6 ms·

Really great to see some actual non incremental innovation happening in the search space. When looking at Golden's value prop, it becomes clear that Google has

by fab1an 6y ago

Really great to see some actual non incremental innovation happening in the search space. When looking at Golden's value prop, it becomes clear that Google has actually been somewhat, ehm, lazy when it comes to making search better, relying almost 100% on UGC to provide answers instead of trying to structure them in a concise way. Very curious to see where this leads!

xoxoy 6y ago
it’s more like a proprietary wikipedia than a google. at least that’s my impression playing around with it.
- troymc 6y ago
  I gather that the knowledge in Golden is more structured, making it more like a database than a wiki, i.e. more like Wikidata or Semantic MediaWiki than Wikipedia.
  - fab1an 6y ago
    it looks like a mix of Wikipedia, Google and a Bloomberg terminal
- newguy1234 6y ago
  I could see this being used more for research type of work. Wikipedia is good for the high-level/popular topics but for very specific fields, there won't be anything significant. Think of areas like drug research.
treelovinhippie 6y ago
> Very curious to see where this leads! Well they took VC. So it won't lead anywhere interesting other than value enclosure and exit to surveillance capitalism.
newguy1234 6y ago
I agree as well with google. When google first showed up, it was a breakthrough since the quality of the results were so good compared to what we are used to. Fast forward to today - more data, more websites and so on has resulted in new problems and I think Google has not kept up. Just because a website has been around for a decade or has 50,000 backlinks doesn't mean it is still good today. Information might be obsolete. Websites like this usually rank high in the search results page while being low-value. Meanwhile, higher-value websites that are more recent get lower rankings even though the quality is superior. Google is not able to make these connections. It seems like AI might be able to improve the quality of search results if applied correctly.
- sethherr 6y ago
  To the contrary, new websites with garbage content, swamped by ads - but published recently - often rank above actual quality sites with well written content from 10 years ago. Not saying what you described doesn’t happen, but both are problems.
paxys 6y ago
Google has had various products and efforts over the years to do exactly that, so I'm not sure if "lazy" is the right word. Knol was doomed from the start because it foolishly went head-to-head with Wikipedia. Other efforts, like Freebase, were fairly successful, and knowledge graph today is pretty great for what it does, both as part of search results but even more so when powering their ML/vision/NLP APIs. Looking through Golden's website they seem to want to do all of the same, but using their own (also user-contributed) content, aiming to make it accessible and valuable enough that companies will pay $1000 per month per employee (!) for it. I know almost nothing about the product so will hold off too much judgement, but that sounds like a pipe dream.

by fab1an 6y ago

xoxoy 6y ago

it’s more like a proprietary wikipedia than a google. at least that’s my impression playing around with it.

troymc 6y ago
I gather that the knowledge in Golden is more structured, making it more like a database than a wiki, i.e. more like Wikidata or Semantic MediaWiki than Wikipedia.
- fab1an 6y ago
  it looks like a mix of Wikipedia, Google and a Bloomberg terminal
newguy1234 6y ago
I could see this being used more for research type of work. Wikipedia is good for the high-level/popular topics but for very specific fields, there won't be anything significant. Think of areas like drug research.

treelovinhippie 6y ago

> Very curious to see where this leads! Well they took VC. So it won't lead anywhere interesting other than value enclosure and exit to surveillance capitalism.

newguy1234 6y ago

I agree as well with google. When google first showed up, it was a breakthrough since the quality of the results were so good compared to what we are used to. Fast forward to today - more data, more websites and so on has resulted in new problems and I think Google has not kept up. Just because a website has been around for a decade or has 50,000 backlinks doesn't mean it is still good today. Information might be obsolete. Websites like this usually rank high in the search results page while being low-value. Meanwhile, higher-value websites that are more recent get lower rankings even though the quality is superior. Google is not able to make these connections. It seems like AI might be able to improve the quality of search results if applied correctly.

sethherr 6y ago
To the contrary, new websites with garbage content, swamped by ads - but published recently - often rank above actual quality sites with well written content from 10 years ago. Not saying what you described doesn’t happen, but both are problems.

paxys 6y ago

Google has had various products and efforts over the years to do exactly that, so I'm not sure if "lazy" is the right word. Knol was doomed from the start because it foolishly went head-to-head with Wikipedia. Other efforts, like Freebase, were fairly successful, and knowledge graph today is pretty great for what it does, both as part of search results but even more so when powering their ML/vision/NLP APIs. Looking through Golden's website they seem to want to do all of the same, but using their own (also user-contributed) content, aiming to make it accessible and valuable enough that companies will pay $1000 per month per employee (!) for it. I know almost nothing about the product so will hold off too much judgement, but that sounds like a pipe dream.