I’m not quite sure what search-engine sex would involve.
But Google apparently needs some.Google Needs Sex
31–39 of 39 posts
Re: Google Needs Sex
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results" Google already did that. But for some reason they were unable to efficiently use results of that project. I think something is broken in Google's mid-management.
That's because average users don't vote on search results.
Maybe they would if they knew it would result in them getting better results in future. If I could ban certain websites from appearing in my results, I would.
Re: Google Needs Sex
#33This is quite possibly the dumbest article about technology I've seen in a mainstream publication. What Google really needs is a willingness to accept a way higher threshold of false negatives in weeding out content. I'd love to have a "known good" version of Google that risked leaving out some content. Let's start by banning all .info domains along with any that include a hyphen.
You and the article are saying the same thing. But the author of the article is presenting the same kinds of ideas in the form of a metaphor that's easy to understand for his intended audience. That's ok, right? It's the same kind of thing discussed in this article from HN the other day http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079473 .
Re: Google Needs Sex
#34"I’m not quite sure what search-engine sex would involve. But Google apparently needs some." Picture a duck ( http://duckduckgo.com/ ).
Eww.
I said to myself, whatever, DuckDuck's the shit. Then I searched a keyword relevant to my industry, the first five results:
niche.gr niche-factory.fr cn-niche.com myspace.com/russianniche niche.kz
Right, then. Guess the problem isn't specific to Google...
Re: Google Needs Sex
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results" Google already did that. But for some reason they were unable to efficiently use results of that project. I think something is broken in Google's mid-management.
I'd guess that the clickstream data can yield conclusions that are nearly as accurate as manual voting, if not moreso. It's not worth cluttering the interface for data with such low marginal value.
Assuming that people actually use the "down" buttons, I can envision visiting a spammy link and wanting to go back to the search results page and kill a result.
Re: Google Needs Sex
#36I have been thinking a lot about this problem. If indeed it is a problem.
Google is in the business of serving ads. The vast majority of those spammy sites display google ads. So, there is little incentive for google to change things just yet. Joe public is not complaining, yet. It is only the digerati, and a whole bunch of other webmasters who think their sites should be ranking higher because they are just better, who seem to be up in arms over this.
The interesting thing is that half the spammy do provide content that is 'just good enough' for what most people are looking for. The quickest exit from one of these sites, is via a google ad, so google wins, the site wins, and the advertiser targetting a specific niche wins.
The only problem will be when the advertisisers stop getting the bang for their buck when their ads are displayed on these sites. Until then, Google has little incentive to change.
Re: Google Needs Sex
#37I have been thinking a lot about this problem. If indeed it is a problem. Google is in the business of serving ads. The vast majority of those spammy sites display google ads. So, there is little incentive for google to change things just yet. Joe public is not complaining, yet. It is only the digerati, and a whole bunch of other webmasters who think their sites should be ranking higher because they are just better,…
Ahh, I forgot to add the 'solution'.
The 'sex' bit, will be marrying google search results with other sources, and breeding a search ranking algorithm specific to you.
For example, the Facebook 'like' button could turn out to be very useful. Stuff liked by more people gets ranked higher. Since webmasters are already gaming Facebook though, then stuff liked by people who are one or two degrees of separation from you on facebook could count more. Any social network that allows you to indicate some sort of trust in an individual could work.
I bet you though, that if Google did this, the very same people complaining about the bad results now, would be the first to complain about the privacy implications of all this, and how google seems to know so much about us .... sigh
Re: Google Needs Sex
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results" Google already did that. But for some reason they were unable to efficiently use results of that project. I think something is broken in Google's mid-management.
I'd guess that the clickstream data can yield conclusions that are nearly as accurate as manual voting, if not moreso. It's not worth cluttering the interface for data with such low marginal value.
Using clickstream data for defining ranking is a must, but not enough.
Manual rating adds value to web site rankings.
Google Toolbar's data adds even more value to the ranking.
I'd say all that clicking data should be affect search rankings even more than hyperlinks.
Re: Google Needs Sex
#39This is quite possibly the dumbest article about technology I've seen in a mainstream publication. What Google really needs is a willingness to accept a way higher threshold of false negatives in weeding out content. I'd love to have a "known good" version of Google that risked leaving out some content. Let's start by banning all .info domains along with any that include a hyphen.
So you just want Google to keep raising and raising the threshold? You know that can't last forever, right?