Slashdot Mirror
Google Unveils Search Options and Google Squared
CWmike writes "Saying that its users are becoming increasingly sophisticated, Google has unveiled a list of new search technologies geared to help users 'slice and dice' their Google search results, along with a new tool to help them cull information instead of Web pages. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Google's Search Products, said of Search Options in a blog post, 'We have spent a lot of time looking at how we can better understand the wide range of information that's on the Web and quickly connect people to just the nuggets they need at that moment.' Google Squared, set to be released to users as part of its Google Labs program later this month, pulls up information from different sites and presents it in an organized manner."
No thanks; wake me up when they come out with the "Google n*log(n)" version.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Culling data and presenting context-aware results is something that Wolfram is working on too.
Wolfram, a genuine genius, against a company full of above-average engineers. It's a tossup as to who came up with this idea first.
What, a google plex?
That's the number we used to represent just-short-of-infinity when having nerd arguments as kids in the 80s.
Infinity plex > infinity squared > infinity > google plex > google > thousands > a lot.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I wish Google had the ability to search for regular expressions and exact word matching. Searching for exact words or things that contain other symbols than letters is unfortunately very hard with Google and so sometimes it's useless in situations where it could have been so powerful.
This is an interesting take on the process of searching. In the past I thought good searching required training or insight, but this line of thinking - putting the onus on the search provider - is bold and interesting.
Will Google offer the traditional "colander with wires attached" USB device to read our minds and ignore what we type into the search box? If so, it better be free or people will complain.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
... would be the most important in my opinion of "user sophistication", a lot of times google will pull a lot of sites quite frankly should be able to be punished by users by users beign able to filter them out of their search results.
That might cause google to pause (ad revenue) but personally there's a lot of google manipulation and I'd love it if users could simply FILTER their results but NOT be able to change them and then let google study which sites are blocked or not to get an idea of how clueles (cluefull) their userbase is
Has anyone else noticed google's search results are a little too focused, or personalized? I am finding that useful search results that I had clicked on that were only tangenially related no longer come up when I search under the identical terms a second time. While this is good in most cases, I'd like a way to switch off this "focused laser" approach and open up my results more broadly without having to dig past the first 10 pages of results. I feel like google is so specific that I either find my result in the first three results or not at all these days. I feel like I am missing out on the wonders of finding cool stuff that you didn't know existed, since the results are too good and almost never off topic.
moox. for a new generation.
Google is just giving us an easier way to find pr0n on the tubes.
Is setting my "safe search" to off and will see you in the morning.
lets say you want to research Bulls-Pistons series in 1988 and you decide to use a squared which effectively parses and gets the data you want from Basketball-reference or one of those. Those sites will not get any page hits...
The future of search relies upon better parameters for the search.
Almost all searches are time-sensitive, but some are more time sensitive than others. When I'm looking for information about a piece of software the forum post from five years ago may or may not be relevant.
When I'm looking for information about the thinnest watch to buy, reading about a watch made over 30 years ago isn't appropriate.
Context is the big problem in search. The time sensitivity is one context. Product attributes is another. You can't (with the partial exception of Newegg and similar searches) search item properties in most cases. If you're buying a set of headphones not all headphones list their specs nor in the same way. There are a lot of other products besides headphones.
Sometimes the basic context is spot on, but it's still useless: a forum post of someone with the same question/problem I have, but it was never answered.
If you're considering a google plex to be analogous to a googolplex, then your post is wrong. A googolplex is 10^googol, not googol^googol.
What I really want to know is what is google to the power of google divided by the natural log to the power of Richard Stallman?
Later, we can try dividing by zero . . .
...(perl-style) regular expressions? Or at least allowing to search for non-alphanumeric characters?
Their search interface is a huge step backward from what old engines like HotBot offered.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Saying that its users are becoming increasingly sophisticated, Google has unveiled a list of new search technologies geared to help users 'slice and dice' their Google search results, along with a new tool to help them cull information instead of Web pages.
(emphasis mine)
And ten minutes after they release this for real, they get sued by thousands of websites claiming that they're circumventing their ad income or whatever by giving viewers an option to get the data without going to the website and thus not see the ads.
I mean, that's what the AP's whining about, right?
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
I remember around year 2000 there was am animated search engine that produced linked "bubbles" , with the diameter representing relevance. I guess it was Teoma (not sure). Anyone else remembers?
http://revj.sourceforge.net
Or does the image of Johnny 5 from the movie Short Circuit come to mind when thinking of Google?
"Need more input!!!!!!"
you pick up your log move it to where you want to divide and then drop it into place.
(and if you want to divide the natural log use a chainsaw)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Sounds to me like Google is simply launching a product to compete against Wolfram Alpha's pending release.
Both products have their problems.
Basically, they grab data from different websites and present it in a way that eliminates the necessity of visiting the actual site.
That's going to hurt a lot of website owners that depend on the traffic they get from Google.
I don't like it and expect a lot of webmasters to not like it either. If they use a separate bot to tabulate the data, it will quickly be blocked by many. If they use the current data they have and the same crawler then say goodbye to Google's dominance in the search market as people block google and request their sites be removed from the index.
With fewer sites in the index the search will become less useful and people will use other options.
What they are basically doing is building something like wikipedia dynamically. The difference is editors in wikipedia voluntarily contribute content. With these new tools, that's not the case.
Dual Opteron < $600
That reminds me of a joke one of my old math teachers told me once. Q: What's the integral of 1/cabin with respect to cabin? A: int(1/cabin)dcabin = ln(cabin) + C = log cabin plus sea = houseboat
I disagree. They're grabbing little enough data that it will--theoretically--allow people only to go to the sites that will really be helpful for them. Removing wasted time from the equation will be a positive net gain for users and webmasters alike. In an extreme example, if this separates out spammers with no-content-all-ads sites from sites that really provide a useful service, then it's good for everyone.
It may indeed hurt the people who run sites that are not in the top few sites in a crowded niche, but overall, I think a core snippet will help the best-run sites, not hurt them, in most cases.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Get real.