3 ms·
This approach would be suitable for "mainstream" search results, but wouldn't be able to serve the long tail. Or to put it more humorously, you wouldn't be abl
by jdrock 17y ago
This approach would be suitable for "mainstream" search results, but wouldn't be able to serve the long tail.
Or to put it more humorously, you wouldn't be able to find the earrings because only you (and no one else) were interested in them :)
- jacquesm 17y agoI'm not so sure about that. The 'long tail' in search is - for google at least - everything beyond page 100 (or position 1,000 , which ever way you want to slice it). Those pages might just as well not exist for those keywords. But because there is plenty of other content nobody notices. The situation with the 'long tail' for pagesets where there are less than 1,000 'results' can be handled the exact same way it is being done today (here the long tail probably refers to rarity of search keywords / combinations). For really small sets (1 full page of results or less) the ranking is pretty much irrelevant.
- jdrock 17y agoLet me clarify.. How would you know how to value votes for different queries? Certain pages are more relevant to certain queries more so than others, and likewise for votes. Your approach doesn't have a way of accounting for this. And implementing something that does is a very, very hard problem.
- jacquesm 17y agoThat's true, you would not have the 'text in the link' to guide you. But you might be able to get around some of that by allowing users to tag the urls. I realize it's a hard problem, I assume that the OP does not expect to walk out of here with a bullet proof business plan for a new search engine. There are bound to be issues with almost any suggestion that you could make here. But it might give some useful hint or starting point.