Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shirt Without Stripes

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 639 posts

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#351

Post by TomJansen »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #347
Nextgrid wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SEO'd garbage often contains ads, including Google ads. There's no incentive for Google to fix this problem. Google's job is not to give you great search results, it's to keep you clicking on ads. Ideally it would be the ads on the search results page directly, but if that doesn't work then a blogspam website with Google ads is the next best thing. If Google was a paid service this problem would be solved the next da…

> If Google was a paid service this problem would be solved the next day. Nope. Cable television was introduced with the promise of no ads. That didn't last long.

Spotify & YouTube Premium run without ads just fine, so why wouldn't it work for search engines? Text is way more compressible then music and video. So at least on serving data it is way more cheaper than the aforementioned services

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#352

Post by XCSme »

seiferteric wrote: post #137

I have noticed in the past few years google results have become noticeable worse for similar reasons. Google used to _surprise_ me with how good it was able to understand what I was really looking for even when I put in vague terms. I remember being shocked on several occasions when putting in half remembered sentences, lyrics, expressions from something I had heard years ago and it being the first! result. I almost…

I agree with search getting worse, now I always have to add quotes around my keywords: yes, I really wanted to search for this exact thing. I also end up adding "reddit" in my query just so I can reach some genuine useful questions/responses instead of top 10 blog posts written just for the Amazon affiliate links.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#353

Post by viridian »

DenisM wrote: post #325
mherdeg wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but what if an Amazon algorithm has actually learned that people who search for "shirt without stripes" are more likely to buy more things if the first image they see is a picture of a striped shirt?

It's a tricky balance between sales and relevance. If you don't watch for relevance you will end up showing only booze and porn in the commerce search results, border-line-porn in video search (true story), and so on. edit: fixed typo born -> porn

Could you explain the border-line-born bit? I don't get it.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#354

Post by rhizome »

mherdeg wrote: post #310
onurcel wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the OP is that they claim they understand everything. Example: https://www.blog.google/products/search/search-language-unde...

OK, but what if an Amazon algorithm has actually learned that people who search for "shirt without stripes" are more likely to buy more things if the first image they see is a picture of a striped shirt?

Then the algorithm would not be acting in the customer's interests.

Presumably this would be after the algo devalued people who clicked on "Next Page" until they came to a page that had stripeless shirts on it, or who, after the search, only ever clicked on stripeless shirts. "Deeds not words," dontchaknow.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#355

Post by Minor49er »

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote: post #175
dailypeeker wrote: post #142

Why is everything a git repo when it could have been a blog post?

Why do you think a blog post would've been better?

Because a repo is meant for source control. People are using the issue tracker to leave general comments. There's no reason to branch or fork a blog post. It pollutes the contributions metrics. That said, I don't really care how people use Github, but there are better blog solutions out there already that would make more sense to use. However, this aches of the old adage "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#356

Post by rhizome »

albertzeyer wrote: post #243

Why should it not be possible to solve this with statistical methods? The model just needs to be able to understand the important meaning of "no" in here, in the context of the whole sentence. I would guess that most modern NNs from the NLP area (Transformer or LSTM) would be able to correctly differentiate the meaning. The problem is, I think there is no fancy NN (yet) behind Google search, and the other web searche…

>The model just needs to be able to understand the important meaning of "no" in here, in the context of the whole sentence

It's easy to say, isn't it? Unfortunately, sticking the word "just" in there doesn't affect the difficulty. I do it all the time, too.

That said, "meaning" is not statistical.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#357

Post by oh_sigh »

aerovistae wrote: post #123

This comment would go from "unreadable" to "interesting" if you had phrased it as: "Vaguely similar to a joke from _the movie_ Ninotchka that _the Slovenian philosopher_ Zizek often uses...." Give people context. Don't assume people know what you know.

How is the comment more or less readable if you know that Ninotchka is a movie and Zizek is a Slovenian philosopher?

The difference between coffee without cream and coffee without milk is the same whether Ninotchka and Zizek are the things described above, or if they are a city and a taxi driver.

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#358

Post by smoe »

smoyer wrote: post #266
DenisM wrote: post #197

This problem is known as "attribution" - you have a "no" or "without" in the sentence, but you don't know where it belongs. One could (and one does) argue that the problem cannot be solved with statistical methods (ML), especially not in any domain where accuracy is required, such as medical recored analysis: "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things. Zooming out, the language fiel…

While this is indeed an example of the attribution problem, I'd argue that this particular query will never be solved. I don't search for a "shirt without stripes", I search for a "solid shirt, or a " hawai'ian shirt". I'd be curious to see how many sentences with attribution problems actually have other structural issues. If I want to write clearly and without ambiguity, I rewrite sentences that have these problems.…

Is it that odd though? I'm not a native english speaker, but I would say "shirt without patterns", not solid. Or for example "without visible logo"

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#359

Post by ardy42 »

DenisM wrote: post #197

This problem is known as "attribution" - you have a "no" or "without" in the sentence, but you don't know where it belongs. One could (and one does) argue that the problem cannot be solved with statistical methods (ML), especially not in any domain where accuracy is required, such as medical recored analysis: "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things. Zooming out, the language fiel…

> This problem is known as "attribution" - you have a "no" or "without" in the sentence, but you don't know where it belongs. One could (and one does) argue that the problem cannot be solved with statistical methods (ML), especially not in any domain where accuracy is required, such as medical recored analysis: "no evidence of cancer" and "evidence of no cancer" are very different things.

Couldn't you just parse the sentence into a dependency tree and look at the relationships to figure that out? CoreNLP got both of your examples right (try it at http://nlp.stanford.edu:8080/corenlp/process, can't link the result directly).

Re: Shirt Without Stripes

#360

Post by baddash »

aerovistae wrote: post #123

This comment would go from "unreadable" to "interesting" if you had phrased it as: "Vaguely similar to a joke from _the movie_ Ninotchka that _the Slovenian philosopher_ Zizek often uses...." Give people context. Don't assume people know what you know.

Saying this is unreadable is untrue. Also, I agree clear communication is important, but in this case it is highly trivial; if you don't know something that someone is referencing, a quick Google search immediately clarifies it. This is much like the fight couples have over keeping a toilet seat up or down: it doesn't really matter what you do or who does it. Because of that, you come across as querulous.

As an aside, I think that there are much more important factors to consider in regard to clarity and readability. I believe some of those are accurate articulation and logical tractability of ideas communicated.

Post reply on HN