My searchs tend to be for very specific pieces of information.
I would say the one thing that would help is if we stopped, or at least made very difficult, the SEO scam. You use this as a reason for the existence of the problem. Why not address the issues rather than trying to work around them?
Seems to be the case in a lot of things that people aren't prepared to consider addressing the actions of the few that mess it up for the many. Instead we impose more restrictions on the many because of the actions of the few. Not only in the IT sphere, but everywhere.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I agree with dogknees .. the true issues aren't being addressed. Nor will they be .. marketing (profit) by both Microsoft and Facebook will always be the primary goal.
I use a search engine as a tool, not a 'social event.' I truly don't care if anyone I know, or don't know, likes or dislikes a page. Sorry, that's *my* decision and I am quite capable of thinking for myself. I'm fed up with the current smothering 'integration' of Facebook into every aspect of computer usage with every new program or update. And who keeps smiling at all the profits while privacy and security still continue to be a far remote afterthought?
Thanks for the article. My use of Bing will stay at 0%.
I use a search engine as a tool, not a 'social event.' I truly don't care if anyone I know, or don't know, likes or dislikes a page. Sorry, that's *my* decision and I am quite capable of thinking for myself. I'm fed up with the current smothering 'integration' of Facebook into every aspect of computer usage with every new program or update. And who keeps smiling at all the profits while privacy and security still continue to be a far remote afterthought?
Thanks for the article. My use of Bing will stay at 0%.
I do use Facebook, but it is almost always to see what articles my friends have posted. I search to get data, not to find out what my friends are doing. I use Bing about 5 minutes a month, and Chrome and FF the rest.
BigSteve666: I don't understand the correlation between Bing and Chrome or FF. I see Bing relative to Google or other search engines. I see Chrome and FF relative to Internet Explorer or Safari. I use Google because I have almost forever - it's a habit!
Google is using a visited page ranking and bing is using a facebook "I like" ranking. But who will tell that a site which don't offer the "I like" button is less usefull? It would be a little bit different if there would be a "I don't like" button too.
I can't understand why so many serious pages add these facebook stuff. Even I use facebook but I'm quite proud that some of my friends took me off their list arguing that I'm occasionally online and so there is no need to have me on the list. I don't mind about any votes of facebook members because "only death fishes are swimming downstream". I'll keep my own opinion and will decide what is important to me and what isn't.
In this case a "visited page" ranking seems to be more usefull I suppose.
I can't understand why so many serious pages add these facebook stuff. Even I use facebook but I'm quite proud that some of my friends took me off their list arguing that I'm occasionally online and so there is no need to have me on the list. I don't mind about any votes of facebook members because "only death fishes are swimming downstream". I'll keep my own opinion and will decide what is important to me and what isn't.
In this case a "visited page" ranking seems to be more usefull I suppose.
I wouldn't take most of my 'friends' or relatives' recommendations on gardening, bird watching, best route in or out of a race track, or many other areas of interest. If I wouldn't take their advice personally, why would I care what web sites they 'like'?
Bing may leverage social better than Google, but it remains an inferior search engine. Regardless of who recommends the results Bing delivers, Google more often delivers the results I find useful. Bing doesn't effectively search Microsoft's own content, much less its partners.
Bing may leverage social better than Google, but it remains an inferior search engine. Regardless of who recommends the results Bing delivers, Google more often delivers the results I find useful. Bing doesn't effectively search Microsoft's own content, much less its partners.
...more than you do an 'answer' per se. Being 'on the same page' (pun intended) as your e-friends is what you really want from a search(!).
Lemmings will be more than happy to give you directions to the broad and easily-travelled road: We're all going off that cliff; be sure to stick together...no stragglers!
A desire to view content NOT approved by the preponderance of your 'friends' may constitute abberrant behavior.
Lemmings will be more than happy to give you directions to the broad and easily-travelled road: We're all going off that cliff; be sure to stick together...no stragglers!
A desire to view content NOT approved by the preponderance of your 'friends' may constitute abberrant behavior.
I use search to find information on IT, download utilities, and to shop for components. I'm not ashamed to say that most of my FB people have no idea about any of that (which is why I'm so busy!). I agree with a few of the commentors above who said that they can and do manage to think for themselves and don't care what their friends/family on FB think about a site. I have my own mind and know how to use it quite well, thank you. This is just another attempt to herd all the sheep into one mindless group of zombies. KInd of reminds me of when I was a kid and wanted to do something just because my friends were doing it. My parents would say "If so-and-so jumped off the roof, would you do it to just because they did?"
The same could be said for Amazon. You search for something. Let's say a book on Google. You then exit your browser. You return to Amazon a day later and your defauilt Amazon page is littered with Google related items and then you get some items that cause you to scratch your head and ask WT? is this doing here?
Even worse, when you do a search on Google, your search also shows other stuff that has nothing to do with Google at all.
I once did a search on a hard rock band and a Celine Dion showed up in the search. Go figure.
It shows that no matter what you look for - whether Bing, Yahoo, Google or whatever - that the results you get will either be irrelevant, rediculous or actually accurate.
I use Google as my primary search engine and I laugh at some of the results I get.
Even worse, when you do a search on Google, your search also shows other stuff that has nothing to do with Google at all.
I once did a search on a hard rock band and a Celine Dion showed up in the search. Go figure.
It shows that no matter what you look for - whether Bing, Yahoo, Google or whatever - that the results you get will either be irrelevant, rediculous or actually accurate.
I use Google as my primary search engine and I laugh at some of the results I get.
Check this week's TR newsletter 'Community Central', Gisabun. There may be something of personal interest there..... 
In the spirit of Santeewelding: careful - or yourself you might be gelding.
Bing would have a hard time with me as I have never had a Facebook or Twitter account.
What does it do then ,match Hotmail contacts to other peoples accounts?
What does it do then ,match Hotmail contacts to other peoples accounts?
It looks to see if you're on E-Harmony. If you're not there either, it checks 'CougarLife.com'
Wow. Google's swamped. They're looking for a way to quantify relevance, and they're going social. It guess it's the obvious choice, but it's fraught with risks.
The problem is not immediately obvious, but it's real. Picture the social Internet in 1964. You're a white guy researching Martin Luther King Jr.'s attempt to change America in a very good way, and Google keeps returning results from within your social bubble, results your friends like. You, very naturally, hear your own pre-curiosity opinion echoing back to you. Your neighbors and friends keep +1'ing articles pointing out how King's a womanizer and commie-sympathizer, so you search and keep learning what you already know.
Apply the same formula for relevance to Iraqi WMD, or Palestinian statehood, or the recent riots in Britain and you have a world-changing issue. The problem is one of relevance, though. How does Google know which articles are "real", much less relevant, strictly from internal content and external links. Google's algorithm worked magic back in the '0X's, but in the second decade of our century the haystack is too large even for Google. And there are too many infectious hypodermics hidden alongside the nice little needles we all seek.
I wish them luck. We're all going to need it.
The problem is not immediately obvious, but it's real. Picture the social Internet in 1964. You're a white guy researching Martin Luther King Jr.'s attempt to change America in a very good way, and Google keeps returning results from within your social bubble, results your friends like. You, very naturally, hear your own pre-curiosity opinion echoing back to you. Your neighbors and friends keep +1'ing articles pointing out how King's a womanizer and commie-sympathizer, so you search and keep learning what you already know.
Apply the same formula for relevance to Iraqi WMD, or Palestinian statehood, or the recent riots in Britain and you have a world-changing issue. The problem is one of relevance, though. How does Google know which articles are "real", much less relevant, strictly from internal content and external links. Google's algorithm worked magic back in the '0X's, but in the second decade of our century the haystack is too large even for Google. And there are too many infectious hypodermics hidden alongside the nice little needles we all seek.
I wish them luck. We're all going to need it.
This sounds like it will be susceptible to a lot of circular logic and mob mentality. I could see someone posting an incorrect or partial truth and then many people latching on to it as true just because, "well look at all the other people who are linking to it - it must be true.!"
What is to keep an eHow-like enterprise from creating millions of sock puppet accounts on social sites and +1, Like and whatever else? Instead of SEO (search engine optimization) will be trading it in for SEO (social engineering optimization). Integration of social rankings is going to be just as useless eventually.
Considering how frigging stupid a lot of people are on highly technical and so-called professional sites I can't wait till extensive mining of "social" sites for data. Oh boy!
"All's Social" fever will just follow Orkut's path,
Or did something radically changed in the world since them and we didn't notice ???
Or did something radically changed in the world since them and we didn't notice ???
I used all the different popular search engines until Google came along. I've used Google exclusively since and I haven't seen any problem finding the information I'm looking for. Perhaps people just don't know how to come up with a good combination of keywords, but I've seen Google do a good job even when people enter their search criteria in the form of a question.
(Aside from my usual failure to comprehend social networking, that is. 
)
If the amount of data is getting too big to effectively search, how will integrating even MORE data (in the form of social pages) resolve the problem?
)If the amount of data is getting too big to effectively search, how will integrating even MORE data (in the form of social pages) resolve the problem?
There are a billion SEO-jacking sites out there, but how many of them will have "likes" from people the person searching has placed trust in, via "frending" or other?
That could work. There will be new work for shills, of course, but that's perhaps still preferable to spammers.
That could work. There will be new work for shills, of course, but that's perhaps still preferable to spammers.
The thing that's wrong with Google is that they keep too much personal information. The thing that's wrong with facebook is that they keep and share tooooo much personal information. None of the search engines will work well as long as the site with the most money will get listed higher up. I too have seen ads on every page I visit for a product that I had purchased online several months earlier. Sorry but all the ads in the world can't make me buy a product again that I have just purchased. All these ads seem to originate from Google and I don't even use Google search. Somehow Google can keep up with what you do online whether you use their search or not. Bottom line your life is being sold to the highest bidder.
A (perceived?) lack of security is the strongest factor in my decision to avoid social networking. (Learning more than I want to know about friends and family is a close second.) I don't perceive the potential benefits as outweighing the potential damage. Just me, I guess.
If you are looking for real information it should be from a source that is minimally biased, and has useful content. If the searching is for commercial purposes, then perhaps the 'liked' sources are fine. The risk is making everyone satisfied with what they think is true, and missing reality. For example, science is not based on voting. Consensus science is an oxymoron. Of course, one wonders whether any science should be web-based. Multi-disciplinary work may benefit from broad searching for connections. Policy work could certainly benefit from broad searching of unbiased sources. Social bias is risky, along the lines of 'the blind leading the blind'.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
