Talk:Search engine manipulation effect

196.12.135.229 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Isn't this all essentially based on the writing of one individual, Robert Epstein, whose work is discredited in other forums, including other Wikipedia articles? See for example his own Wikipedia page. But you have to admit that google no longer has entirely organic search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:8180:D0:C0F3:2798:98E8:C2D (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The effect is studied by a broader set of individuals in literature as opposed to a specific dispute between Epstein and Google. While there are major contributors in the area (namely Epstein and Robertson), they are definitely not the only ones, with the debate mostly existing over scope and real-world impact. See other relevant literature here, here, and here, along with search engine ranking audit studies here, here, and very recently here. The original 2015 paper was also cited in a political science annual review article here. Findings on whether specific search engines exhibit systematic bias on particular issues are mixed in observational and audit-based studies. While search engines are evolving technologies, there are experiments (here and here) that support rankings influencing attitudes in participants with weak priors in controlled settings. Whether these effects occur at scale in natural settings remains the central point of debate, and Epstein tends towards the view that it does, whereas many researchers are far more cautious in making such a claim.

The current article does not reflect this broader literature and overemphasizes Epstein's perspective without sufficient attribution or balance. I would say it requires a substantial rewrite to incorporate additional sources, properly attribute claims, and present the mixed and debated nature of the findings, but I do think the effect itself is notable and is not fringe as the current content would suggest. Jacob Rampino (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)