3 ms·
This is way overthinking it. The search engines aren't semantically analyzing the images. They are just matching nearby text.
by lonelappde 7y ago
This is way overthinking it. The search engines aren't semantically analyzing the images. They are just matching nearby text.
- wyattpeak 7y agoI agree the parent is overthinking it, but that's underthinking it. It's been a long time since search engines were mere text matchers.
- liveoneggs 6y agonow they are product matchers
- uniqueid 7y agoI’m uncomfortable with your use of “mere.” It might connote that what Google Search does now is an improvement.
- wyattpeak 7y agoAnd that's exactly what I mean to connote, text matches make for appalling search. I have the same reservations about Google as anyone, but rewriting history is never the right move. Moving beyond text matching was what made search truly useful.
- uniqueid 7y ago> Moving beyond text matching was > what made search truly useful. PageRank is what made Google more useful than its competition. They had it since the beginning, and I like it. What I don't like is to search for the band "Chrisma" and get results for "fruitcake sale!" because Google corrected my spelling to "Christmas", decided to look for related concepts, and then boost whichever result is the most mercantile.
- wyattpeak 7y ago> They had it since the beginning Yes, they have. Read what I said again, I don't dispute this. What Google does now is an improvement over text matchers. I never claimed that what they do now is better than Google circa 2000 (though I don't care to register an opinion either way on that). Whatever they've done since, their product remains better than text matchers. Mercantile search is better than terrible search.