Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 173 posts

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#11

Post by 988747 »

TuringNYC wrote: post #6

Can anyone explain why the PageRank patent was valuable when an alternative (Prof Jon Kleinberg's Hypertext Induced Topic Search or HITS algo) was published at the same time and available for use? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITS_algorithm

From your linked Wikipedia page:

"it is executed at query time, not at indexing time, with the associated hit on performance that accompanies query-time processing" - for a search engine that planned to take over the Web that might have been a dealbreaker.

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#12

Post by tyingq »

ramraj07 wrote: post #8
tyingq wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how useful this might be to anyone anymore. Google still uses it for the base ranking. But, the results are then run through a variety of add-on ML pipelines, like Vince (authority/brand power), Panda (inbound link quality), Penguin (content quality), and many others that target other attributes (page layout, ad placement, etc). Then there's also more granular weightings for things like "power within a n…

Where can I learn more about all these models you mention?

I'm not sure. Most of that is from information Matt Cutts used to share when he was the public face of Google's search quality team. Since he left in 2014, they've been very quiet about the space. If you search for things like "matt cutts panda", "matt cutts vince", and so on, you'll see some of what he used to share.

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#13

Post by s1k3s »

tyingq wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how useful this might be to anyone anymore. Google still uses it for the base ranking. But, the results are then run through a variety of add-on ML pipelines, like Vince (authority/brand power), Panda (inbound link quality), Penguin (content quality), and many others that target other attributes (page layout, ad placement, etc). Then there's also more granular weightings for things like "power within a n…

> "power within a niche"

In my country we have a website that has complete monopoly over sales of used items, services etc. I'm always amazed that Google is able to determine and put it in top 3 results for a wide majority of searches. "laptop mouse" brings up that site, but "kitchen sink" doesn’t, presumably because people don’t buy used sinks.

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#14

Post by tgv »

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote: post #10
tyingq wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how useful this might be to anyone anymore. Google still uses it for the base ranking. But, the results are then run through a variety of add-on ML pipelines, like Vince (authority/brand power), Panda (inbound link quality), Penguin (content quality), and many others that target other attributes (page layout, ad placement, etc). Then there's also more granular weightings for things like "power within a n…

And yet, the results are worse and worse.

But does it make them less money?

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#16

Post by dontbenebby »

5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote: post #10
tyingq wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how useful this might be to anyone anymore. Google still uses it for the base ranking. But, the results are then run through a variety of add-on ML pipelines, like Vince (authority/brand power), Panda (inbound link quality), Penguin (content quality), and many others that target other attributes (page layout, ad placement, etc). Then there's also more granular weightings for things like "power within a n…

And yet, the results are worse and worse.

To be fair, they don't seem to teach the next generation about search operators.

I've found just using quotes, OR/AND, and some other basic stuff can often get me what I need.

The place where Google does well is that they're a monopoly, so things like image search that require a lot of resources, they are better at, especially paired with their geographic location. (USA! USA! USA!)

Edit: I hit enter and the post went out while drafting.

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#18

Post by TrueDuality »

tyingq wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how useful this might be to anyone anymore. Google still uses it for the base ranking. But, the results are then run through a variety of add-on ML pipelines, like Vince (authority/brand power), Panda (inbound link quality), Penguin (content quality), and many others that target other attributes (page layout, ad placement, etc). Then there's also more granular weightings for things like "power within a n…

I never thought about "brand power" being a metric but that definitely makes sense. I'd be very curious to see what search results would look like if that weight was inverted (more "brand power" the lower the rank). I don't think it would be _better_ but it might make exploring lesser known bits of the internet more accessible.

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#19

Post by saiajc »

TuringNYC wrote: post #6

Can anyone explain why the PageRank patent was valuable when an alternative (Prof Jon Kleinberg's Hypertext Induced Topic Search or HITS algo) was published at the same time and available for use? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITS_algorithm

Kleinberg's HITS algorithm actually came first. PageRank simplified HITS and made it more practical, by performing the ranking mechanism in batch mode for the entire web graph. If you read the original HITS paper, you'll see that HITS computes the top two eigenvectors for the cluster of all pages containing the query word (and pages pointing to those pages). Computing new eigenvectors for every search query obviously is much slower than PageRank.

Re: Google's PageRank patent has expired (2019)

#20

Post by heretogetout »

dontbenebby wrote: post #16
5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, the results are worse and worse.

To be fair, they don't seem to teach the next generation about search operators. I've found just using quotes, OR/AND, and some other basic stuff can often get me what I need. The place where Google does well is that they're a monopoly, so things like image search that require a lot of resources, they are better at, especially paired with their geographic location. (USA! USA! USA!) Edit: I hit enter and the post went…

Quotes aren't what they once were. They don't guarantee that the term you quoted will be in the results.
Post reply on HN