It was an odd, unanswerable query. Nonetheless, it was on the thoughts of at the very least one Google consumer in India.

What’s the nation’s “ugliest” language?

For anybody who typed the query into the platform’s search bar just lately, its algorithm produced a reality field assured of the reply: a tongue referred to as Kannada, spoken by tens of hundreds of thousands of individuals in India’s south.

Knowledgeable of that outcome, a lot of them weren’t pleased.

A number of politicians within the state of Karnataka, the place most Kannada audio system stay, went on social media this week to register their outrage.

“Authorized motion can be taken towards @Google for maligning the picture of our stunning language!” Aravind Limbavali, Karnataka’s forestry minister and a member of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political get together, said in a tweet on Wednesday.

Google apologized on Thursday for “the misunderstanding and hurting any sentiments.” It additionally deleted the very fact field about Kannada.

However its fake pas — and the response from Mr. Limbavali and different members of the state’s conservative political brass — had already been picked up by major Indian news outlets. By Friday, the highest outcomes for the search “What’s the world’s ugliest language?” have been articles about Google’s apology for having answered it.

The episode illustrates the fallibility of the very fact bins, a perform that Google created seven years in the past. The bins, referred to as “featured snippets,” comprise data that the corporate’s algorithms pull from third-party sources. They seem above the hyperlinks that often pop up in Google search outcomes.

The corporate has stated that featured snippets work well, primarily based on utilization statistics and evaluations from individuals paid to guage the standard of its search engine’s outcomes. However it additionally admits that they generally get the details flawed — or stray into the realm of opinion.

“Search isn’t at all times excellent,” Google India said in its apology on Thursday. “Typically, the way in which content material is described on the web can yield stunning outcomes to particular queries.”

That’s placing it mildly.

Earlier this 12 months, a seek for why Google was banned from China returned a reality field — garnered from a nationalist state-run tabloid, The Global Times — noting that Google had left the nation of its personal accord after deciding that Chinese language legal guidelines didn’t “conform with its so-called democratic values.”

The field made no point out of a cyberattack that the corporate had cited as an instantaneous motive to cease working its search engine in China. Nor did it point out that the majority Google companies are extensively blocked from China’s web.

Google can also be unreliable on the query of whether or not it’s a dependable supply of knowledge.

The search “Does Google misinform you?” produces a reality field with this reply: “Google doesn’t give solutions (sic) to questions and due to this fact it doesn’t lie.”

That’s from an article in the newspaper The Australian that quoted a businessman who accused the corporate of stealing content material and placing it up immediately on its web site. The quote was used within the article as a sarcastic reference to the primary outcome for the search question “Does Google ever lie?”

Kannada, the language that Google’s reality field stated was India’s ugliest, is a part of a household of Dravidian languages which might be native to southern India and return 1000’s of years.

The snafu this week was not the primary time that Kannada audio system have stated that their language was disrespected.

Karnataka impressed lots of the novels and quick tales by RK Narayan, one among India’s most well-known novelists. A preferred Nineteen Eighties tv adaptation of his work was made in Hindi, the nation’s commonest language, with Kannada subtitles. Although Mr. Narayan wrote in English, some critics said the difference ought to have been made in Kannada, or at the very least dubbed into it.

“It may very nicely have been dubbed when it was made,” the critic Prathibha Nandakumar wrote in 2012. “Why was that not considered?”

Google has no reality field for that.