Internet Search Company Execs Disagree on Future Search Technology
Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the 4-people-with-5-opinions dept.
Techie writes A panel of search engine executives at the Supernova 2006 conference in San Francisco agreed that there is still much that can be done to enhance the user's search experience, but seemed unable to agree on much else.
Lazy Customers
by
neonprimetime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Technorati's Sifry said people want devices to be more aware of factors such as location, so if they were in San Francisco searching for, say, a store, they would not have to specify their location.
But what loop holes will I have to jump thru if I'm in SF and want to search for a store in LA? How frickin' hard is it to type in... "San Fransisco Store"... as opposed to just "Store"?
Re:Lazy Customers
by
neonprimetime
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Wouldn't the premise be then that if you type "Los Angeles Store"... it would search the San Fransisco stores for something named "Los Angeles Store?"... which brings up the question, how does it know if "Los Angeles" if the name of the city you're searching in, or the name of the product / store you're searching for?
Example: While in SF... use this technology to search for "Texas Roadhouse Steaks"... will it search for "Roadhouse Steaks" in Texas?... or "Texas Roadhouse Steaks" in SF?
Oh boy, I'm confused.
The Dog That Didn't Bark.
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Here we are, the conference agenda, and the talk...
4:30pm Panel: From Search to Eternity
[Moderator: Chris Shipley (Guidewire Group), Kapenda Thomas (Jookster), David Sifry (Technorati), Jim Lanzone (Ask.com), Leila Boujnane (Idee)]
Search engines are the dominant interface for the Web today, and a huge force in driving economic activity online. What's next for search? It seems unlikely that we have reached the end-point of significant technical or business evolution in this incredibly active area.
I can think of... one company that's 10^100 (a googol) times more likely to have something meaningful to say when it comes to "what's next for search", but which wasn't represented on this panel.
Not that I'm naming names or anything. But who's missing from this panel?
Re:Agree?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ah, no.
What the parent was saying is that when I search for "clutch Ferrari explosion diagram", I don't want ads for fucking mechanic's shops. I want an explosion diagram - NOT FUCKING ADS TO SELL ME SHIT IN THE SEARCH RESULTS! On the side is Ok. I just REALLY hate it when I need information and I click on a (seemingly) related link and all I get is a sales spiel.
Bullshit!
Re:Just off the top of my head....
by
saddino
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The free search agent CQ web uses this exact strategy, but programatically rather than via human modding. For example, if you search for "tom cruise" in Google via CQ web, it will ingest the content of the first 100 results and then use all that data to determine a baseline of statistically significant keywords and phrases (e.g. "mission impossible", "katie holmes", "chuch of scientology"). Then, CQ web re-evaluates the relevance of each result based on its "closeness" to the baseline. This generally moves spam pages out of the way and pushes up content rich sites. Plus, a quick glance of key words and phrases allows you to get "good results up front" by allowing you to decide what subcategory to dig into for more information.
Thing is that shit works. I just clicked on the "breasts!" link, I couldn't help myself:).
-- Oh no... it's the future.
Re:Well, if there's one thing I'd wish for...
by
doti
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Well, if there's one thing I'd wish for... It'd be an operator to test for the age of the document I'm searching. If I already searched for something a month ago, and to search again to check for something new, I could search for "something age:-30d".
But I don't know if would make much sense, as file date info are generally not very reliable (ex, cp --preserve-timestamps is not the default).
Slashdot Mirror
Technorati's Sifry said people want devices to be more aware of factors such as location, so if they were in San Francisco searching for, say, a store, they would not have to specify their location.
... "San Fransisco Store" ... as opposed to just "Store"?
But what loop holes will I have to jump thru if I'm in SF and want to search for a store in LA? How frickin' hard is it to type in
I can think of... one company that's 10^100 (a googol) times more likely to have something meaningful to say when it comes to "what's next for search", but which wasn't represented on this panel.
Not that I'm naming names or anything. But who's missing from this panel?
What the parent was saying is that when I search for "clutch Ferrari explosion diagram", I don't want ads for fucking mechanic's shops. I want an explosion diagram - NOT FUCKING ADS TO SELL ME SHIT IN THE SEARCH RESULTS! On the side is Ok. I just REALLY hate it when I need information and I click on a (seemingly) related link and all I get is a sales spiel.
Bullshit!
The free search agent CQ web uses this exact strategy, but programatically rather than via human modding. For example, if you search for "tom cruise" in Google via CQ web, it will ingest the content of the first 100 results and then use all that data to determine a baseline of statistically significant keywords and phrases (e.g. "mission impossible", "katie holmes", "chuch of scientology"). Then, CQ web re-evaluates the relevance of each result based on its "closeness" to the baseline. This generally moves spam pages out of the way and pushes up content rich sites. Plus, a quick glance of key words and phrases allows you to get "good results up front" by allowing you to decide what subcategory to dig into for more information.
Thing is that shit works. I just clicked on the "breasts!" link, I couldn't help myself :).
Oh no... it's the future.
Well, if there's one thing I'd wish for...
It'd be an operator to test for the age of the document I'm searching.
If I already searched for something a month ago, and to search again to check for something new, I could search for "something age:-30d".
But I don't know if would make much sense, as file date info are generally not very reliable (ex, cp --preserve-timestamps is not the default).
factor 966971: 966971