4 ms·
The "world's information" includes things as banal as "what did everyone have for breakfast yesterday?" And "what about the day before?" There is simply _too
by akira2501 2y ago
The "world's information" includes things as banal as "what did everyone have for breakfast yesterday?" And "what about the day before?"
There is simply _too much_ information. You cannot economically approach this problem. It doesn't matter how clever your staff is.
What you're describing is the fact that the _stated objective_ and the _profitable outcomes_ are two different things. We've all known that since they originally printed it.
- b112 2y agoThis isn't the issue were discussing. The amount of data is not a relevant issue currently. The issue is the inclusion and ranking of easily discernable junk. Google has stopped caring, for my cited reasons, and can tackle this if they want. There is nothing preventing this other than it actually helping them by making their products preferable. For example, eliminating any page with referral links. Eliminating copycats. No, it's not an issue for them. This alone would get rid of 1/2 the junk. But that would reduce their silo. And further? It would mean that other search engines which buy Google search results would benefit too! Far better to show their picks on their first page results, whist keeping lower quality answers in their general search results. They can show competition exists, without really helping that competition, and people stay siloed.