51–60 of 63 posts
Then one would be able to do some "stuff Google can do" - say, analysing trends - albeit with worse sampling, and not depend that much on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think human reviews of all the important websites and SERPs, that's harder for a competitor to reproduce. Google was forced into that by improved "search engine optimization". SEO used to be about things like keyword stuffing, but as Google made their search engine smarter, SEO companies made their search spamming smarter. There are now SEO operations using machine learning to reverse engineer Google's algorithms a…
>A classic example of this can be found by searching for "laptop repair bradford pa". This brings up "Illusory Laptop Repair", located in the middle of a railroad crossing. A SEO expert created that phony business listing to demonstrate how bad Google was at detecting such spam. Google still thinks it's real. This doesn't seem to work.
This is what I found: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=laptop+repair+bradford+pa&hl=...
For anyone interested, there's a hilariously bitter and practical paper on the trials and tribulations of building a search engine: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=988407 EDIT: Article is clearly from an earlier era, but it's really cool to see how far we've come and how much more computing power we have available now. There are entire categories of problems that simply don't exist anymore.
She later designed the search engine of Cuil. While Cuil failed, it only cost them about $30 million to do most of what Google does. It's surprising to me that there aren't search engines from Comcast, AT&T, and Apple. If you have customers, why give up all that ad revenue to Google? Google is paying some big players a lot of money not to do that. They were paying Apple $1 billion a year to be the default on Apple pr…
They raised ~$30 million in two rounds, but their valuation was at $200 million by round two. I agree with your point though; the cost to develop a good search engine is dirt cheap compared to the value it brings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Isn't my issue obvious ? Not touching that with a 10 foot pole... (just teasing, just teasing...) But seriously, it sounds like what you want is a keyword matching engine. Google, for better or worse, has decided they know enough about their user's searches that they don't mind modifying the query parameter in an attempt to retrieve what people want rather than what they literally say they want. I understand that yo…
After Google Plus was released, Google changed its search syntax slightly so that you now need to "quote" mandatory terms instead of prefixing them with a + symbol. http://waxy.org/2011/10/google_kills_its_other_plus/ https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/3oI...
"singer" "song" -inurl:(htm|html|php) intitle:"index of" "last modified" "parent directory" "description" "size" "m4a"|"mp3"|"ogg"|"flac"
to search for songs. Too many quotation marks!
original, unmodified: http://lifehacker.com/207672/turn-google-into-your-own-perso...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't my issue obvious ? I wanted search results that contained the search terms. Otherwise I wouldn't have entered them in the first place. I understand Google is trying to be clever here and appealing to novices who don't really understand what they want. But my point is that for those of us that do it is an incredibly annoying "feature". Feature is in quotes because in the specific case above they didn't find sema…
There's a feature for that: Verbatim mode. https://www.google.com/search?q=webhcat+primary+key&tbs=li:1
Unfortunately, now when I search in verbatim mode, the top three results are some dude complaining about Google on HN. :D
[lightly modified version of a comment I put on the article as I love HN for discussion!] Great article -- we're excited there's so much interest in the web as a dataset! I'm part of the team at Common Crawl and thought I'd clarify some points in the article. The most important is that you can download all the data that Common Crawl provides completely for free, without the need to pay S3 transfer fees or process it…
As an example, I was trying a project to look at the top news sites, like BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc. Then matching articles about the same news topic on each site, before finally fact checking for differences between the stories (ie. 20,000 homes were without power vs. 50,000)
That kind of project requires a load of crawling, but I can't look for specific pages without processing the entire CC set first.
I love the project though, so thank you for doing it!
A really nice idea. I volunteered a bit early this year for Common Crawl (not much, just some Java and Clojure examples for fetching and using the new archive format). Common Crawl already has many volunteers (and a professional management and technical staff) so it would seem like a good idea to merge some of the author's goals with the existing Common Crawl organization. Perhaps more frequent Common Crawl web fetch…
Most of the Common Crawl data is on Microsoft Azure, but not all of it.
The Common Crawl is a great resource that deserves attention from more companies and developers.
Yeah, this sounds all well and good in theory, but after visiting thousands of sites over the years, it might be a better idea to help engineers build a search engine for their own site/data first. I can't recall many websites that have amazing search. It's a problem when I have to use google to find what I want on xyz.com because if I go search for what I am looking for on xyz.com I cannot find it even if I know its…
I'm pretty sure Elastic is on the right direction in this regard, don't you think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She later designed the search engine of Cuil. While Cuil failed, it only cost them about $30 million to do most of what Google does. It's surprising to me that there aren't search engines from Comcast, AT&T, and Apple. If you have customers, why give up all that ad revenue to Google? Google is paying some big players a lot of money not to do that. They were paying Apple $1 billion a year to be the default on Apple pr…
While Cuil failed, it only cost them about $30 million to do most of what Google does. They raised ~$30 million in two rounds, but their valuation was at $200 million by round two. I agree with your point though; the cost to develop a good search engine is dirt cheap compared to the value it brings.
Google did hire the CEO and Anna Patterson to keep them from doing another search engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A classic example of this can be found by searching for "laptop repair bradford pa". This brings up "Illusory Laptop Repair", located in the middle of a railroad crossing. A SEO expert created that phony business listing to demonstrate how bad Google was at detecting such spam. Google still thinks it's real. This doesn't seem to work.
It does work on Google Maps, I find, but not on the main search page. This is what I found: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=laptop+repair+bradford+pa&hl=...