Live data from Hacker News

Google Needs Sex

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: Google Needs Sex

#11
post #9
post #5

One could, in theory, manually create a database of a few million (or way more) websites, and rate the content in each of them (including advertisements - just how the page is showed to the end user). This database could then be used to train algorithms, with genetic fitness based on how close the ratings of the algorithm are to the human ratings of value (note that the algorithms would not be aware of the human valu…

The catch is this database would need to be kept away from spammers, lest they be able to test their site designs against it directly.

Not so much the database as the algorithm; if it's sufficiently understood (as seems to be the case with Google's algorithm, or at least a lot of people claim it to be the case), then spammers can target it directly. Merely having the original data used to train it doesn't give much insight into the algorithm itself.

On second thought, though, being able to identify common characteristics of the least spam-like websites would allow spammers to mimic those characteristics. It would take a lot of effort (figuring out the core bits), but they are clearly willing to put that in. So yes, I suppose that you're right.

Re: Google Needs Sex

#12

This 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.

> This is quite possibly the dumbest article about technology I've seen in a mainstream publication.

Come on, it's in the NYTimes & by Paul Krugman (an economist) - not bad for that combination. After reading lots of articles by technologists, you need to remember to temper your expectations when you visit the website of a mainstream publication.

That said, his theory isn't entirely false - Google may actually need some "outside" ideas to mix in with their own. Then again, perhaps (my instinct says probably) they've been doing that for years, and the spammers are just evolving faster.

Re: Google Needs Sex

#14
post #9
post #5

One could, in theory, manually create a database of a few million (or way more) websites, and rate the content in each of them (including advertisements - just how the page is showed to the end user). This database could then be used to train algorithms, with genetic fitness based on how close the ratings of the algorithm are to the human ratings of value (note that the algorithms would not be aware of the human valu…

The catch is this database would need to be kept away from spammers, lest they be able to test their site designs against it directly.

http://xkcd.com/810/

Re: Google Needs Sex

#15
If I was a web search company, I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results (this would increase or decrease their prominence on subsequent searches). This could be done on a per-site, or per-page basis.

Then I'd use one person's preferences to alter how other people receive search results (on an optional basis; if people didn't want their results filtered like this, they wouldn't have to.)

But I wouldn't just use an average of all users; it'd be too easy for spammers to create fake accounts to upvote spam. No, a user's search results would only be affected by what their friends upvote and downvote (or possibly their friends of friends as well).

This would make it in a user's interests to link to their friends and have their friends rate websites, as everyone uses web search. So people would want to promote the search engine to their friends.

To give people more of an incentive to proselytise the search engine, I'd add social features such as a twitter-like service (allowing public, friends-only, and named-recipients-only messages), chat (text, voice and video-voice), an extended-length messaging service (you could call it, I don't know, a "blog" or something) that also allows pictures, and RSS feeds of one's own and one's friends' public entries.

I'd also add a "fan" feature (intransitive, as opposed to friendship which is transitive). People could create lists rating websites, and others could fan those lists.

Maybe someone like DuckDuckGo might want to implement something like this?

(Incidentally, DDG market themselves as being privacy-friendly, which coupled with the recent subpoena of Wikileaks' Twitter data, suggests there may be an opportunity for a competitor to Twitter that is more privacy-minded).

Re: Google Needs Sex

#16
Google already has "search engine sex", it's called revision control (although I really doubt this is what Krugman had in mind.) To solve Google's spam problem, they either need better business priorities or smarter engineers, depending on which popular explanation of Google's spam problem is accurate.

> And the most persuasive answer, as I understand it, is defense against parasites.

Probably more likely the general ability to merge in one generation two or more highly advantageous adaptations into one individual, which could include parasite defense but also everything else.

Re: Google Needs Sex

#17

If I was a web search company, I'd allow users to upvote or downvote their search results (this would increase or decrease their prominence on subsequent searches). This could be done on a per-site, or per-page basis. Then I'd use one person's preferences to alter how other people receive search results (on an optional basis; if people didn't want their results filtered like this, they wouldn't have to.) But I wouldn…

"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.

Re: Google Needs Sex

#18

Great headline, crappy article. People have been trying to game search engines since a few minutes after they were invented. And other search engines don't appear to be better, or the market share would have shifted by now. It costs nothing to the consumer to switch, and people talk about which websites they like - so if something that is more appealing to Joe Public comes along, it will be noticed. Bing's ascent in…

It costs nothing to you and I to switch search engines. The cost is a lot greater for the kind of people who type URLs into Google's search field, to navigate the intertubes.

Re: Google Needs Sex

#19

This 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.

> This is quite possibly the dumbest article about technology I've seen in a mainstream publication. Come on, it's in the NYTimes & by Paul Krugman (an economist) - not bad for that combination. After reading lots of articles by technologists, you need to remember to temper your expectations when you visit the website of a mainstream publication. That said, his theory isn't entirely false - Google may actually need s…

Google has plenty of great ideas. What they lack -- is execution in most of these projects. For example, anti-spam efforts at blogger.com is a joke.

Re: Google Needs Sex

#20
this article screams of linkbaiting (I guess it worked, it got onto HN and I checked it out).

Author concludes that "Google needs sex" because cloning avoided parasites (not strictly true, but whatever) but then signs off with "I don't know what Google sex looks like".

Duh.

Post reply on HN