4 ms·

As I understand it knol gives authorship of articles on first-come first-serve basis? This seems pretty braindead to me, does anyone know why they chose to do i

As I understand it knol gives authorship of articles on first-come first-serve basis? This seems pretty braindead to me, does anyone know why they chose to do it this way, or if there's any automated way to change article ownership?

litewulf 18y ago
Yes. Anyone can create an article about anything. The hope is that over time the better article about something will rise to the top and somehow become the article. I swear sometimes Google is run by geeks who read Ayn Rand one day and thought "gee the market economy can solve any problem!"
- 13ren 18y ago
  "Rise to the top" implies a ranking; I'm guessing that Knol simply Pagerank for ranking. I don't see any explicit ranking. So, this is the old problem of how to rank... Maybe social news style voting? But different from reddit/dig/HN, because it wouldn't be "news", so newness shouldn't be a key factor.
  - litewulf 18y ago
    How about we pretend for a moment that Knol is actually publicly visible. Now what are the ways that you would find a Knol article? I imagine you find pages via searching on Google or on the site. Searching on Google probably is just the regular searching, so it works the same as any other site. Searching on Knol seems to allow duplicates, so there is a rating system. Wow, that thought experiment actually worked better than I thought it would!
    - 13ren 18y ago
      yes, pagerank works for Knol. But how is pagerank determined? In the usual way, of the aggregate pagerank of incoming links (and other factors that google uses). I was suggesting that there might be a better way to rank knol articles, than only using Pagerank. This might not turn out to be the case; but that's what I was suggesting.
      - litewulf 18y ago
        What I was saying is that for regular Google search I'm pretty sure they use regular web search algorithms. Also, I really think the fixation on Pagerank is quite a devious thing Google has done, because it completely obscures all the other complexity of a search engine. Be it stemming, synonyms, inferring search intent, etc, most of that stuff doesn't really come out of Pagerank. There are "thousands of signals" or whatever it is that the Keepers of the Search have, and they all play varying roles in the actual ranking process. Could knol articles be more effectively winnowed than by web search? Yes. Would it be appropriate do treat knol articles specially in web search? Probably not (imagine user backlash). Within Knol, they also have the advantage of ratings and other stuff though. What really bothered me about your initial comment was the "maybe they use some social news site style voting"... you could have actually looked and said "oh! they have ratings", instead of just blindly pontificating.
        13ren 18y ago
        I agree that they'd use regular Google search, and not game it (there already was user backlash when knol ranking highly when it was announced). I was thinking more for once you go to knol, and search for something there -- or, better, when you arrive at a page, it has pointers on top to similar articles, and their "knol-ratings". I've heard that point of view of Pagerank before, as a marketing device. I personally do like the idea that an algorithm can make a difference, and I absolutely believe it can. Whether it really did in this case, however, is a question of fact. What you say about search engine complexity is true; although many of those techniques were known before pagerank (though I'm sure they're been developed further and new ones added since then). The Pagerank patent itself goes to some pains to mention other techniques being integrated. But I think the significant thing about Pagerank is that it really was something new. Google's overall success had many factors: fast results; an uncluttered search-only webpage; no paid placements in search; and doing a good job on all those factors you mention (though I think the specific ones you state are to do with search, and not with ranking - at the time, there was no problem finding the right result; it was ranking it near the top that seemed to be the issue... at least, according to Google PR...). To be honest, for me personally, I think the leanness of Google was most appealing (fast, simple, honest), together with a sense of coolness, of it being new, and by a couple of brilliant guys. It was also (virally) introduced to me by someone cool in tech. The search results themselves were "good enough". I remember doing some comparisons, and finding Google better - but it really didn't matter to me... it just confirmed the attitude I already had. Now, regarding my "blind pontification" in your opinion: I did look for ratings/ranking - on the front page, and I tried a search, but I didn't see any ratings (That's why I said "I don't see any explicit ranking." It turns out they don't appear on the front page, or for search results; you only see them after you have selected an article. EDIT actually, they do appear in search - but that take so long to load (for me) that they didn't appear (and there's no placeholder), even when I was double-checking. The "pontification" part bemuses me... I was suggesting/asking/wondering what a good way would be to do it. That's the opposite of pontificating (in my opinion, anyway). I like to wonder about things - it's a source of new insights, and it works for me. A request: if you think I'm saying something silly, could you straightforwardly point it out to me? People (and I really think especially I) do make mistakes; and I (at least) appreciate being set straight. I must say, I've got used to straightforward discussions on HN, but it seems to have shifted recently. I feel sad about that.
haasted 18y ago
It's possible to have several, parallel articles on the same subject.

litewulf 18y ago

Yes. Anyone can create an article about anything. The hope is that over time the better article about something will rise to the top and somehow become the article. I swear sometimes Google is run by geeks who read Ayn Rand one day and thought "gee the market economy can solve any problem!"

13ren 18y ago
"Rise to the top" implies a ranking; I'm guessing that Knol simply Pagerank for ranking. I don't see any explicit ranking. So, this is the old problem of how to rank... Maybe social news style voting? But different from reddit/dig/HN, because it wouldn't be "news", so newness shouldn't be a key factor.
- litewulf 18y ago
  How about we pretend for a moment that Knol is actually publicly visible. Now what are the ways that you would find a Knol article? I imagine you find pages via searching on Google or on the site. Searching on Google probably is just the regular searching, so it works the same as any other site. Searching on Knol seems to allow duplicates, so there is a rating system. Wow, that thought experiment actually worked better than I thought it would!
  - 13ren 18y ago
    yes, pagerank works for Knol. But how is pagerank determined? In the usual way, of the aggregate pagerank of incoming links (and other factors that google uses). I was suggesting that there might be a better way to rank knol articles, than only using Pagerank. This might not turn out to be the case; but that's what I was suggesting.
    - litewulf 18y ago
      What I was saying is that for regular Google search I'm pretty sure they use regular web search algorithms. Also, I really think the fixation on Pagerank is quite a devious thing Google has done, because it completely obscures all the other complexity of a search engine. Be it stemming, synonyms, inferring search intent, etc, most of that stuff doesn't really come out of Pagerank. There are "thousands of signals" or whatever it is that the Keepers of the Search have, and they all play varying roles in the actual ranking process. Could knol articles be more effectively winnowed than by web search? Yes. Would it be appropriate do treat knol articles specially in web search? Probably not (imagine user backlash). Within Knol, they also have the advantage of ratings and other stuff though. What really bothered me about your initial comment was the "maybe they use some social news site style voting"... you could have actually looked and said "oh! they have ratings", instead of just blindly pontificating.
      - 13ren 18y ago
        I agree that they'd use regular Google search, and not game it (there already was user backlash when knol ranking highly when it was announced). I was thinking more for once you go to knol, and search for something there -- or, better, when you arrive at a page, it has pointers on top to similar articles, and their "knol-ratings". I've heard that point of view of Pagerank before, as a marketing device. I personally do like the idea that an algorithm can make a difference, and I absolutely believe it can. Whether it really did in this case, however, is a question of fact. What you say about search engine complexity is true; although many of those techniques were known before pagerank (though I'm sure they're been developed further and new ones added since then). The Pagerank patent itself goes to some pains to mention other techniques being integrated. But I think the significant thing about Pagerank is that it really was something new. Google's overall success had many factors: fast results; an uncluttered search-only webpage; no paid placements in search; and doing a good job on all those factors you mention (though I think the specific ones you state are to do with search, and not with ranking - at the time, there was no problem finding the right result; it was ranking it near the top that seemed to be the issue... at least, according to Google PR...). To be honest, for me personally, I think the leanness of Google was most appealing (fast, simple, honest), together with a sense of coolness, of it being new, and by a couple of brilliant guys. It was also (virally) introduced to me by someone cool in tech. The search results themselves were "good enough". I remember doing some comparisons, and finding Google better - but it really didn't matter to me... it just confirmed the attitude I already had. Now, regarding my "blind pontification" in your opinion: I did look for ratings/ranking - on the front page, and I tried a search, but I didn't see any ratings (That's why I said "I don't see any explicit ranking." It turns out they don't appear on the front page, or for search results; you only see them after you have selected an article. EDIT actually, they do appear in search - but that take so long to load (for me) that they didn't appear (and there's no placeholder), even when I was double-checking. The "pontification" part bemuses me... I was suggesting/asking/wondering what a good way would be to do it. That's the opposite of pontificating (in my opinion, anyway). I like to wonder about things - it's a source of new insights, and it works for me. A request: if you think I'm saying something silly, could you straightforwardly point it out to me? People (and I really think especially I) do make mistakes; and I (at least) appreciate being set straight. I must say, I've got used to straightforward discussions on HN, but it seems to have shifted recently. I feel sad about that.

haasted 18y ago

It's possible to have several, parallel articles on the same subject.