Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
EricHerboso9
0
0

This actually may affect whether Wikipedia policies will count certain EA Forum articles as "reliable sources" (in the Wikipedia sense). I'll be taking this back to WikiProject: Effective Altruism to see whether this may allow us to cite specific EA Forum posts for claims where no secondary source is yet available.

Reply
See in context
by PeterSlattery
1 min read 15

119

Building effective altruismCommunityEffective Altruism Forum
Frontpage

A quick post because this seems to be a new development that I hadn't seen before. 

I was just checking Google Scholar for any recent behavioural science research to put in the EA Behavioural Science Newsletter and noticed that it now returns posts from the EA Forum. See below:

I don't know why it doesn't retrieve the right titles. This may be something for the EA forum team to look into. I don't know whether all posts are being indexed or there are some criteria being used to filter between them. I don't understand why this post is the top result when searching for "effective altruism".  

Not sure what the implications are, but wanted to make people aware. From my perspective, Google Scholar listing posts from the EA Forum seems weakly positive. It probably means that more scientists and researchers will read and cite posts.  If we can identify the criteria for being indexed by Google Scholar then maybe we should try to ensure that good posts meet those criteria?

119

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments15


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
DAOMaximalist54
5
1

I have much experience in Search Engine Optimization and I can venture an explanation for what is most likely going on here:

Google's algorithm can understand when an article is scholarly in nature and then it might add it to Google Scholar results where there are no better matches for the term you are searching for.

However, if the titles and other details are not manually added to Google Scholar, they are automatically extracted (or inferred) from the sourcecode of the page. And if they are not fully optimized for Academic search, they may not display the correct data like correct titles etc

 

For the correct titles to show, one of two things needs to be done:

1. Article is added manually to Google Scholar (During manual submission to Google Scholar, you will be asked to specify the title, author and other metadata which are then used when displaying or listing it in search results.)

OR

2. Academic related tags are added to EA Forum articles. This can only be implemented by the site devs at the code level so that each article created automatically contains the following meta tags in its head section:

citation_title: To specify the article title to use for Google scholar and similar websites. This can be set to use the article's correct title from the main <title> tag of the html head section. Same for the others below
citation_author: To specify the author (s)
citation_publication_date: To specify the Publication date

There are a number of other tags and even other standards and formats.

You can learn more about all this stuff from the below links (it's sometimes called Academic Search Engine Optimization or ASEO):

https://www.brainlabsdigital.com/blog/google-scholar-seo/ 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200610396_Academic_Search_Engine_Optimization_ASEO_Optimizing_Scholarly_Literature_for_Google_Scholar_Co 
 

On why certain articles come up high in the Google Scholar results even when they don't seem very relevant to the search:

A huge factor for ranking articles on Google scholar is the number of citations the article has. Google counts links to an article as citations so my guess would be that the top article in your search probably has more links to it from other websites. There is much more to this (such as quality of linking sites, search term density in the article and lots more) but I'm just trying to greatly simplify my explanation.

 

Tip: To see all the EA Forum results currently indexed on Google scholar, search with this term on Google Scholar (without the quotes).  

"site:forum.effectivealtruism.org"

Right now it shows that there are only about 48 links from EA Forum indexed on Google scholar.

 

Aside:  I wanted to upload a screenshot to this post but I can't for the life of me figure out how to upload images to a post here. I feel its painfully obvious but I just cant figure out how. The embed settings do not include an image embed icon. How does one add an image in an article on EA Forum. How did you add the screenshot in your original post? Pray please tell...

Reply
Alexander Saeri6
0
0

Thanks for the plausible explanation!

Re: adding images to your post, I literally just copy and paste. But you could also read a longer post on how to enable advanced editing features such as tables and images.

Reply
DAOMaximalist3
0
0

Hey thanks a lot for the image tip and the link. It solved my problem.

Just in case anyone else is wondering how to include images in their posts, you can just drag and drop the image from your device into the post editor directly. 

Reply
JP Addison🔸4
0
0

Hi there,

Thanks a bunch for this info! I'm thinking about adding this to the Forum. I'm considering the problem of the fact that most of our content isn't academic, and I don't want Google's algorithm to think that I'm trying to spam them. Since you seem knowledgeable, do you think think I should enable this for all posts and let google decide if they're legit, or have some annoying manual process that will probably miss many actual academic posts?

(An additional note: many of our users, present company included, do not use their real names on the Forum.)

Reply
DAOMaximalist8
0
0

It would be a great idea to enable it for all posts. 

This forum has enough high quality scholarly content to qualify as an academic resource of note. 

There will not be any issue with the Google algorithm at all. In fact Google actively encourages using these metadata for websites with content like EA forum has. The algorithm will be able to decide what is relevant to it and will simply ignore the rest. 

With respect to the names, that also would not be a problem. The only consequence is that Google will store and display search results using the names they used. So if anyone likes to have their article to be associated with their real name they will need to use the real name in their post. 

 There will not be any other impact.

Also: Just in case someone prefers not to have their forum post indexed by Google scholar, there are ways to remove indexed entries . But I have a feeling hardly anyone would opt for that.

Reply
JP Addison🔸4
1
0

Thanks a bunch! This is really helpful.

The algorithm will be able to decide what is relevant to it and will simply ignore the rest.

Do you have a citation or epistemic status for this? I'm happy to deploy the PR as-is on the basis of your recommendation, but I'd be even happier with more knowledge of how confident to be.

Reply
DAOMaximalist1
0
0

My statement was really based on my experience and observations over the years as a practitioner in the field. SEO (which this falls under) is a core part of my regular day job and I consider it to be one of my strongest skills. I have 10+ years experience in the field and I have worked (and continue to work) on stuff like this almost on a daily basis. Because of this I'm very confident that my opinion is very likely correct (>90% confident).

Unfortunately I cannot point you to a specific citation or actually tell you with 100% confidence what exactly the Google algorithm will do or how exactly it works (only Google actually knows). Google is very secretive about how their algorithm works and most of the time SEOs can only offer (educated) guesses on how the algorithm probably works (guesses being based on past observations and measurements).

The Google algorithm is actually now very sophisticated and being able to filter signals while ignoring "noise" appears to be one of its strengths and modus operandus (this opinion is based on my (anecdotal and measured) observations over the years plus learnings from others in the field).

One more thing: It might take maybe up to between 1 and 3 months after the changes are made for more forum posts to start appearing in the scholar results. There is also some probability that they could appear sooner though.

Reply
Alexander Herwix 🔸17
1
0

I think the explanation for this happening is pretty simple. People writing academic articles (me included) have cited EA Forum articles... thus, google is finding them. 

For better or worse, I am pretty sure there is no(t yet a) systematic attempt to integrate the EA Forum in the scholarly debate...

Reply
EricHerboso9
0
0

This actually may affect whether Wikipedia policies will count certain EA Forum articles as "reliable sources" (in the Wikipedia sense). I'll be taking this back to WikiProject: Effective Altruism to see whether this may allow us to cite specific EA Forum posts for claims where no secondary source is yet available.

Reply
trevor14
3
3

I looked at my feed and didn't see any EAforum website posted, but that doesn't mean it's not a serious concern. Search engines are very much influenced by observation.

This is evidence that we should worry about covert attacks on EA from unknown origins. It's absurd and insane and clearly not worth the risk to ignore those threats.

Reply
DAOMaximalist6
2
1

On covert attack threats: This should be a very serious concern and is one of the main reasons why I suggested this project some weeks back (Note: See my #2 Item on this comment detailing reasons why such project is needed)  but not many respondents seemed to think it important enough to support or comment on. 

Reply
Alexander Saeri3
0
0

Thanks for pointing this out, Peter. As I understand it, you found this by searching for "effective altruism" and then sorting by date, not relevance.

I did not see any results for "less wrong"

But I did see similar results to your observation for "alignment forum"

Reply
DAOMaximalist5
2
0

"Less wrong" is a broad term that could be read in various contexts outside of EA so there are likely other webpages which Google sees as more relevant for this term (more relevant than lesswrong.com )

It seems you are trying to get results from lesswrong.com that are indexed in Google scholar. If that is correct, I would suggest that you use the following search >   site:lesswrong.com

Reply
Charles He1
1
7

This is surprising, like surreal—we are in the simulation sort of vibe. 

I've never seen a website indexed like this in Google scholar. Has anyone else?

Reply
Erich_Grunewald 🔸6
0
0

Posts from the Alignment Forum have been visible there for some time.

Reply
More from PeterSlattery
47
Public Comment Invited on Artificial Intelligence Action Plan
PeterSlattery
· · 1m read
0
0
72
Part 1: The AI Safety community has four main work groups, Strategy, Governance, Technical and Movement Building
PeterSlattery
· · 8m read
7
7
95
Please complete a survey to influence EU animal protection policies
PeterSlattery
· · 1m read
19
19
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
46
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
22
Call For a University of Minnesota EA Group
Kenneth_Diao
· · 2m read
1
1
49
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
8
8
View more