4 ms·

The word "Compete" here is misleading. It's rather: I wish people would build better products than Google's. According to you, Google should send users to a st

The word "Compete" here is misleading. It's rather: I wish people would build better products than Google's. According to you, Google should send users to a strictly worse app, so that it can become better over time? And unless it requires a lot of user data to become a better app, I don't see why it needs traffic from Google to become a better product. Once it is an arguably better product, then yes, Google should definitely link to it first.

onion2k 6y ago
Once it is an arguably better product, then yes, Google should definitely link to it first. Google Search should list the websites that best match the user's search terms ordered by a fair Pagerank score that doesn't emphasise Google's own properties. That's it. Google shouldn't be making subjective decisions about "site quality" (objective factors like speed, mobile optimization, malware etc are OK..). If I search for "Sunderland"[1] I get 3 news stories about the local football team and the next 50% of the page is Google Maps... [1] https://imgur.com/a/1YAc6hE https://imgur.com/a/1YAc6hE
- baddox 6y ago
  What about click through rate and time spent on site? Those are objective, Google probably has the data in many cases, and Google’s own products (like Maps) probably do the best on those metrics.
  - Jasper_ 6y ago
    If I spent a lot of time on a site, does that mean I am enjoying the site and rewarding it with time, or having trouble finding information and need to use it for longer? Data doesn't tell you everything.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      I'm assuming when they see when a search click is the final click vs when the user comes back to click on something else instead. I'm assuming for most people, Maps/Translate widgets are their final destination.
- jacobr1 6y ago
  I generally agree with your motivation. But spam/fraud and even semi-legit SEO gaming have basically made ignoring the "subjective" infeasible. There needs to a be some sort of "semantic" filter that returns results not just based on PageRank/TFIDF information but also some modeling of likely intent behind the query.
- xapata 6y ago
  I care about speed, mobile optimization, and malware. Generalizing from my observation of myself, I expect others do as well.
  - dmoy 6y ago
    And spam. Don't forget that with just base pagerank, all you'd get today is spam.
    - the_other 6y ago
      With the first page of results being mostly Google or paid ads, spam is roughly what we have today, too.
      - xapata 6y ago
        I like Google's integrated approach. I don't see it as spam, which would be ads that I don't wish to see. I've tried other services, but prefer Google Maps, Google Flights, etc.
- magicalist 6y ago
  > Google Search should list the websites that best match the user's search terms Ok, but define "best match". > ordered by a fair Pagerank score that doesn't emphasise Google's own properties Even ignoring link farming (which already ruined a lot of the web the first time around), inbound links to content is a proxy for quality of content, not an actual measure of quality of content. It's just offloading the subjective part of search quality to the wisdom of the crowd, which often does not work out.
  - 6510 6y ago
    I have the perfect formula. Just ignore how unrealistic it is. We divide the knowledge and information into disciplines. We create awards in each discipline. If you accumulate enough awards you are offered the option to dedicate your life to the topic without exit strategy. (Quitting would cost 100 million) unless the topic is no longer of public interest. You get: a house that you must live in, access to research facilities if (applicable), travel is pre-paid for if (applicable), a personal assistant who has to sign off on all of your expenses. You yourself are not allowed to have cash or a bank account, no vacation and contact with friends and relatives is forbidden unless they can prove they have relevant expertise or are also in such committee. Picture it, high priest of pokemon go. In charge of ordering search results and designing the portal widget. No discrimination for artificial humans, we do full robotmancipation.

onion2k 6y ago

Once it is an arguably better product, then yes, Google should definitely link to it first. Google Search should list the websites that best match the user's search terms ordered by a fair Pagerank score that doesn't emphasise Google's own properties. That's it. Google shouldn't be making subjective decisions about "site quality" (objective factors like speed, mobile optimization, malware etc are OK..). If I search for "Sunderland"[1] I get 3 news stories about the local football team and the next 50% of the page is Google Maps... [1] https://imgur.com/a/1YAc6hE https://imgur.com/a/1YAc6hE

baddox 6y ago
What about click through rate and time spent on site? Those are objective, Google probably has the data in many cases, and Google’s own products (like Maps) probably do the best on those metrics.
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  If I spent a lot of time on a site, does that mean I am enjoying the site and rewarding it with time, or having trouble finding information and need to use it for longer? Data doesn't tell you everything.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    I'm assuming when they see when a search click is the final click vs when the user comes back to click on something else instead. I'm assuming for most people, Maps/Translate widgets are their final destination.
jacobr1 6y ago
I generally agree with your motivation. But spam/fraud and even semi-legit SEO gaming have basically made ignoring the "subjective" infeasible. There needs to a be some sort of "semantic" filter that returns results not just based on PageRank/TFIDF information but also some modeling of likely intent behind the query.
xapata 6y ago
I care about speed, mobile optimization, and malware. Generalizing from my observation of myself, I expect others do as well.
- dmoy 6y ago
  And spam. Don't forget that with just base pagerank, all you'd get today is spam.
  - the_other 6y ago
    With the first page of results being mostly Google or paid ads, spam is roughly what we have today, too.
    - xapata 6y ago
      I like Google's integrated approach. I don't see it as spam, which would be ads that I don't wish to see. I've tried other services, but prefer Google Maps, Google Flights, etc.
magicalist 6y ago
> Google Search should list the websites that best match the user's search terms Ok, but define "best match". > ordered by a fair Pagerank score that doesn't emphasise Google's own properties Even ignoring link farming (which already ruined a lot of the web the first time around), inbound links to content is a proxy for quality of content, not an actual measure of quality of content. It's just offloading the subjective part of search quality to the wisdom of the crowd, which often does not work out.
- 6510 6y ago
  I have the perfect formula. Just ignore how unrealistic it is. We divide the knowledge and information into disciplines. We create awards in each discipline. If you accumulate enough awards you are offered the option to dedicate your life to the topic without exit strategy. (Quitting would cost 100 million) unless the topic is no longer of public interest. You get: a house that you must live in, access to research facilities if (applicable), travel is pre-paid for if (applicable), a personal assistant who has to sign off on all of your expenses. You yourself are not allowed to have cash or a bank account, no vacation and contact with friends and relatives is forbidden unless they can prove they have relevant expertise or are also in such committee. Picture it, high priest of pokemon go. In charge of ordering search results and designing the portal widget. No discrimination for artificial humans, we do full robotmancipation.