This is, by far, the best treatment of the issue I've seen anywhere, on account of how it's the only level-headed one apart from Nate Silver's. There's a little needless inflation at the beginning with the screenshot comparison. It does have the obvious and expected slant. On the other hand, there's no enormous hyperbole or anything like that. There are no vacuous statements. The word "copying" appears a few times, but that's at least descriptive, and there's no use of other loaded terms like "cheating", "stealing", and "unethical".
Also, for what it's worth, it moved me from 80/20 certain that nothing fishy is going on to 50/50: the spell correction paper shows to a certainty that this has been considered. I'm sure Googlers know as well as I do that not everything in a research paper finds its way into the product, and this one in particular may have been nixed by management types for this very reason. It's still awfully suspicious.
I still think the original experiment completely fails to demonstrate anything unethical, and I still think the original info release was both hyperbolic and needlessly inflammatory. It does demonstrate a need for some more information, which seems to be all this post is asking for. If it had looked more like this post, I think the 'net could have been spared a lot of controversy. Maybe Matt Cutts should be writing these things, though far be it from me to decide that.
This is, by far, the best treatment of the issue I've seen anywhere, on account of how it's the only level-headed one apart from Nate Silver's. There's a little needless inflation at the beginning with the screenshot comparison. It does have the obvious and expected slant. On the other hand, there's no enormous hyperbole or anything like that. There are no vacuous statements. The word "copying" appears a few times, but that's at least descriptive, and there's no use of other loaded terms like "cheating", "stealing", and "unethical".
Also, for what it's worth, it moved me from 80/20 certain that nothing fishy is going on to 50/50: the spell correction paper shows to a certainty that this has been considered. I'm sure Googlers know as well as I do that not everything in a research paper finds its way into the product, and this one in particular may have been nixed by management types for this very reason. It's still awfully suspicious.
I still think the original experiment completely fails to demonstrate anything unethical, and I still think the original info release was both hyperbolic and needlessly inflammatory. It does demonstrate a need for some more information, which seems to be all this post is asking for. If it had looked more like this post, I think the 'net could have been spared a lot of controversy. Maybe Matt Cutts should be writing these things, though far be it from me to decide that.