5 ms·

I wonder how they are going to make this... Only based on timestamp? Based in "trusted sources"? Based in a new API?

by kuu 7y ago

danso 7y ago
Besides algorithms, they have a team of raters who manually evaluate the results. The rating guidelines are specifically enumerated in this guide: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh... For example, check out page 26 for their grid of "Examples of Highest Quality Pages" Algorithmic and signal-wise, there are common conventions in English-language journalism that signal "original reporting", or rather, not original reporting. Such as, "...as reported by" or "...', Rep. Smith told the Washington Post". Of course, not every publication uses those, so I'm guessing the trustiness of a site/source will come into play.
- dmg826 7y ago
  The human raters are used to assess the performance of the algorithms (i.e. do human opinions align with algorithmic ones), not to rank content directly. A recurring theme with Google is that they always want to solve problems algorithmically.
  - danso 7y ago
    But leaning on automated algorithms seems like the only way to realistically scale for day-to-day needs? I was going to posit that Google seems like the company most open to mixing human and automated processes. But that's not necessarily fair to Facebook, for which moderating user content and interactions is a much different problem space than search rankings; and of course, YouTube seems to have the same issues as FB does.
  - dunkelheit 7y ago
    And what do they do with these human assessments then? Of course they feed them back to the algorithm so that it can improve. In effect it is still humans influencing the search rankings albeit indirectly. So it is a bit duplicitous to say that "it is the algorithm that decides" when there are humans providing learning data for it.
    - dmg826 7y ago
      It's still algorithm-first. It's not "learning data" in the sense that human ratings are used to train the algorithm. It's more of a check step. So, for example, if humans think one website is vastly more (or less) authoritative than human raters, the engineers might dig in to see which aspects are causing the algorithm to evaluate it differently and, potentially, test tweaking the algorithm accordingly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

I wonder how they are going to make this... Only based on timestamp? Based in "trusted sources"? Based in a new API?

by kuu 7y ago

I wonder how they are going to make this... Only based on timestamp? Based in "trusted sources"? Based in a new API?

Besides algorithms, they have a team of raters who manually evaluate the results. The rating guidelines are specifically enumerated in this guide: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterhub.com/en//searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh... For example, check out page 26 for their grid of "Examples of Highest Quality Pages" Algorithmic and signal-wise, there are common conventions in English-language journalism that signal "original reporting", or rather, not original reporting. Such as, "...as reported by" or "...', Rep. Smith told the Washington Post". Of course, not every publication uses those, so I'm guessing the trustiness of a site/source will come into play.

dmg826 7y ago
The human raters are used to assess the performance of the algorithms (i.e. do human opinions align with algorithmic ones), not to rank content directly. A recurring theme with Google is that they always want to solve problems algorithmically.
- danso 7y ago
  But leaning on automated algorithms seems like the only way to realistically scale for day-to-day needs? I was going to posit that Google seems like the company most open to mixing human and automated processes. But that's not necessarily fair to Facebook, for which moderating user content and interactions is a much different problem space than search rankings; and of course, YouTube seems to have the same issues as FB does.
- dunkelheit 7y ago
  And what do they do with these human assessments then? Of course they feed them back to the algorithm so that it can improve. In effect it is still humans influencing the search rankings albeit indirectly. So it is a bit duplicitous to say that "it is the algorithm that decides" when there are humans providing learning data for it.
  - dmg826 7y ago
    It's still algorithm-first. It's not "learning data" in the sense that human ratings are used to train the algorithm. It's more of a check step. So, for example, if humans think one website is vastly more (or less) authoritative than human raters, the engineers might dig in to see which aspects are causing the algorithm to evaluate it differently and, potentially, test tweaking the algorithm accordingly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]