Live data from Hacker News

Shirt Without Stripes

github.com

211–220 of 639 posts

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#211

In search we know it’s easy to cherry pick queries and criticize any search engine. A search engine is optimizing for billions of queries. Most of which are on the long tail. The real question is “shirts without stripes” really a query people enter? Or representative of a real pattern in the data?

It's representative of a real pattern in queries, albeit maybe not the most common one. You'd most likely see this sort of query as a followup. The user types in [shirts], gets a bunch of results, some with stripes and some without, and wants to only see the results without. So they modify their query from [shirts] to [shirts without stripes].

And since most search applications are basically just finding you the results with the most keyword matches, with a little bit of extra magic thrown in, the above is basically what you see.

These queries are basically the equivalent of optical illusions in cognitive psychology when studying the visual system -- seeing how the systems break tells you a lot about how they work.

Have you ever seen shirt dresses in your dress shirt queries, or vice versa? The search application isn't caring enough about bigrams and compound words.

Have you ever seen bowls in your bowling queries or fish in your fishing queries? The search application is over-stemming.

Natural language search is a real pain on any general purpose search application, particularly ones that have to deal with titles. The obvious simple fix to this query is to rewrite [x without y] to [x -y], but then when someone goes to search for [a day without rain] or [a year without summer], you are going to totally break those queries.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#212

The point that the author is making, in a very understated way, is that all three companies have PR websites that breathlessly describe their advanced AI capabilities, yet they cannot understand a very simple query that young children can.

At least this is relatively innocuous. Until recently if you did a Google Image Search for "person" or "people", it only showed white men.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man you couldn't be more condescending if you tried. 1. Capital letters indicate proper nouns so syntactically it's clear Ninotchka is the name of something and Zizek is someone's name. 2. You contributed this wholly worthless comment using a device that has access to more information than any other in the history of the world. Are you also one of those people that asks people define words for you instead of looking…

The GP didn't come across as ill-intended to me; it outlined an issue, gave a solution, and hopefully everyone who viewed it thought about context for half a second. I do agree with it that adding context to the comment is better than assuming random readers are going to actually look up capitalized names. Your comment, on the other hand, comes off as the one that's disparaging and includes a personal attack.

>GP didn't come across as ill-intended to me

oh really? so this bit implying OP is presumptuous isn't a personal attack?

>Give people context. Don't assume people know what you know.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term has been bastardized. AI is now any app that uses if statements, so long as it's obscured to the user. So now "AGI" exists, because apparently the word "general" now means "intelligent", unlike "intelligence". At some point in the future marketers will learn about AGI, and we'll have to make yet another term, maybe artificial general practical intelligence?

AGI is some AI that isn't specialized in a single problem. There is nothing on the word "intelligence" to imply it's not specialized.

Right, because when I think of "intelligence" I assume it's specialized and otherwise is dumb as rocks. Naturally. Which is why marketers are really just advertising specialized tools, not agi. Obviously.

I know what agi is; I just find the terms backward.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#217

In search we know it’s easy to cherry pick queries and criticize any search engine. A search engine is optimizing for billions of queries. Most of which are on the long tail. The real question is “shirts without stripes” really a query people enter? Or representative of a real pattern in the data?

> A search engine is optimizing for billions of queries. Most of which are on the long tail. Citation needed. As far as my personal observations go, Google is NOT optimized for long tail at all. It is always trying to return most popular results from cache of most popular results. Once the cache is exhausted, Google starts to return completely irrelevant trash (anything after first two pages of search is pure spam an…

I think what the original poster meant is that the tail is really long, and it's hard to cover it, hence these bad examples.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#218
You got it backwards. This is the opposite of the problem I and many other people tend to have with search engines lately. I do not want the damn thing to combine words, exclude unpopular ones, and search for synonyms without me telling it to explicitly. As little as you can semantics please.

If Google wants to group words by semantics, they should have a semantical grouping operator. For example "shirts (without stripes)". What if I am looking for a song text with these exact words in random positions?

If what author wants was implemented, it would make my experience with Google even worse, unless it could think for me also. But then why would it need me in the first place?

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#219
I wonder if this is a need for humans need to learn search queries. "-stripes" instead of "without stripes".

Or does input need to have basic filters applied before handing to ML? "without X" or "no X" = "-X"? Can be foiled with "shirt without having stripes".

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#220
Searching "men without pants" versus "men with pants" gives much better results.

This is a case where, while it makes sense to say the sentence, it's not a common use of language, and at the end of the day, the search engine will find what's written down, it's not a natural language processor yet (despite any marketing).

Shirt stores don't advertise "Shirts without stripes - 20% off", they describe them as "Solid shirts" or "Plain shirts". Men's fashion blogs talk about picking "solid shirts" or "plain shirts" for a particular look. If I walked into a clothing store and asked for "shirts without stripes", the sales person would most likely laugh and say "er, you mean you want plain shirts?".

Plain shirts/solid shorts are the most common way to refer to these, and people seem to be searching this way:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=solid%20...

Regarding moving towards natural language processing - the "without" part is not as important as knowing the context.

My kids will ask me to get from the bakery things like "the round bread with a hole and seeds", which I know means "sesame bagel", or "the sticky bread", which means "cinnamon twists" - which I understand because I know the context. Sometimes they say "I want the red thingy", and I need to ask a bunch of questions to eventually get at what they want (sometimes it's a red sweater, sometimes it's cranberry juice).

Unless Google starts asking questions back, I don't think there is any way it can give you what you want right away.

Post reply on HN