Slashdot Log In
Google Turns On User-Tweakable Search Wiki
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Nov 23, 2008 06:51 AM
from the enhance-enhance dept.
from the enhance-enhance dept.
Barence writes "Google has launched a new service that allows users to tailor to their own search results. Called SearchWiki, the service allows Google account holders to move results up or off the rankings, or even add their own choice of site to the top of the search results. Google claims that any changes a user makes will only affect their results, and not those of fellow surfers, although it's difficult to believe that some of the feedback generated from the SearchWiki won't be used to fine tune the Google search algorithm. Is this a cunning way to encourage people to sign in while they search, thus providing Google with a richer set of data that can be mapped to specific user accounts?"
Related Stories
[+]
Sending Secret Messages Via Google's SearchWiki 160 comments
We discussed the advent of Google's SearchWiki when it was introduced a few days back. Now Lauren Weinstein offers a thought experiment in transmitting coded messages using SearchWiki, with a working example encoded into the results of this Google search.
[+]
Search: Google's Mayer Says Personalization is Key To Future Search 93 comments
rsmiller510 writes "In a wide-ranging interview with Tech Crunch's Michael Arrington on Wednesday at Le Web in Paris, Google's Marissa Mayer talked about all things Google, but what I found most interesting was when the conversation turned toward the future of search. Mayer said the key to the future of search lies in personalization. ... Mayer said in the future, Google (and presumably other search tools) will understand more about the user and be able to deliver more relevant information based on that knowledge. 'We think that when you look at the winning search engine in 2020 and what traits it's likely to have, we think the one thing that will be true is that it will understand more about you the user.'"
Video of the interview with Mayer is available at Tech Crunch. The personalization of search content focuses mainly on SearchWiki, which we discussed when it went live last month. The Register has a more cynical take on the discussion, seizing on comments by Mayer which indicated Google employees may evaluate SearchWiki's user ratings and use them to make "obvious changes" to search results for everyone.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Google bombing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google bombing (Score:5, Interesting)
That would allow a different kind of Google bombing. Remember the anti-DRM campaign which gave Spore all those low ratings? Seems likely that they could just kill EA from search results...
But even if it's just limited to a single user, it would be helpful to not have to put -site:expertsexchange.com in every search.
Parent
Re:Google bombing (Score:5, Funny)
But even if it's just limited to a single user, it would be helpful to not have to put -site:expertsexchange.com in every search.
Tell me about it, I went to their site, and there was no sex change at all! Lousy service. And they call themselves "expert"?
Parent
So what? (Score:5, Funny)
> Is this a cunning way to encourage people to sign in while they search, thus providing Google
> with a richer set of data that can be mapped to specific user accounts?"
Sounds like one of those people who surf with cookies disabled.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get the point of this service. When I use Google, I don't hang around to admire my search results, I'm just glad I managed to craft a query that landed what I wanted on the first page. I am certainly not going to sit around to review my search results on their behalf.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/1898 [userscripts.org] removes experts-exchange.com results from Google searches :)
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Which is still antisocial enough that I would much rather kill experts-exchange from every search. Those results are almost never useful for the questions I'm asking, anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is still antisocial enough that I would much rather kill experts-exchange from every search.
You are exactly right about wanting to kill certain search polluters.
Weirdly, I often search for fragments of lyrics trying to find the entire song and who sang it. Recently the top several lyrics sites don't provide the lyrics in text, but in some sort of crapstastic flash thingy. And way too many ads.
What use is having a googlebot AND an army of street view vehicles if you can't sic the googlebot to killing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I used to feel that way too, except that when you click on one of their links and scroll all the way to the bottom, you actually get the real answer -- otherwise google wouldn't bother to index the page. It is annoying though.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Bookmark google (www.google.com)
[Optional: Bookmark search.yahoo.com, www.live.com, etc.]
2) In Firefox, right-click on the bookmark and choose properties.
3) Enter "g" as keyword for Google ("y" for Yahoo, etc.)
4) In the location field enter: http://www.google.com/search?q=%s -site:experts-exchange.com
Done. Now you can easily search by typing in the address bar:
g <keywords>
The %s in the location will be substituted by the keywords, and you get your Google research without expert-exchange.com entries.
[Nice side effect: since it is now as easy to type in "g" for Google, "y" for Yahoo and "m" for Microsoft, switching search engines is so easy that you actually do it from time to time.]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And then, a week later, I find a new site that's just as obnoxious.
Contrast this to Google's one-click next to a site, which gives me a cool animation, and adds the results to the bottom of the page anyway, so if they really contain something useful, I can find them.
Probably doesn't help anyway, unless I'm clearing my cookies frequently, and/or randomizing these keywords somewhat -- and even here, I'm still on a mostly-static IP at home. The only safe way to stay anonymous towards Google is to not use Googl
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
You can still see all the answers if you scroll all the way down to the bottom. I suspect they did this in order to avoid being blacklisted by Google. Why anyone would pay for that "service" is beyond me.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cookies don't necessarily mean that they're tracking information. Cookies are an essential part of sessions (at least in PHP).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many sites turn that off due to the obvious security implications of people passing around links containing credentials.
annoying "feature" (Score:5, Interesting)
I really dislike the "refined" searches, especially as Google's memory lasts for a long time. If I am doing a project on something, or am really interested in a topic (lets say travelling to Timbuktu), I will search it to death. However, a week later, when I am trying to search for something else (say used cars), I have to slog through a bunch of pages about car sales in Timbuktu!
Sigh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is great for Google's aims of collecting all the data in the universe
good thing I don't have the delta brainwave [wikipedia.org] and am therefor immune to their evil!
Re: (Score:2)
You know you can turn off the personalized search results by logging out of Google (or launching another browser without that cookie), right? Although, if you still want Web History to work, that'd be annoying.
A blessing and a curse. (Score:2)
Three things come to mind...
1)Finally, a way to nuke useless results off my search results.
2)How long before Google uses the info for search rankings?
3)How long before asshats start fucking with us?
Bye bye Expert sexchange (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do they rank so high anyway?
Re:Bye bye Expert sexchange (Score:4, Insightful)
This was exactly my first thought -- Expert-sexchange is pretty annoying! I don't think it would invade my privacy if I have a way to tell google what I don't like to see ... after all am I using Google because they deliver more or less relevant results.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no new Google-feature needed which they can datamine. All you need is the GooglePreview addon: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/189 [mozilla.org]
It allows you to filter out unwanted domains from your search results among very nice other features.
What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will people really use this at the slight chance that Google might one day use the information to improve their engine, even so they say that they won't?
User-tweakable SearchWiki... one might as well just use Wikipedia. I guess for 95% of all common searchterms, there is an informative Wiki-article anyway and those already have related peer-reviewed links at the bottom, excluding scam and parking sites. There is a good reason that most queries on Google provide Wikipedia as the first result.
Edit: sounds a bit more "flamebatish" than I wanted it to be but whatever.
Edit2: Yes, I can edit my comments, don't you?
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Make edit 3 or you're lying!
You can't edit once someone has "Replied to This".
Re: (Score:2)
This is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it either. When I search for something, I want to discover new sites. So why would I search, then add a site that's already known to me to the results? Why would I change the results order if I can just scroll through until I find the link that I sought?
Unless you use a google search instead of bookmarks. Which would be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
When I search for something, I want to discover new sites. So why would I search, then add a site that's already known to me to the results?
Because you've looked at the new site and pressed the back button, or because you've looked at the new site in another window or tab, and now you're back at the search result page.
Re: (Score:2)
Because even with a single site, it's useful -- I could promote Wikipedia, and demote expert-exchange, for example.
And even if it's not shared, Google could still use this to tailor my own search results -- give me more things like Wikipedia, and less things like experts-exchange.
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess for 95% of all common searchterms, there is an informative Wiki-article
My initial thought to that was:
"Maybe common for everyone else, but I must make a lot more uncommon searches. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't have a 'disney ass sluts' category, while Google returned 119 results."
But then I realized it does have an article on Britney Spears, so you may have a point.
Parent
Wikia (Score:5, Interesting)
They adopted (or will be adopting) a core principle of Wikia Search, and that is user generated content (and ranking search results is some kind of content). On Wikia, everyone can change search results, insert new links and delete them.
However, user generated content needs a community (in this case mainly to prevent or revert spamming) - and google had many unsuccessful community projects in the past... I wonder if they are foolish enough to try it again.
When it comes to community projects many people object to the idea of working for free towards another one's gain. That's why nonprofits like the Free Software Foundation (GNU project) and the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) are so successful at building high quality producing communities. I don't think that google has a chance here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh... seems I forgot to include the actual link: Wikia Search [wikia.com] (alternatively you can google for "Wikia Search" :P)
Note how you can instantly and anonymously change almost everything. (needs Javascript however)
Re:Wikia (Score:4, Informative)
They adopted (or will be adopting) a core principle of Wikia Search, and that is user generated content [...] However, user generated content needs a community (in this case mainly to prevent or revert spamming) - and google had many unsuccessful community projects in the past... I wonder if they are foolish enough to try it again.
Well, a community is one way to prevent spamming, but is it the only way?
I mean, Wikipedia goes for a very transparent structure. If Wikipedia added secret algorithms to selectively display only certain users' contributions, they would probably be criticised by people on Slashdot, and elements of the Wikipedia community.
On the other hand, Google already uses secret automated moderation techniques for search results, and they are also pretty good at filtering spam in gmail. Both with no need for a community of volunteers doing filtering manually.
Furthermore, Google has not committed to using this user-generated data at all, let alone in an unmoderated form.
Now, I agree with you that Google hasn't got a track record of building user communities like Wikipedia. However, I think they could make user-moderated search work without one.
Parent
I had it yesterday but today it's gone (Score:2)
Is there anyway to turn it on?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How to turn the dang thing off: (Score:4, Informative)
I know Google's coverage is excellent... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Tarp! (Score:2)
We ain't playin' wit'cha...
We gon' cover up the left, we gon' cover up the right.
We gon' cover up the left, we gon' cover up the right.
It's a tarp, it's a tarp, floor cover - floor cover.
It's a tarp, it's a tarp, floor cover - floor cover.
In parody of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kJMH916DS4 [youtube.com]
Um, huh? (Score:2)
The internets have been full of this topic in the past few days, but I don't see anything different on Google. I've been logged in all this time, *and* I opted for the experimental "Searchwiki with Sounds" stuff.
Doesn't seem to be on the official services list either, and http://google.com/searchwiki [google.com] doesn't work at all. Where is it?
Re: (Score:2)
I sure am. I had to clear a few cookies to avoid getting redirected to the ccTLD domain, but I was seeing English on all domains.
I'm on google.com now, but nothing seems to be there either (although at least I get personalized search and suggestions again, which didn't work for a while).
Yes it is (Score:2)
"Is this a cunning way to encourage people to sign in while they search, thus providing Google with a richer set of data that can be mapped to specific user accounts?"
Yep. You got a problem with that?
Works for me... (Score:2)
Personal hate - "experts exchange" - it fails me to understand why these are included in the search results - they are fucking ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal hate: price comparison sites. If I'm interested in buying something I want the names of sellers, not spiders.
Privacy issues aside, there may be real value here (Score:5, Informative)
Three words: User Relevance Feedback.
In 1986 I started work on the first commercial search engine that supported "similarity searching." This was based on the Cosine Coefficient of weighted attribute vectors. As we got deeper and deeper into what made one search successful and another a flop, it became obvious that there were two prime enemies of successful searching.
For example, a query of "man versus machine" (actually run by Esther Dyson in our offices), produced an apparently random mix of articles about chess-playing computers, labor strikes over factory automation, and some guy towing a locomotive with his teeth (it's been over 20 years, so I don't remember the exact results). She hesitated for a moment, then said, "Oh! They really are all about people and machines, but how do I narrow it down to what I meant, which was more along the lines of the labor articles?"
We already had an answer to this by the time she visited us. Our solution (based on the work of Salton and Buckley) was to allow the user to say, "Results 1 and 3 are irrelevant, but result 2 is highly relevant." We would then take the attribute vectors for the articles and raise or lower the importance of those terms in the new query vector. After the first round of relevance feedback, the results often got downright spooky. Why? Because a) we now had a lot more terms to work with, and b) the additional terms helped to disambiguate terms like "bank." E.g., mention of levee construction probably meant this was a "river bank" and not a financial institution.
What does this have to do with what Google is doing? By reordering your results you are, in effect, giving user relevance feedback. I don't know what they are going to do with this information, but just getting your hands on it is a very important first step. And having you bring things to the top is doubly important, because positive relevance feedback is several times more important than negative. E.g. Tell me to drive towards San Francisco, rather than just saying I should leave Chicago.
On the downside, as mentioned by several previous posters, this opens the door to deep understanding of the user and what s/he is interest in. (Of course, they already get some of this when you click on items in a result list. They have a little JavaScript goody that records each and every click. Fortunately, there are GreaseMonkey scripts to disable this "feature.") One of my (few) customers back in the 80's and 90's said, "If you know only the questions I ask, you know too much." The customer? The NSA.
The trouble with "search personalization" (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to think of individual search personalization as a pain. It's another piece of state the user has to manage. But it's harmless, and some people might like it.
The trouble with sharing information about search results is that the most interested parties are, inevitably, going to be in the "search engine optimization" business. Unless Google figures out some way to prevent people from establishing huge numbers of accounts, something they've dramatically failed to do with GMail, any shared information from users will be gamed and spammed.
Does anybody use Wikia search? Unfortunately, because it's folded into Wikia.com, (the fan site wiki hosting service), Alexa doesn't produce useful stats. Wikia in total has about 10% of the traffic of "ask.com", and under 1% of Google.com. Wikia's trend is downward.
Such a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Is this a cunning way to encourage people to sign in while they search, thus providing Google with a richer set of data that can be mapped to specific user accounts?"
Of course it is. But as a Google fangirl with no sense of privacy, I have to say, is this really a bad thing? Greater knowledge about their users will lead to more accurately targeted adverts. Is it such a bad thing that Google are increasing their potential earnings?
Google get more money, advertisers get more potential customers, and publishers get more money from adverts, and the customers get pointed to more sites they're likely to be interested in. Who loses?
Re:Such a bad thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was searching for reviews on a TV. "[MODEL NUMBER] review" (no quotes) was my search term and, as you can probably guess, all the results on the first page were trying to sell me the TV.
On the second page was the perfect review complete with geeky stats and figures. I bumped it to the top.
Later on I repeated the search and the proper results were at the top.
If Google don't use my preference, they're a little silly.
Parent
Re:Insane amounts of data (Score:4, Funny)
which presumably will delete all your data.
Ahhhhhhahahahhahahaaaaa!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox 3 adds support for tagging bookmarks
Epiphany [gnome.org] has this for ages now.