1. Yes, I think Google will tweak its algorithm to control the situation. But I think its method of doing so is a matter of public concern. Will it simply give less weight to densely interlinked political sites? Will it give less weight to all political sites? How might “political site” be defined for these purposes?

I’m not saying all this has to be made public; that would just help the spammers/bombers more. I’m just saying that perhaps there should be some input into this process to assure it’s reasonably responsive to the public interest. Historically, we have been concerned (and regulated) when a given medium (like broadcast TV) turned stably oligopolistic.

2. As for my insight on “what a searcher for Jon Kyl is looking for”–no, I can’t read minds! But we can work backwards to develop some sense of the legitimacy of balance in results.

a) If my query were “Jon Kyl scandals,” then I’d probably want the New Times article mentioned above.

b) If my query were “Jon Kyl achievements and honors,” I’d probably want more positive treatments.

c) “Jon Kyl” standing alone probably indicates a searcher trying to get some sense of what are the best resources out there on Jon Kyl.

My bottom line, though, is that some SE results ought not reflect only what a searcher wants, but also what that searcher ought to want. A consumer-satisfaction metric of quality is fine for searches for toaster ovens, but does not capture the full range of values that ought to infuse democratic dialogue. Just as I don’t think we can deem a campaign full of substanceless attack ads legitimate even if they satisfy the preferences of a vast majority of voters, I don’t think high-ranking SE results that are wholly partisan or manipulated or sensationalistic realize the promise of this new medium.

PS: There is, of course, the issue of “many Jon Kyls”. I think a site like this suggests a potential response to the problem:

http://www.froomkin.com/

Though I know that directory-based SE’s are largely a thing of the past (but see dmoz.org!).

Meanwhile, you say “A search for Jon Kyl should, ideally, produce among the highly ranked organic results some relatively balanced portrayals that give voters a good sense of what he stands for.” Why is this the case? Do you have empirical data about, special insight into, what a searcher for Jon Kyl is looking for?

Eric.

As for “start your own search engine;” well, there are a number of barriers to entry:

1) copyright in content: the dominant search engines may have negotiated licenses for content, which you can afford.

2) copyrighted/patented/trade secret-ed algorithms: you may need to license search software from the dominant SE’s, who may not be inclined to let you.

3) consumer habit: people are used to using a certain number of providers, and are pretty loathe to switch, despite pretty interesting alternatives like Clusty and Ask.com. Google did manage to displace Yahoo!, but only after developing much better technology. If we’ve hit some sort of “flat of the curve” of search innovation, there may not be much of a chance for a new entrant to knock off incumbents.

4) “rich get richer” dynamic: the more searches an engine gets, the more likely it can use studies of extant behavior in response to results to sharpen its algorithm.

What’s the alternative? Barrier of entry is low, create your own that does a better job.