This research is an investigation into the Irish public's perception of Google search. The study examines the methods used by Google to present users with the most relevant and satisfactory search results. 95% of the online public in Ireland use Google as a search tool. This study aims to uncover true user sentiment in Ireland. The objectives of this research are to reveal how the Irish public view Google in regards to semantic search personalisation, trust, influence, reliance, reputation, and ethics.
The existing literature revealed that Google's search engine has evolved from, one that used Boolean Search logic to match keywords, to a semantic engine that understands user intent and context. The literature also reveals how the younger 'Millennial' generation associate the Internet with one brand, Google. The literature examines search personalisation and how intuitive it has become as it serves us with content that matches our online behaviour. We discover that over-personalisation is narrowing our search bubble which in turn can blind us from other information outside our search reach.
During the course of this study, a mixed method research was used to measure and discuss public opinion. This study has identified where literature has fallen short. Where gaps have appeared in the literature, qualitative meaning has been extracted from 3 groups of people from differing levels of technical ability and experience.
It was discovered that age demographic affects how we view Google as a search engine. Quantitative findings revealed that 75% of users were aware of personalisation but 70% of these users were not always happy with the results. Although a general consensus was formed that personalisation was helpful in many respects, it was also argued, in some camps, that it breached ethical boundaries. Overall, there was a national split whether users considered personalisation ethical or not.
This study leaves open the debate of how we perceive Google as a nation but it also gets closer to the truth of how we feel about the search engine on a personal level. The research also confirms that there is plenty of opportunity to carry out further studies into this area.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction to Study
1.2 Focus of Research
1.3 Structure of Thesis
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Evolution of Google Search keywords
2.3 Google Personalisation
2.4 Echo Chamber Effect
2.5 The Filter Bubble
2.6 The Knowledge Graph - things, not strings
2.7 Search Psychology
2.8 Reliance on the Internet as an external memory bank
2.9 User sentiment
2.10 Search Influence
2.11 Ethics
2.12 Google's Monopoly
2.13 Antitrust
2.14 Trust &Reputation
2.15 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Epistemology
3.3 Theoretical Perspective
3.4 Research Methodology
3.5 Research Methods
3.6 Quantitative Research
3.6.1 Online Survey
3.6.2 Data Collection - General Public Online Survey
3.6.3 Data Collection - Technical and Expert Group Surveys
3.6.4 Rationale for using online surveys
3.7 Qualitative Research
3.7.1 Interview
3.7.2 Data Collection - Technical Group Interviews
3.7.3 Rationale for using interviews
3.7.4 Questionnaires
3.7.5 Data Collection - Expert Conversational Questionnaire
3.7.6 Rationale for using Conversational Expert Questionnaire
3.8 Reliability and Validity
3.9 Ethics
3.10 Limitations
3.11 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Quantitative Results and Discussion
4.2.1 Survey Age Demographic
4.2.2 Google Personalisation Awareness
4.2.3 Google Personalisation Results Satisfaction
4.2.4 Google Influence Concerns
4.2.5 Why Use Google and would you consider changing Search Engine?
4.2.6 Personalised Advertising Influence - Remarketing
4.2.7 Ethics
4.3 Survey Conclusion
CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Qualitative Results and Discussion - Technical Interviews
5.2.1 Google Personalisation
5.2.2 Personalisation Influence
5.2.3 Why Use Google?
5.2.4 Google Ads Remarketing/Retargeting Users
5.2.5 Google and Privacy
5.2.6 Is Personalisation Ethical?
5.3 Qualitative Results and Discussion - Expert Conversational Questionnaire
5.3.1 Survey Results Opinions
5.3.2 The Evolution of Semantic Search
5.3.3 Trust in Google
5.3.4 Reliance on Google
5.3.5 Personalisation and Ethics
5.3.6 The future of Google's Monopoly
5.4 Qualitative Conclusion
CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH CONCLUSION
6.1 Overview
6.2 Objectives
6.3 Recommendations
6.4 Self-Reflection
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this research is to investigate the perception of the Irish public regarding Google search, focusing on how semantic search personalisation, trust, and ethical considerations influence user behavior and decision-making.
- Analysis of Google's evolution from keyword-based search to a semantic knowledge engine.
- Assessment of user sentiment and trust in Google within the Irish demographic.
- Investigation into the ethical implications of search personalisation and the 'filter bubble' effect.
- Evaluation of Google's influence on user autonomy and reliance on internet-based memory.
- Comparative study between general public perception and the insights of technical and marketing experts.
Excerpt from the Book
2.6 The Knowledge Graph - things, not strings
A post on the Google Blog (2012) introduced us to the Knowledge Graph and the concept of things, not strings. This concept describes traditional search, which was based on matching the user’s keywords (strings) with the best matching results available. The transition to semantic search provides a richer meaningful experience for the user, understanding real world entities or things (people, places, objects etc.) and how they are connected. It tries to take out the ambiguity from search queries.
Amerland (2013) also describes Google's knowledge graph as the brain behind semantic search. The search results of the past served us with best guess results for us to trawl through. With the knowledge graph integrated seamlessly into semantic search, Google has now become a knowledge engine that serves us with richer meaningful results, recommendations, and predictions. According to Google (2012), the Knowledge graph helps a user explore collections of linked data, which, in turn, enables us to research topics faster and at a deeper level.
The knowledge graph was appearing more in search results, according to Meyers (2013), who noted that, on the 19th July 2013, the Knowledge Graph served 26.7% of search results, a climb from a previous average of 17.8%. Meyers suggests that Google had lowered their algorithm threshold so that more queries would launch Knowledge Graph results. Purtell (2013) states that Google are now able to serve the users with a better experience. Users can find what they are looking for without having to read through each search result that may have alternative meanings.
Juel Vang (2013) in her conclusion, in the paper, Ethics of Google's Knowledge Graph: some considerations, remarks that, although the Knowledge Graph can be a key information service in user’s lives, it can also make the rest of the web appear superfluous. Google can conveniently serve knowledge Graph results on its own web page, keeping users from clicking on external search results. Juel Vang also maintains that the Knowledge Graph raises two concerning issues:
Summary of Chapters
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: This chapter introduces the research topic, providing an overview of the literature, research objectives, and methodology.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: This chapter discusses existing literature, tracing the evolution from Boolean to semantic search and identifying gaps concerning user trust and ethics.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: This chapter details the mixed-method research design, including the epistemology, theoretical perspective, and the use of surveys and interviews.
CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: This chapter presents the statistical findings from the online survey, focusing on public awareness, satisfaction, and concerns regarding Google.
CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the technical interviews and expert questionnaires, offering a deeper understanding of user opinions.
CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH CONCLUSION: This final chapter synthesizes the research findings, draws conclusions, and offers recommendations for future study.
Keywords
Google Search, Semantic Search, Personalisation, Trust, Reputation, Ethics, Filter Bubble, Echo Chamber, User Sentiment, Digital Marketing, Irish Public, Big Data, Knowledge Graph, Search Influence, Online Privacy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this thesis?
The thesis investigates the Irish public's perception of Google search, specifically examining the impact of semantic search personalisation, trust, and ethical implications on user behavior.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include Google's market dominance, the evolution of search algorithms, the "Echo Chamber" and "Filter Bubble" effects, and the psychological reliance on Google for information.
What is the main research question?
The study aims to understand how the Irish public views Google, particularly in relation to how it presents information and its power to influence decision-making.
Which research methodology was employed?
A mixed-methodology approach was used, incorporating quantitative online surveys for general public data and qualitative techniques, including in-depth interviews and expert questionnaires, for specialized insights.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the theoretical foundation (literature review), the methodological approach, a quantitative analysis of public survey data, and a qualitative analysis of expert and technical perspectives.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Significant keywords include Google Search, Semantic Search, Personalisation, Trust, Ethics, Filter Bubble, Search Influence, and Digital Marketing.
How does the age demographic affect search perception?
The study finds that age plays a crucial role; for example, younger "Millennial" users tend to be more aware of personalisation and show different trust patterns compared to older demographics.
What is the expert consensus on the future of Google's monopoly?
Experts suggest that Google is likely to maintain its dominance due to its technological advancement, although they emphasize the growing need for transparency and regulatory oversight.
Are Google's search personalisation practices considered ethical by users?
There is a significant national split in Ireland, with roughly 50% of survey respondents viewing search personalisation as unethical, highlighting a critical debate on data responsibility.
How does the author define the "Knowledge Graph"?
The author defines it as the intelligence behind semantic search that focuses on entities (things) rather than keywords (strings), enabling a richer and more intuitive user experience.
- Quote paper
- Pierce Ivory (Author), 2015, Google Semantic Search in Ireland. Personalisation, Trust, Influence, Reliance, Reputation, and Ethics, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/320189
