3 ms·
Are we sure this isn't just an experiment of theirs? Some 20% project from one of their engineers using info they already had at their disposal? For a side exp
by thorax 17y ago
Are we sure this isn't just an experiment of theirs? Some 20% project from one of their engineers using info they already had at their disposal?
For a side experiment, I'm not going to fault or bash any company-- we've got a few of our own experiments which aren't the prettiest/best sites in the world.
- algolicious 17y agoNope, they seem to think it reflects their vision: http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/08/introducing-cpedia-the-automated-encyclopedia http://www.cuil.com/info/blog/2010/04/08/introducing-cpedia-...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- thorax 17y agoWell, it does sound like the know it's more of a long-shot "weird" idea and they call it an "alpha". One quote from the blog: > At other times it is weird — it does reflect the web after all. I can see a lot of hackers wanting to try something like this and see if they can iteratively make it better and better and better. Doesn't this sort of a site sound like something people here would love to toy with? > For each query, Cpedia algorithmically summarizes and clusters the ideas on the web and uses this to generate a report. We do the heavy lifting of removing all the repetition, so that unique and novel content surfaces. I personally think it's cool for people to try weird things like this-- even if the attempts fail.
- i80and 17y agoI agree. While at the moment it's kind of cruddy in the current implementation, I gotta respect them for playing with what really is a fun idea. If they do manage to get it working better (extremely difficult and iffy), Cpedia could be a pretty cool tool.