21–30 of 163 posts
Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea for a tech company with no experience or education in the field to have so much influence over what people perceive to be good journalism?
What would be the alternative? For lawyers to specify search algorithms?
(joking - we don't need another DMOZ)
Am I the only one who thinks it's a bad idea for a tech company with no experience or education in the field to have so much influence over what people perceive to be good journalism?
With that shaping now irreversible, and with shutting down being the only way to stop it from continuing, it certainly seems like the right thing for Google to think seriously about the rewards their engine offers. While Google is definitely prone to abusing their influence, this move seems very reasonable.
I wonder how they are going to make this... Only based on timestamp? Based in "trusted sources"? Based in a new API?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the original PageRank, and every iteration since, defined by what Google engineers believe to be a relevant and informative webpage? They have a 160+ page guide that tells their ratings team how to identify high-quality content: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...
>Isn't the original PageRank (...) defined by what Google engineers believe to be a relevant and informative webpage? No, quite the opposite. The original PageRank was defined by what other internet publishers considered to be a relevant and informative webpage. Specifically, the original PageRank was weighting content by the links (and content around the links) it was getting. The trust was placed on the internet pu…
I don't see the connection between the peer review process and PageRank. Peer review consists of educated experts explicitly making a value determination on the quality of the work before it is published and publicly available. Citations can be useful for judging impact, but this happens after the peer review process has been completed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a standard term of art, hence terms like "digital content creation" tools, "separating content from presentation", and so on. I think any other connotations you're associating with the word are probably down to you, not the word.
Yes, it's a standard term of art within the hastily-rephrasing-wikipedia-for-SEO community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a standard term of art, hence terms like "digital content creation" tools, "separating content from presentation", and so on. I think any other connotations you're associating with the word are probably down to you, not the word.
Yes, it's a standard term of art within the hastily-rephrasing-wikipedia-for-SEO community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network
https://www.loc.gov/standards/mdc/
In December 2018, Sundar Pichai testified under oath to US lawmakers that search results are completely algorithmic with no human reranking of search results. I wonder if they are still going to stick with this story.
Basically the difference between preparing a exam using annals and buying the exam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the original PageRank, and every iteration since, defined by what Google engineers believe to be a relevant and informative webpage? They have a 160+ page guide that tells their ratings team how to identify high-quality content: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...
>Isn't the original PageRank (...) defined by what Google engineers believe to be a relevant and informative webpage? No, quite the opposite. The original PageRank was defined by what other internet publishers considered to be a relevant and informative webpage. Specifically, the original PageRank was weighting content by the links (and content around the links) it was getting. The trust was placed on the internet pu…
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
> The biggest problem facing users of web search engines today is the quality of the results they get back. While the results are often amusing and expand users' horizons, they are often frustrating and consume precious time. For example, the top result for a search for "Bill Clinton" on one of the most popular commercial search engines was the Bill Clinton Joke of the Day: April 14, 1997. Google is designed to provide higher quality search so as the Web continues to grow rapidly, information can be found easily.
(Yes, the opinion that a "bill clinton" query should probably return official/biographical pages before "Joke of the Day" is a pretty obvious and uncontroversial one)
In December 2018, Sundar Pichai testified under oath to US lawmakers that search results are completely algorithmic with no human reranking of search results. I wonder if they are still going to stick with this story.
> their feedback doesn't change the ranking of the specific results they're reviewing; instead it is used to evaluate and improve algorithms in a way that applies to all results