Algorithmic search is sinking
skrenta.com
Algorithmic search is sinking
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#2I have heard about search engine spam before and sort of discounted it - but you know, if you search on something that's not a technical topic or something equally specific like a band name, that is, you're searching on a general topic that is of interest to the mundanes, then there really is a whole lot of spam on Google.
My case from this week was that I wanted plans for a bookcase. I searched, therefore, on "build a bookcase". There was exactly one useful link on Google's front page (a Popular Mechanics link), and the rest were regurgitated spam that I could improve on with a Markov chain algorithm.
I've read that as long as people click on ads, Google has no motivation to clean up spam, but surely this can't be the best even for Google?
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#3I have heard about search engine spam before and sort of discounted it - but you know, if you search on something that's not a technical topic or something equally specific like a band name, that is, you're searching on a general topic that is of interest to the mundanes, then there really is a whole lot of spam on Google. My case from this week was that I wanted plans for a bookcase. I searched, therefore, on "build…
That's strange. My Google results page for "build a bookcase" shows 8 high quality tutorials on how to build bookcases, besides two pretty decent video-tutorials.
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#4... says the guy with the (crowdsourced) curated search engine.
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#5Ironic that he's proposing to have people solve a problem that arose because people were being manipulated, of course your people cannot be manipulated.
No, the solution to this problem is that GetSatisfaction et al use rel=nofollow. It's as simple as that. And arguably Google could improve its algorithm by taking negativity into account.
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#6Sensationalist garbage.
He suggests Google pays people to flag certain sites as appropriate. Or certain pages on certain sites? Or certain paragraphs on certain pages on certain sites?
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#7Or maybe our algorithms just aren't good enough.
Suppose you use bayesian filtering on the text surrounding the links to determine whether the connection is good or bad. With a reasonable amount of data it should be possible.
Note: I'm not an algorithms guy, I do business and strategy and a wee bit of programming, so maybe the example isn't good, but I thinkthe point is.
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#8[deleted]
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#9Ironic that he's proposing to have people solve a problem that arose because people were being manipulated, of course your people cannot be manipulated. No, the solution to this problem is that GetSatisfaction et al use rel=nofollow. It's as simple as that. And arguably Google could improve its algorithm by taking negativity into account.
yes, this is all getsatisfaction's fault. surprised nytimes missed that angle.
Re: Algorithmic search is sinking
#10Or maybe our algorithms just aren't good enough. Suppose you use bayesian filtering on the text surrounding the links to determine whether the connection is good or bad. With a reasonable amount of data it should be possible. Note: I'm not an algorithms guy, I do business and strategy and a wee bit of programming, so maybe the example isn't good, but I thinkthe point is.
Interesting, do people frequently use bayes' theorem in web programming? Ive only seen it it other programming contexts.