5 ms·

Shame on Google algorithms for not automatically being able to detect a page without content. Over the years, my view of the Google's ranking algorithms went f

Shame on Google algorithms for not automatically being able to detect a page without content. Over the years, my view of the Google's ranking algorithms went from dream-like (they are so smart they understand everything) to infant-like (just a bunch of keyword counters). Obviously there has to be huge complexity involved, so my current view must be pessimistic, but still... Just one (unrelated) example: search for "leader in online used cars" in Google. Does every human understand what I'm looking for? Here's search result #5: "Indian holy leader and BA stewardess arrested over prostitution".

michael_dorfman 17y ago
Damn, you're going to feel pretty foolish if it ends up that either the Indian holy leader or the BA stewardess are among the current leaders in online used car sales.
- alain94040 17y ago
  I would :-) That being said, just to add fuel to the fire, I did the same search on bing. All results were relevant, unlike Google's. But none of them gave me the answer I was looking for.
scott_s 17y ago
Google is a tool, and like all tools, you need to learn how to use it. Two of your keywords are unnecessary, and I think that caused the problem. First, you don't need "leader." If you're looking for the top of something, you already get that information from the ordering of results. Second, "online" is redundant, since anything you look for will probably be "online." (And I suppose you don't need "in," but I don't think Google used it anyway.) So then you're just left with "used cars." That result page looks reasonable to me.
- alain94040 17y ago
  You make my point better than I could! You just explained to me that my query, which every human understood perfectly, is stupidly understood as "used cars", so Google is a basic keyword algorithm and this still doesn't explain result #5. Really, I'm smart enough to understand your explanation of how the tool works. The problem is that I'm in the 99th percentile in the field of "computer keyword understanding" over the general Internet population. So what does that say about the tool?
  - froo 17y ago
    >So what does that say about the tool? That there is probably room in the market for more search engines - perhaps specifically ones that specialise in translating only human queries and returning results rather than trying to be more general like Google is. Like almost all professions that utilise tools in some way, sometimes you just need more specialised tools. A chef wouldn't be that great if he (or she) only had knives to cook with.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Honestly, I think you under-estimate the general population's ability to learn how to use a tool. I think being able to explain why the results are what they are takes another level of understanding. But I think - and, yes, this is an unsubstantiated claim based on personal bias and anecdote - that many people have developed an intuitive feel for how to craft a decent Google query. They may not be able to tell you why they say what they say, but they can still say it. Personally, I think Google is a good tool. I feel my mental model of it is relatively simple, and from that, I can mostly get what I want. This is also a good time to plug a great article on tools: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram-alpha-and-hubristic-user.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram... edit: My explanation was not that Google understand your search to be "used cars." My explanation was based on the assumption that you were looking for a place, online, to buy used cars from. The keywords "online" and "leader," muddied that. The search for "used cars" yields many places to buy used cars from, and the top entries are probably the "leaders."
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  "First, you don't need "leader."" Unless he wanted to find a page writing about "leader," like a review, or even an ad, rather than the top google-ranked used car page itself.
krakensden 17y ago
The problem is that PageRank was a beautiful solution that pretty accurately modeled the web, as long as no one knew about PageRank.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  In electronics it is a well known fact that it is impossible to measure a system without influencing it. I think is no way you could ever build a successful search engine ranking algorithm that will not influence the web to the point where that algorithm will lose a lot of its initial edge.
MaysonL 17y ago
Interestingly, Googling your string, in quotes gives only ads and your post. ;-)

michael_dorfman 17y ago

Damn, you're going to feel pretty foolish if it ends up that either the Indian holy leader or the BA stewardess are among the current leaders in online used car sales.

alain94040 17y ago
I would :-) That being said, just to add fuel to the fire, I did the same search on bing. All results were relevant, unlike Google's. But none of them gave me the answer I was looking for.

scott_s 17y ago

Google is a tool, and like all tools, you need to learn how to use it. Two of your keywords are unnecessary, and I think that caused the problem. First, you don't need "leader." If you're looking for the top of something, you already get that information from the ordering of results. Second, "online" is redundant, since anything you look for will probably be "online." (And I suppose you don't need "in," but I don't think Google used it anyway.) So then you're just left with "used cars." That result page looks reasonable to me.

alain94040 17y ago
You make my point better than I could! You just explained to me that my query, which every human understood perfectly, is stupidly understood as "used cars", so Google is a basic keyword algorithm and this still doesn't explain result #5. Really, I'm smart enough to understand your explanation of how the tool works. The problem is that I'm in the 99th percentile in the field of "computer keyword understanding" over the general Internet population. So what does that say about the tool?
- froo 17y ago
  >So what does that say about the tool? That there is probably room in the market for more search engines - perhaps specifically ones that specialise in translating only human queries and returning results rather than trying to be more general like Google is. Like almost all professions that utilise tools in some way, sometimes you just need more specialised tools. A chef wouldn't be that great if he (or she) only had knives to cook with.
- scott_s 17y ago
  Honestly, I think you under-estimate the general population's ability to learn how to use a tool. I think being able to explain why the results are what they are takes another level of understanding. But I think - and, yes, this is an unsubstantiated claim based on personal bias and anecdote - that many people have developed an intuitive feel for how to craft a decent Google query. They may not be able to tell you why they say what they say, but they can still say it. Personally, I think Google is a good tool. I feel my mental model of it is relatively simple, and from that, I can mostly get what I want. This is also a good time to plug a great article on tools: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram-alpha-and-hubristic-user.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram... edit: My explanation was not that Google understand your search to be "used cars." My explanation was based on the assumption that you were looking for a place, online, to buy used cars from. The keywords "online" and "leader," muddied that. The search for "used cars" yields many places to buy used cars from, and the top entries are probably the "leaders."
nfnaaron 17y ago
"First, you don't need "leader."" Unless he wanted to find a page writing about "leader," like a review, or even an ad, rather than the top google-ranked used car page itself.

krakensden 17y ago

The problem is that PageRank was a beautiful solution that pretty accurately modeled the web, as long as no one knew about PageRank.

jacquesm 17y ago
In electronics it is a well known fact that it is impossible to measure a system without influencing it. I think is no way you could ever build a successful search engine ranking algorithm that will not influence the web to the point where that algorithm will lose a lot of its initial edge.

MaysonL 17y ago

Interestingly, Googling your string, in quotes gives only ads and your post. ;-)