Comments on: Search Getting Worse? What Did I Mean?!

By: ugg boots sale

ugg boots sale — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 03:48:00 +0000

uggs on sale ugg boots on sale ugg boots outlet UGG Argyle Knit 5879 Ugg Bailey Button 5803 Ugg Bailey Button 5991 Ugg Bailey Button Bomber 5838 Ugg Bailey Button Mini 3352 Ugg Bailey Button Triplet 1873 Ugg Bailey Button Triplet 1962 Ugg Classic Cardy 5819 Ugg Classic Mini 5854 Ugg Classic Short 5251

By: Oakleys

Oakleys — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:32:00 +0000

That is the profound problem that Google and the others using the original Overture patent face if they over-develop search.walstore26.com

By: Oakleys

Oakleys — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:31:00 +0000

That is the profound problem that Google and the others using the original Overture patent face if they over-develop search.

By: oakleys

oakleys — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:28:00 +0000

TYCLLJTMSHBCO
Welcome to Oakley Sunglasses Hut to buy cool and cheap oakleys sunglasses.

By: Oakleys

Oakleys — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 09:08:00 +0000

FGZLJTHSLMBYA I like it very much!

By: replica watches

replica watches — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:38:57 +0000

Above these goods really good, so beautiful jewelry!replica watches
Really to be commended! Unfortunately, I have no money, He He. Otherwise I really bought"Magnificent", "Gum gee yuk yip", "True gold fears no fiery," "golden palace in books," "very strong"replica watchThere is a noble, time-delayed in ancient times left to shine; There is a wealth, status and power load across time and space.fake
rolex watches You have a good typing speed soon yo!

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:04:55 +0000

John, I agree with the comment from Bruce Wayne. The amount of garbage in Internet is largely outstanding content that is really reliable and useful. Twitter and all other social networks increased this fact enormously and many times we have to dig much garbage before finding something interesting.
I would predict 4 different evolutions in web search:
1. Searching for news: Feeds, twitter and some news aggregators doing a pretty good work, they will improve somehow and search engines results are not suited in those situations.
2. Searching for “more complicated questions”: Semantic web will do the job much better than search engines, but this will only be true in many years to come.
3. Searching for people and direct links, like homepages: Browsers will do the job in an “I’m feeling lucky” style.
4. Searching for a subject we want to study: People will access directly to Wikipedia without passing through search engines. But here is where search engines could improve what they offer: the future of web search must be some kind of content clustering / categorization. I would predict that in the near future we will see Google results displayed by default the same way as http://clusty.com. And if there was a way of “organizing all the Internet content”? I’ve been following a project that intends to have a web directory “with tens of millions of subjects” and best results for each subjected ordered in accordance with users’ election and participation (http://mapitol.com). And a social network for every possible subject. Wouldn’t that be the best search engine in most situations?
Anyway, my opinion goes with your title: As they are now, search results are getting worse.

By: Nick Stamoulis

Nick Stamoulis — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:44:36 +0000

I think no matter which way you look at it the search engines are not going anywhere. They are actually going to get even stronger to the point where we really depend on them. We are not 100% there just yet but we are getting close.

By: John Gotts

John Gotts — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:48:33 +0000

Jan 11, 2010 | John Gotts says:

What’s interesting is that Google could make search far better but by doing so it would ultimately mean a drop in ad revenue.

I built a search engine that was at one point at bijobee dot com. The website was based on the Google advanced search API and let a user define search by time, URL (.org, .com, .edu, .gov or country code) and beyond that could set time range (down to a specific day or day range), selected sites to search and more. Google does a lot of this now but not enough to make a real difference.

What I found was that when the results are ABSOLUTELY accurate nobody clicks on an ad.

That is the profound problem that Google and the others using the original Overture patent face if they over-develop search.

What we found was that click-through-rate dropped to less than 1% from as high as 11% using the straight Google search API.

When you’re making nearly all of your money with something that works, and that money is into the billions of dollars monthly, let’s just say you don’t fix what ain’t broken. In this case search is broken but their revenue model is superb.

I believe that’s why Google/AOL/Ask (they all use Google) isn’t going to fix this any time soon nor will Bing/Yahoo.

Posted by John Gotts, founder of http://chum.ly

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:41:16 +0000

Search is already awful. At least 50% of first page Google search results are spam pages. It is an awfulness of their own creation.