Reverse-engineering Google’s "Skip Button Guarantee"

Post by drpixie » Sat, Jul 01, 2023, 3:43 AM UTC

eddythompson80 wrote: post #56

charcircuit wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That seems pretty broken to me for the biggest search engine on the internet. Not really. There isn't much value to be gained in ranking and sorting a bigger top N of the 8.5 billion results. It is better to encourage people to refine their queries to something less general.

> It is better to encourage people to refine their queries to something less general My search experience has been consistently the opposite. Google rejects more defined queries. The more terms you add to your queries, the more likely it’s that it’ll just ignore them. This is a recent trend btw. It wasn’t that use 4 or 5 years ago, but it’s certainly increasingly random the more terms I add to my search query. One of…

Post by Sai_ » Sat, Jul 01, 2023, 4:46 AM UTC

mwint wrote: post #100

Sai_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trade offs happen but they aren’t the reason to say “the optimal amount of fraud is non zero”. The correct framing is “since we accept some fraud, the optimal amount of fraud must be non-zero”. As written, it sounds like society can only function if there is some amount of fraud. I gave this analogy to a sibling comment of yours. Maybe it will help clarify my point. We accept some adulteration (let’s say it is 2%…

This is somewhat pedantic. With this logic, you could say that the purpose of a car is to get somewhere, and therefore the optimal speed is c. But that would be a completely useless thing to say, because we can’t get your Camry to c. There is a whole system of tradeoffs that we all know exists. Google could easily lower ”bad things” to 0 by shutting down tomorrow. The government could easily eliminate racism by nukin…