3 ms·
I like the rant (on searchenginewatch) and I think he summed up a lot of valid points. I can still imagine a useful natural-language search engine, though. Th
by sabat 19y ago
I like the rant (on searchenginewatch) and I think he summed up a lot of valid points.
I can still imagine a useful natural-language search engine, though.
This morning, for example, I was trying to remember the name of a podcast. One of the hosts' first name is Jeanette, and I know she has a Spanish last name. Now, if I could've typed in something like:
podcast with host Jeanette who has a spanish last name
and it actually were able to figure it out, then I think the search engine could cause a paradigm shift.
What I'm really talking about is closer to pure AI, not just natural language concepts. Apple == a company and a fruit, depending on context -- that's natural language. What a Spanish last name is -- that's AI in my book.
So maybe we need to be pursuing an AI search engine rather than a natural-language search engine.
- sabat 19y agoI'm not even sure we're in desperate need of AI. I wanted to read an article about how Robert Scoble reads 1000 RSS feeds a day, and how he does it. (Something like that, anyway.) I couldn't remember the blog I noticed it on, and didn't remember anything specific about what it said. Google: +how scoble reads rss feeds and it returned exactly the article I wanted (www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/05/16/how-scoble-reads-622-rss-feeds-each-morning/) as the #1 choice. I have my complaints about Google's search and the others as well. But it's still pretty darn good, and any advancement to this is going to have to be a big leap to get any traction.