2004) ‘In Searching We Trust'. New York Times Online. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E14FE3A5A0C778DDDAA0894DC404482 [1/9/2004] Kamvar, S., Haveliwala, T., & Golub, G. (2004) ‘Adaptive Methods for the Computation of PageRank’, NUMERICAL SOLUTION of MARKOV CHAINS, p. 31–44, Stanford University, CA. Langville, A. & Meyer, C. (2004) Deeper Inside PageRank, Department of Mathematics, NCSU. Lange, C.(2001) ‘The Role of Trust in the Development of Web-Based Customer Relationships’. University of Kobletz-Landau, Germany. McLuhan, M. & McLuhan, E. & Zingrone, F. (1996) Essenstial McLuhan. Basic Books. McRae, H.(2004) ‘Welcome to a brave, Googled world’, The Independen. Also published in Canberra Times, 19/8/2004. Prins, J.E.J et al (2002) Trust in Electronic Commerce - The Role of Trust From a Legal, an Organizational and a Technical point of View. Kluwer Law International. Poleg, D.(2004) ‘Rank Utopia: Google, Hegemony, and Freedom of Information’. Sadeh, T. (2004) To Google or Not to Google: Metasearch Design in the Quest for the Ideal User Experience. Paper given at ELAG 2004: Interoperability: New Challenges and Solutions, 28th Library Systems Seminar, Norway, June, 2004. Sztompka , P.(2000) Trust : A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Volken, T. (2002) ‘Elements of Trust: The Cultural Dimension of Internet Diffusion Revisited’, Electronic Journal of Sociolog. University of Zurich. Yolum, P. & Minindar, S.(2004) ‘Self Organizing Referral Networks: A Process View of Trust and Authority’. Raleigh: Department of Computer Science, NCSU 2004. http://www.co.umist.ac.uk/~mcaihak2/papers/esoa03_2c.pdf [1/9/2004] Zucker (1986), L.G., ‘Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure: 1840-1920’. In B.Staw & L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour. (8), pp 53-111. |
|
digg