Slashdot Mirror
Google Partners With Twitter For Search
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Google blog, it has partnered up with Twitter to bring tweets into its search results in the next few months. While this is exciting news, how the feature is going to present itself is a huge question. Indiblogger presents a comprehensive list of how it should be. From the article, the points discussed are: relevance of tweets with the search term, twitter and Google advertising, even a Google-Twitter API."
Twitter cut deals with Bing and Google.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
As I don't want my porn collection to appear on search engines........ Long live privacy!
The funniest part is the news articles presenting the Bing partnership as an exclusive one.
Bet Steve's tossing chairs now.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Why the f**k would I want to have mindless twits mixed in with my search results?
As long as I can turn it off. Permanently in my login profile.
I do not want the inane ramblings of some twittering teen-ager littering my Google results.
That was fast. Yesterday Bing announced they were going to integrate realtime Twitter and Facebook status updates into search. Competition is good, but Bing will have to find a better strategy.
This will be good in getting tweet-sized breaking news from Google.
Leo Laporte and This Week In Google covered this with an interview with Google.
Basically it boils down to: Twitter results can be valuable for real-time, breaking news. Less so after the fact. If you googled for "Trafigura" a week or so ago, you wouldn't have seen much of interest. If you searched Twitter whilst it was breaking news of the injunction, it was full of info. Google are savvy with search and I'm sure they've got this all factored into PageRank already.
It's time for Twoogle!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Just because the press doesn't do their jobs anymore...
Here's the Telegraph's article...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/6401062/Microsofts-Bing-signs-landmark-deals-with-Twitter-and-Facebook.html
I quote (emphasis mine):
Great. I'm sure that with Twitter messages in the search results they'll just become so packed with information. After all, 140chars can hol<eof>
I can see this being immediately useful for news searching, as tweets tend to be an extremely fast source for breaking news in all fields. Twitter has also been useful for finding interesting articles on topics relevant to my interests (security, IT and a bit of politics), so tapping this could open up a lot of information previously hidden behind Twitter's walls.
Oh yeah, right, twitter is a game-changer that can overthrow governments. Good job they did in Iran, wot?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm going to get 140,000,000 hits of "RT @mrmarky RIP Kayne West Imma let you finish, but balloon boy had the best hoax of all time lol!"
Fuck.
What?
This does not seem to be a good thing. I find that Google already brings up far too much noise in the form of forum posts. All this does is add a whole new level of noise.
I dare say Demi Moore will find this useful, but I do not want this at all. I guess I now have to add a "-twitter" along with the "-ebay -amazon -wikipedia", etc qualifiers in order to actually find something of value.
Most of the content on produced on twitter is complete garbage,
Clicking and reading any of the trending topics makes your wish you where eating your own excrement instead.
It would be nice if this could just be a preference, sort of like include special opt in from twitter, else just keep my searches the way they are....also by default this option is selected keep it the way it is, I hate having to rechange everything configured each patch.
The indiblogger blog linked to in the summary isn't exactly providing an insightful or groundbreaking list of ideas. A search engine considering relevance of results? They should look into how they are going to perform indexing? Not exactly redefining the genre when it comes to search engine design considerations.
More crap and nonsense for Google to index.
So you are safe.
Only Micro$ost Bink will parse Twits...
Ooo... The irony!
And the earlier announcement that Bing has also signed a Twitter & Facebook search deal??
Oh right, slashdot.
Great, more useless results to sift through.....
Honestly, given the nature of the site and the kind of communication it promotes, I wonder whether there is any *original* information that can be found in there. I mean, great scientists, philosophers and artists did exchange letters in the past, but even if we're talking about some real geniuses, I don't see how the "tweet" format can ever contain anything more than shit. It's not easy to convey a properly argumented original thought in 160 characters... So, in the end I don't see why anyone would care to search tweeter data at all. Other maybe for the purpose of some obscure IgNobel-worthy research or in the case of stalkers following the hot star of the moment (when exactly did she pee? that is the question...).
P.
I'm not interested in twitter and I'm already annoyed by the huge amount of auto generated blog pages that result from google searches these days. I'm using Wikipedia more and more than Google to search things because with Wikipedia I know I'll get an interesting page as result, not some unwitty blog page. And now even MORE twitter and similar things are going to mixed into this? No thanks.
Ironically when Gmail and Google go down, I search Twitter to see if it's just me or if anyone else is experiencing it too.
So Google's signal to noise ratio just dropped through the floor. Each day it'll now be indexing several million variations on "I just ate a delicious sandwich for lunch - yum!" and other such high-quality Twitter content.
#DeleteChrome
I can't wait to Twiggle something.
What happened to "site:twitter.com"
That usually works for me.. if I ever had had the need to catch up on inane 140 char rants
I see I am not in disagreement with anyone as to the additional clutter that this will likely add to our search results. It seems that Google continuously piles more straw on the metaphorical haystack, leaving the few needles of information I seek buried ever deeper. The thing is that all those pieces of straw really have strings attached in the form of metadata. Google knows - or should know - where all the pages they index come from. They should be able to relatively easily categorize those sites as manufacturer's sites, shopping sites, news sites, magazine sites, truly educational sites, blogs, forums, etc. But it seems Google cuts all those strings when they pile the indexed pages into the haystack leaving me to sort through them manually. Isn't that what we invented computers for? If they would simply leave the strings attached and allow users to "pull them" then we could simply choose not to receive results from shopping sites or whatever. As it is, looking for a manufacturer's specifications on something can be maddening because of all the shopping sites that come up instead. (Remember, one does not always know the URL to a manufacturer's web site.)
In effect, I wish Google would institute a system wherein we could check off or uncheck which types of sites we would like to receive search results from.
P.S. What the heck is wrong with this text edit box. The text cursor only shows up when I hover the mouse over some portions of the text in this box. When I hover over other portions the regular pointer cursor is displayed. If I click when that pointer is displayed it does not place the cursor into that location in the text. Instead it selects the box within the HTML and typing does not go into the box (the box does not have focus). This is a real pain. The code on Slashdot is getting worse with every revision. Geez, it even prevents me from selecting text in some locations even if I have already started the selection drag. This is insane! Please bring back the old editor.
I'm trying to figure out what kind of useful/relevant information a tweet could contain. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why people use twitter. Does that make me old or just not a narcissist?
Honestly, I don't understand the necessity of people to document the minutiae of their lives. Nobody cares that you just ate a cheese and mustard sandwich, and now have gas. I came up with this little gem discussing twitter the other day:
"What's in a name? that which we call a turd
By any other name would smell as tweet."
That about sums it up (with apologies to Willy the Shake, Romeo and his SO.)
your probably right, for mainstream media news stories anyway, most of the tweets would be pointless repeating.
but what about news that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear?
for example, anti-olympic protesters at the upcoming games in Vancouver BC could use this to search for first hand accounts of the protests. i could see co-ordinators using this service to communicate with protestors in realtime to amplify and distribute virally what will be posted on sites like indymedia.org.
that is but one example, i can think of a lot more types of first person, accurate, original news that the likes of Reuters, CNN, NBC and Fox wouldn't like you to hear.
not that im saying thats good justification for enabling google to search tweets, that particular kingdom of retardedness can stay outta my search results please.
I dont understand the point of all of this? How will joining twitter into google searches bring me more porn?
and nothing of value was found..
Twitter does have its (commercial) uses but there seems to be such an enormous amount of crap posted and 'retweeted' ad infinitum. I hope bing/google can reliably filter and sort it so only good stuff surfaces but I have my doubts.
Over the past two years, it seems that Google has been redesigning their search system for dumber and dumber users. They now seem to be targeting the room-temp IQ crowd.
Google used to just suggest spelling corrections. Now, it applies them. If you don't want spelling correction, you must put the search term in quotes. This leads to results like the one for "ndia intellectual property", where NDIA is the National Defense Industrial Association. Google gives back mostly results about "India", not "NDIA". This happens on all searches where the term searched is near a common word.
Then there's the missing word problem. It used to be that if you searched for several words, all the words had to be present. That's no longer true. Google will return results it likes that don't contain some of the words. If you want to insist that a word be present, you have to quote it.
Microsoft has already implemented this in Bing (www.bing.com/twitter/) and Google is just announcing...vaporwarwe? That's sort of funny.
Can I just contradict all the pessimists here for a sec? The only people I know who currently use Twitter are techies who use it to exchange systems support tidbits with each other. Things like "How do I make Cyrus IMAP listen on an alternate port?"
As long as the questions come with subsequent answers, Google will probably do a good job with this stuff. And don't forget the information value in any links provided in response tweets.
(BTW I don't use Twitter myself, and have never even tried it)
this is about the most donotwant that i've seen in a while.
not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
There you go, I did it for both already. Let me know where to pick up my check.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...