5 ms·

My opinion hasn’t changed much since writing this (just disregard the blockchain commentary at the end): https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-beat-Google/an

My opinion hasn’t changed much since writing this (just disregard the blockchain commentary at the end): https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-beat-Google/answer/Mark-Nuzz?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-beat-Google/answer/M... A few competitors such as you.com are in the works. I think there’s a lot of potential, but the ranking algorithm is going to need to be decentralized (aka user-configurable) in some way. This configuration would also need to be sharable, maybe something akin to an App Store, because not all users can be asked to be technical enough to configure everything. There is an enormous amount of wasted value stemming from the disconnect between what Google thinks the user wants to see, and what the user actually wants to see. If I had to guess why this happened, I’m betting that Google and others had a notion that AI and other advances could eventually approximate a user’s needs to a degree that would keep up with the demand. But the monopoly set in and there was no longer an incentive to innovate that far. I’m sure Google tried, but not to a degree that would have happened if the competition had really stepped it up, or even existed. However, I’m sure by now there’s less optimism that the above effort is even a solvable problem, or one worth solving. One-size-fits-all is extremely suboptimal, but that paradigm is Google at its core. Without a paradigm shift, it’s diminishing returns all the way. What Google is good at, however, is monetizing what they do have. If you’re trying to challenge them in the monetization game, with the same business model competing for the same customers (advertisers), you most certainly will lose. Seriously, don’t do that. Get to unicorn status first. Focus on the tech, make sure the business model isn’t competing with the giants, and say no to any buyout offer from Big Tech.

p1esk 5y ago
the ranking algorithm is going to need to be decentralized (aka user-configurable) in some way What do you mean? What configuration options would you like?
- celdon25 5y ago
  Okay, one example: Suppose you're a gamer - You could configure search results related to gaming to be limited to games you own, games you want, the subset of platforms or genres you care about, games your friends own, and so on. It wouldn't be a priority for most search companies to make something like that, but it would certainly provide some value for certain people. Decentralized configuration would allow for communities with given interests to configure and distribute customizations for that audience, in a way that would appeal to that audience. It's not that farfetched of an idea, very realistic both from a tech and adoption POV. You.com is starting the building blocks of such a thing, but I don't know how far they're going to push the envelope. https://about.you.com/apps/ https://about.you.com/apps/
  - JSONderulo 5y ago
    I've been pretty stoked on you.com so far. I do like the ability to pick my search sources (apps). It would be cool to see search results for different genres/communities.
    - brentadamson 5y ago
      `see search results for different genres/communities` Can you elaborate?
      - JSONderulo 5y ago
        I just like and agree with conceptually Nuzzerino's idea above. "Decentralized configuration would allow for communities with given interests to configure and distribute customizations for that audience, in a way that would appeal to that audience."
        brentadamson 5y ago
        Couldn’t the user just use a !bang for that?
- faitswulff 5y ago
  I think 99.9% of users would hate to have to configure their search results.
  - celdon25 5y ago
    From parent comment: > This configuration would also need to be sharable, maybe something akin to an App Store, because not all users can be asked to be technical enough to configure everything.
    - faitswulff 5y ago
      That's still configuration. Sharing a config? Asking a friend for the best search algorithm? Most users are accustomed to just typing in their search query into random input fields and getting perfectly serviceable results.
      - celdon25 5y ago
        They're free to keep using Google if they want. My grandmother preferred AOL for many years after its prime. No shame in that. Or, as with any other software, there's this thing called a default, which usually works for the average user.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    The Google hate is so thick that people don't even think about what a Google competitor or replacement (that isn't Google rebranded) looks like. No user is looking to pass around configuration file, or have discoverability issues because they haven't joined the right community that has what they are looking for. People want an omnibox that takes them to what they are looking for, even if they don't know what that is, full stop. Needing to essentially have a Makefile to find out "Who is the main actor in Spider-Man" is dead on arrival.
    - mgkimsal 5y ago
      Absolutely no need to provide a makefile. But... there can be multiple selectable algorithms for people to choose from, and eventually some ways to configure those to your needs. Having results come up that are also explicitly labelled "You are viewing results through the FOOBAR lens - click here to use another lens". Our results are already skewed by factors that we don't have much visibility in to - being more explicit/transparent about it, while giving people some ability to influence/change the lens they view results through would be useful.
bsdetector 5y ago
> the disconnect between what Google thinks the user wants to see, and what the user actually wants to see. Results being what Google wants the user to see seems to be the real problem. Youtube for example in the past would show suggestions from small channels that were interesting and fun, but now you can't even find them in search using an exact video title. I've seen Google News completely shut out a breaking news story for half a day and the only reason I can think of was the ranking AI saw some 'bad' words in every story - even from NYT/WaPo, whose articles were among the many dozens on Bing News. Presumably they've applied their anti-"I hated it" ideas to Search as well. So now is a great time to compete with Google because they're handicapping themselves and even though they could just turn off the bias and return good results, they probably would rather lose than stop trying to influence users.

p1esk 5y ago

the ranking algorithm is going to need to be decentralized (aka user-configurable) in some way What do you mean? What configuration options would you like?

celdon25 5y ago
Okay, one example: Suppose you're a gamer - You could configure search results related to gaming to be limited to games you own, games you want, the subset of platforms or genres you care about, games your friends own, and so on. It wouldn't be a priority for most search companies to make something like that, but it would certainly provide some value for certain people. Decentralized configuration would allow for communities with given interests to configure and distribute customizations for that audience, in a way that would appeal to that audience. It's not that farfetched of an idea, very realistic both from a tech and adoption POV. You.com is starting the building blocks of such a thing, but I don't know how far they're going to push the envelope. https://about.you.com/apps/ https://about.you.com/apps/
- JSONderulo 5y ago
  I've been pretty stoked on you.com so far. I do like the ability to pick my search sources (apps). It would be cool to see search results for different genres/communities.
  - brentadamson 5y ago
    `see search results for different genres/communities` Can you elaborate?
    - JSONderulo 5y ago
      I just like and agree with conceptually Nuzzerino's idea above. "Decentralized configuration would allow for communities with given interests to configure and distribute customizations for that audience, in a way that would appeal to that audience."
      - brentadamson 5y ago
        Couldn’t the user just use a !bang for that?
faitswulff 5y ago
I think 99.9% of users would hate to have to configure their search results.
- celdon25 5y ago
  From parent comment: > This configuration would also need to be sharable, maybe something akin to an App Store, because not all users can be asked to be technical enough to configure everything.
  - faitswulff 5y ago
    That's still configuration. Sharing a config? Asking a friend for the best search algorithm? Most users are accustomed to just typing in their search query into random input fields and getting perfectly serviceable results.
    - celdon25 5y ago
      They're free to keep using Google if they want. My grandmother preferred AOL for many years after its prime. No shame in that. Or, as with any other software, there's this thing called a default, which usually works for the average user.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  The Google hate is so thick that people don't even think about what a Google competitor or replacement (that isn't Google rebranded) looks like. No user is looking to pass around configuration file, or have discoverability issues because they haven't joined the right community that has what they are looking for. People want an omnibox that takes them to what they are looking for, even if they don't know what that is, full stop. Needing to essentially have a Makefile to find out "Who is the main actor in Spider-Man" is dead on arrival.
  - mgkimsal 5y ago
    Absolutely no need to provide a makefile. But... there can be multiple selectable algorithms for people to choose from, and eventually some ways to configure those to your needs. Having results come up that are also explicitly labelled "You are viewing results through the FOOBAR lens - click here to use another lens". Our results are already skewed by factors that we don't have much visibility in to - being more explicit/transparent about it, while giving people some ability to influence/change the lens they view results through would be useful.

bsdetector 5y ago

> the disconnect between what Google thinks the user wants to see, and what the user actually wants to see. Results being what Google wants the user to see seems to be the real problem. Youtube for example in the past would show suggestions from small channels that were interesting and fun, but now you can't even find them in search using an exact video title. I've seen Google News completely shut out a breaking news story for half a day and the only reason I can think of was the ranking AI saw some 'bad' words in every story - even from NYT/WaPo, whose articles were among the many dozens on Bing News. Presumably they've applied their anti-"I hated it" ideas to Search as well. So now is a great time to compete with Google because they're handicapping themselves and even though they could just turn off the bias and return good results, they probably would rather lose than stop trying to influence users.