61–70 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotal example of broken queries != broken search.
Especially when the query is easily verifiable as "not broken". It makes me suspect this person's ability to keep accurate statistics.
I work at http://samuru.com we have about 70% unique searches. With out the hordes of default install users who type in the product slogan of every commercial, or try to get the Jeopardy questions before the clock runs out, we don't have a great cache hit ratio. Combine this with the fact that Google is doing more and more to get Cache Collisions in their results (returning results that don't contain all the words in…
Was using Samuru from July - half September this year. While I applaud the way it just searches for what I ask for, no more no less, there was just one major issue that made me turn to DDG: loads too slow. The way I use it is as default search engine in Opera. So to search, I do Ctrl-T, start typing query, hit Enter. After the Enter it sometimes took more than 5 seconds to show the results. I don't know why that is b…
I like to think that the summaries vs. the snippets make up for some of that, we get you more info in one go.
We also lose a bit because we return about 50 results at a go instead of 10.
The whole 'algorithms do the ranking' thing is a misdirection. Algorithms do of course rank pages, but they do so according to criteria chosen by humans employed by Google. Google absolutely chooses which pages rank highly and which do not according to their own subjective human judgement, applied by machine. It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.
Can you give a concrete example of this? What 'criteria' is chosen by humans? Do you mean stuff like are the key terms in the h1 tags? I would still consider that an algorithm doing the ranking, and PageRank also is the major factor in deciding what gets returned, and though a human wrote the mathematics, they aren't scoring each page individually to quantify the value of each link.
The whole 'algorithms do the ranking' thing is a misdirection. Algorithms do of course rank pages, but they do so according to criteria chosen by humans employed by Google. Google absolutely chooses which pages rank highly and which do not according to their own subjective human judgement, applied by machine. It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.
It feels like something is wrong with your comment. I'm pretty sure that Google does something what looks more like A/B testing than law making process. That basically means that you should have some magic power to guess how adjusting one parameter (I don't even speak about multiple) will affect final result. Could you guess how mathematical attractors will behave by changing some parameters? Are you sure Google hire…
The whole 'algorithms do the ranking' thing is a misdirection. Algorithms do of course rank pages, but they do so according to criteria chosen by humans employed by Google. Google absolutely chooses which pages rank highly and which do not according to their own subjective human judgement, applied by machine. It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.
While I wont speak for gibwell, I'm interpreting what is saying that Google do set the criteria of what metrics deem a higher or lower ranking page. For example: - More time users spend on a page indicates it's more relevant - More high quality inbound links indicates higher quality content - Content seen as spammy are considered can lower page rank The fact is that Google don't discriminate based on the rules they s…
However the algorithm is based on hundreds of metrics, and is highly discriminating. In addition, Google uses human raters to determine what a good quality result is. This is fed back into tuning the weighting of the metrics.
Therefore, the biases and judgements of these human employees will be reflected in the results.
The whole 'algorithms do the ranking' thing is a misdirection. Algorithms do of course rank pages, but they do so according to criteria chosen by humans employed by Google. Google absolutely chooses which pages rank highly and which do not according to their own subjective human judgement, applied by machine. It is disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise.
Oh no, you are wrong. Machine learning algorithms that are used by Google learn by observing behaviours of users and the results of this learning is essentially a black box of parameters and weights for the target function. Certainly they analyze the data and add some parameters manually, for example, manual review process but most of the work is done in the opaque black box. So your statement that "Google absolutely…
I've been trying to ween myself off search engines, and rather search directly from within specific websites: Wikipedia - general information StackOverflow - programming IMDB - actors/movies etc... Obviously finding those websites in the 1st place requires a search engine or index of some kind, but I'm getting faster results going directly to the source :)
I feel Google will get replaced soon. The fact that search is getting more personalised is hurting me more than anything else. We dont get unbiased results. The User experience will definitely die down with this !!!
Think out of the box: you most certainly WANT personalised result. What you don't want is biased news
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think out of the box: you most certainly WANT personalised result. What you don't want is biased news
imagine a republican seeing more republican friendly results and a democrat seeing democratic results. Now, this would make Google really look unreliable at some point of time !
The questions that I asked myself after watching the video are:
What is the expected result?
Are there any logical fallacies that I need to consider?
What are the flaws associated to a point of view?
What are the flaws associated to the other point of view?
Why are they flaws?
What can be done to fix them?
If some things cannot be done, is there any workaround?