4 ms·

The Twitter deal is supposed to improve search results. Ignoring the competition, they could calculate if people search more because of the presence of real-tim

by ntoshev 17y ago

The Twitter deal is supposed to improve search results. Ignoring the competition, they could calculate if people search more because of the presence of real-time results, and how much ad revenue do these searches generate. Given their $2 billion/month revenues, a 0.1% increase on that is $2 million/month. Taking competition into account, neither Google nor Bing can afford not to show real time search results given that their competition does. If real time turns out to be important for users, they can prefer one or another search engine based on its presence. Also it gives the search engines exposure to such data so that they can learn how to use it.

axod 17y ago
I seriously do not want anything like that in my search results. It'd be full of spam instantly. I disagree. I use google because it's clean and quick. Feature creep is a sure fire way to die if you get it wrong. Sure, they should have a dedicated 'real time' search thing, like they have for blogs/news etc. If Google do get dragged down by Bing into tit for tat features etc, it'd be a great time for a search engine startup to do what Google did at the start.
- ntoshev 17y ago
  Well, you can argue RT is more prone to spam because there is less (recent) data and therefore spam filtering is harder. However, with Twitter/social networks the accounts have reliable authorship/history and you can exploit that for filtering... basically rank higher the pieces of data from old accounts that didn't spam before. I wouldn't say spammers have inherent advantage for real time. Google has been pretty good in figuring out what to include in their "universal" search, I guess their quality control will notice if RT results are not useful for most people.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  You're assuming the only value Google gets is the raw data. Does Google seem like the sort of company that stops with raw data? Or do they seem like a company that will squeeze every tiny little bit of information out of that raw data? There's MUCH more value in Twitter's firehose than the literal tweets. Google will extract it.
  - axod 17y ago
    Can you give some examples. How does anyone know 'stephenfry' is the real Stephen Fry, and an 'authority', and not a spammer.

by ntoshev 17y ago

axod 17y ago

I seriously do not want anything like that in my search results. It'd be full of spam instantly. I disagree. I use google because it's clean and quick. Feature creep is a sure fire way to die if you get it wrong. Sure, they should have a dedicated 'real time' search thing, like they have for blogs/news etc. If Google do get dragged down by Bing into tit for tat features etc, it'd be a great time for a search engine startup to do what Google did at the start.

ntoshev 17y ago
Well, you can argue RT is more prone to spam because there is less (recent) data and therefore spam filtering is harder. However, with Twitter/social networks the accounts have reliable authorship/history and you can exploit that for filtering... basically rank higher the pieces of data from old accounts that didn't spam before. I wouldn't say spammers have inherent advantage for real time. Google has been pretty good in figuring out what to include in their "universal" search, I guess their quality control will notice if RT results are not useful for most people.
waterlesscloud 17y ago
You're assuming the only value Google gets is the raw data. Does Google seem like the sort of company that stops with raw data? Or do they seem like a company that will squeeze every tiny little bit of information out of that raw data? There's MUCH more value in Twitter's firehose than the literal tweets. Google will extract it.
- axod 17y ago
  Can you give some examples. How does anyone know 'stephenfry' is the real Stephen Fry, and an 'authority', and not a spammer.