Slashdot Mirror


'Reading Level' Filter Added To Google Search

entotre writes "A new feature has been added to the advanced Google search: reading level. From the blog post: 'The feature lets you filter or annotate the search results by reading level. The reading levels include basic, intermediate and advanced. You can either have Google label or annotate the results with those labels, only show basic results, only show intermediate results or only show advanced results.' At the time of writing, Slashdot is 1 % advanced, 64 % intermediate and 34 % basic."

23 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. But... by Kev92486 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How am I supposed to choose the correct filter when I don't know what the word "intermediate" means?!

    1. Re:But... by TheWarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps Google should set it on basic by default. It's not like people would notice the internet getting any dumber.

    2. Re:But... by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How am I supposed to choose the correct filter when I don't know what the word "intermediate" means?!

      I assume this act of Google means reading level will soon be influencing page rank, results sorting, and more basic documents will begin to appear first

      No problem. Stories will be at the top. The top ones will explain what intermediate is

      Website operators will have to act. To keep their top spot.

      Writers will need to make their sites basic.

      Advanced grammar will go away.

      Compound sentences will be banned.

      Most pronouns will be banned.

      Most contractions will be banned.

      Making lists of things in one sentence will be banned.

      Pages that do banned things will be hard to find.

    3. Re:But... by noidentity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This seems to be a useful junk filter. Do your search normally. If you get too much spam, try restricting to intermediate or advanced. I'm going to be using this all the time now.

    4. Re:But... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do I have this horrible vision of LOLcats pages getting the first page on any result you might be looking for on a "basic" setting?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:But... by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can haz slashdot.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    6. Re:But... by vidnet · · Score: 3, Informative

      After playing around with it, I get the impression that it's not literary reading level, but technical reading level. Unlike the Fleisch-Kincaid test that uses the lengths of words and sentences, Google's test seems less concerned with long sentences and more with the choice of words. This is arguably a better way to go about it, but it's a luxury Fleisch-Kincaid can't afford in it's single line definition.

      For example, searching for random phrases from War and Peace by Tolstoy returns 0% Advanced results. The simple english wikipedia page for dissection, which is readable to excess but contains some technical terms ("To dissect is to cut up a body so as to reveal its structure. The body could be that of a human, an animal, or a plant. ") classifies as Advanced.

      I definitely agree with your view on basic grammar, and Google's method ensures that basic grammar about advanced topics will still be classified as advanced.

    7. Re:But... by theaveng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oooo fun! (from highest to lowest Reading Level)

      foxnews is 2% advanced and 73% intermediate
      cnn.com is 2% advanced and 70% intermediate
      pbs.org/news is 1% advanced - 84% intermediate
      slashdot is 1% advanced and 64% intermediate.
      And the surprise:
      MSnbc is 0.5% advanced and 55% intermediate

      "Tut-tut. I think I am experiencing cognitive dissonance. Obviously this google formula is flawed because everyone knows NBC is the best source for unbiased news. And FOX #1 in reading level? Bah. Humbub." - MSnbc viewer smoking his pipe. (I'm just joking - put down the guillotine.)

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  2. Okay quick by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone sound smart!

    Derrida began speaking and writing publicly at a time when the French intellectual scene was experiencing an increasing rift between what could broadly be called "phenomenological" and "structural" approaches to understanding individual and collective life. For those with a more phenomenological bent the goal was to understand experience by comprehending and describing its genesis, the process of its emergence from an origin or event. For the structuralists, this was a problematic and misleading avenue of interrogation, and the "depth" and originality of experience could in fact only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential. It is in this context that in 1959 Derrida asks the question: Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?

    (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism#Theory)

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  3. Re:Simple English Wikipedia by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=images&tbs=rl%3A1&q=site%3Asimple.wikipedia.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Basic 28% Intermediate 55% Advanced 16% I think someone didn't live up to his claims!

    My word, if you made it any simpler you'd be down to words of three letters or less.

    (Tries it on own site.)

    100% BASIC?!? Oh, hell no. You don't use words like "beset" in basic writing.

    I do hereby put on my smartypants crown and declare this b0rken.

  4. Re:DURRRRR by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hahaha. Soon "Advanced" will be renamed to "Faggy and retarded" to aid comprehension.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  5. This. Is. AWESOME. by Seumas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally, I can just set Google to "filter everything below a third grade level" and never have to see 'Yahoo! Answers' spam cluttering up my search results!

  6. The following option is req'd for 95% of Americans by Godskitchen · · Score: 3, Funny

    -aliterate

  7. Re:High school math versus college math by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's English used in those math sites. You can express complex ideas in simple terms, and simple ideas in complex terms. It has nothing to do with the actual content.

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
  8. P.O.R.N. by gilbert644 · · Score: 5, Funny

    My quest for advanced level porn brought me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_outer_retinal_necrosis :(

  9. What about keyword searches? by tomp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's great and all, but what would be *really* cool, is if Google provided some way to search for pages that contain a specific word or phrase. Yeah, that would be cool. Some kind of search engine where I type in words and the search engine returns only pages that contain those words. Can Google work on that next?

    1. Re:What about keyword searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that would be sweet. Especially if it didn't filter out special characters commonly used in programming languages, like .:()[]{}

    2. Re:What about keyword searches? by metamechanical · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For Pete's sake, I've never understood why they didn't support some simple subset of regular expressions. Just "simple" stuff, like character classes and multipliers.

      Also, while I don't mind being corrected on my spelling (being that, despite trying to be diligent, I certainly make mistakes), what the heck is up with google flatly refusing to search for my exact text? It was fine when you searched for 'x,' they asked "do you actually mean y?" But now, it takes me three searches before I figure out the magic phrasing that will actually do my search and not return "corrected" results.

      --
      If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
  10. Re:The following option is req'd for 95% of Americ by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

    They already have that option, but it's labeled Images.

  11. Re:Simple English Wikipedia by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't use words like "beset" in basic writing.

    Sure you do. "I want my TV to beset to channel 8".

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  12. Re:Reading level is useless by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In what sense is it a "guideline"? Perfectly clear text can get a poor readability index, incomprehensible text can get good readability.

    A reading index is just like a measuring tape. It can't tell you that you built a crappy house with crooked walls and a leaky roof; it can only tell you that something is 40 feet long by 30 feet wide.

    A reading index is a tool that simplifies understanding, reducing a very complex thing to a simple number that's useful for comparisons. Just like you can use the measurements of the house to figure out that it's 1,200 square feet, you can compare that to a house that is 2,400 square feet. Neither measurement tells you the quality of the construction, the color, the flooring, the lot size, or the neighborhood. But if you're looking for a home for a family of six, knowing the floor space is one thing that can help weed out the useless candidates quickly. If you're looking for a book for first graders, you don't trot out a book with a reading index of 18.

    And claiming it doesn't work on incomprehensible text is like complaining that a measuring tape can't tell you the color of a house. A reading index is not an interpreter of syntax, grammar, spelling, or any other attribute of text. It just measures one simple set of dimensions of text.

    A reading scoring system can only give you an indication, not a guarantee, of what kind of audience should be able to comprehend a given piece of text; and it can give you an indication of relative difficulty. For example, the widely used Flesch-Kincaid Readability Index bases its score on the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables per word, and outputs a "grade level". The grade levels were probably modeled on the textbooks and lesson books of the era in which it was developed. Is it still relevant? Perhaps the actual grade levels are different these days, but it's still a widely accepted model because it's useful for what it does provide.

    --
    John
  13. Re:The following option is req'd for 95% of Americ by Adambomb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, alliteration almost always annoys any average American audience.

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
  14. Re:Reading level is useless by toetagger · · Score: 5, Funny


    A reading index is just like a measuring tape. It can't tell you that you built a crappy house with crooked walls and a leaky roof; it can only tell you that something is 40 feet long by 30 feet wide.</p></quote>

    Not true!

    If the measuring tape is wet, then the roof must be leaking!
    If the measuring tape is swinging, then the house must have a draft!
    If the measuring tape is white, then even snow is getting in!
    If you can't see the measuring tape, then your electricity is out!
    And if you have a candle, and you still can't see it, then it must be foggy!

    I'm sure there is more than this that a measuring tape could tell you, if you would be creative!