Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bafuture] random stuff from dinner conversation

Expand Messages
  • wayne radinsky
    Mike, I think you are right about Google. I think, if somebody can invent a search engine with good natural language processing, where you can type in a
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike,

      I think you are right about Google.

      I think, if somebody can invent a search engine with
      good natural language processing, where you can type
      in a question and it can take you right to pages with
      the answer (or pages that claim to have the answer --
      the search engine would have no way of knowing if
      they are truthful or correct of course), then, I think
      the new search engine would dethrone Google in a heartbeat.

      Google also has some fun stuff at google labs, Google
      Glossary, Google Sets, and so on, if you haven't seen
      go to http://labs.google.com

      And on a completely different subject, here's an article
      on Tivo, and how it changes TV viewing habits -- very
      similar to our dinner discussion.

      The Webification of TV is happening
      http://news.com.com/2010-1078-281523.html?legacy=cnet&tag=bt_pr



      --- Mike Linksvayer <ml@...> wrote:
      > On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 17:41, wayne radinsky wrote:
      > > MY point was just that all news is biased. So it's
      > > good to read different points of view, which is
      > > only possible thanks to the internet.
      >
      > Um, the net makes reading different points of view easier. I
      > remember
      > going to libraries in a small midwestern city as a kid and
      > finding
      > current events reporting from a broad ideological and
      > geographical
      > spectrum.
      >
      > http://news.google.com makes it really easy to read news from
      > different
      > points of view -- top stories typically link to articles in
      > four
      > different newspapers, usually in based in different countries.
      >
      > Sometimes just the differing headline spins are amusing.
      >
      > On the subject of Google, some people seem to be under the
      > impression
      > that its status as the preeminent search engine is as
      > dangerous as
      > Microsoft's overwhelming share of the desktop OS market. Some
      > marketers
      > claim to optimize sites for Google. If sites get optimized
      > for Google,
      > doesn't this put Google in the position of Microsoft, where
      > software
      > must run under Windows to have a market?
      >
      > No, no, no!
      >
      > First of all, Google doesn't want sites to be
      > Google-optimized, as any
      > successful optimization strategy makes Google's search results
      > less
      > reliable and less valuable. Google (and searchers) want the
      > most
      > relevant pages, not pages that have been tweaked to obtain a
      > higher
      > ranking. The battle between marketers who try to bump their
      > position in
      > search results up by means other than improving their pages
      > and search
      > engines is much older than Google. Actually, one of the
      > reasons Google
      > is so good is that it's relatively hard to "optimize" for
      > (i.e., cheat)
      > due to its analysis of link networks rather than only
      > keywords.
      >
      > Even if Google did want and encourage sites to optimize
      > themselves for
      > Google, it wouldn't have anything like the lock-in Microsoft
      > has. The
      > web is mostly text, and anyone can crawl and index it, and
      > list links on
      > a results page which are just as clickable as the list of
      > links from the
      > next search engine. The barriers to entry for new search
      > engines are
      > relatively low, and the switching costs for end users are
      > practically
      > nil. In contrast, operating systems are extremely complex and
      > tied to
      > hardware. A new OS must support a vast array of hardware and
      > get
      > pre-installed on computers available for purchase before it
      > has any hope
      > of widespread adoption. If users could switch (many can't,
      > they're
      > using computers managed by an IT department, or they bought a
      > computer
      > with an OS already installed and aren't competent to install
      > another),
      > they need to think about migrating their existing data to the
      > new OS and
      > new programs. For developers, switching from writing programs
      > for one
      > OS to another often more or less requires starting from
      > scratch.
      >
      > Another way of thinking about it is this: If tomorrow
      > Microsoft Windows
      > stopped working, most people couldn't use their computers and
      > would have
      > a hard time migrating their documents once they had obtained
      > another
      > OS. If tomorrow Google disappeared, people would immediately
      > start
      > using http://alltheweb.com http://teoma.com and
      > http://wisenut.com among
      > others, and not be much worse off for it.
      >
      > --
      > Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/ml http://bitzi.com
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
      http://sbc.yahoo.com
    • Troy Gardner
      ... this really isn t so much googles fault, but rather the lack of contextual/semantic information on the content creation side. Sure a bot with the amount of
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 24, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > I think, if somebody can invent a search engine with
        > good natural language processing.where you can type
        > in a question and it can take you right to pages with
        > the answer...

        this really isn't so much googles fault, but rather the lack of
        contextual/semantic information on the content creation side. Sure a bot with
        the amount of background information as we have could infer much of the context
        via the web as it currently is -but then it would be as intelligent or moreso
        than we currently are. Even with intelligent processing like that, it's still
        easy to get confused and it generally makes more sense to have the authors tell
        it explicitly where it falls in, and what the relationships are, right now
        people are too lazy and the tools aren't accesibly enough.

        Google, amoung others is working on the semantic web, but as previously it's
        really more up to the content creators than the search engine. As it is now,
        there isn't enough momentum, and searching on the web isn't that horrible
        typically (or at least the 'there has to be a better way' isn't as clear), to
        get it over that adoption hump in short order, so semantic networks are
        currently confined to specialized areas in research/companies.

        > The Webification of TV is happening
        > http://news.com.com/2010-1078-281523.html?legacy=cnet&tag=bt_pr

        Conversely the Movieification of the web is happening. Can't tell you how many
        sites (of course since I'm a flash/rich media author my viewing habits are a
        bit biased) are starting to look more and more like movie trailers and movies,
        use of movement, transitions, plot (conflict, emotional content), video clips
        are getting longer and longer and higher resolution, yet with the ability to
        jump to interesting parts fairly easily.

        An article in Newsweek said that more people today (like 56%) would be willing
        to give up Coffee versus (34%) the internet. Course coffee has many other
        comparible replacements (tea, soda, juice, etc) don't know if the internet
        really has any direct competitors..libraries, tv, video arcades,
        magazines/movies, and phones are all sort of tangential: most are too static,
        to one on one, and non-interactive.

        Also today in my reading i found these statistics of what people do on the net
        intriquing.

        http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_1466661,00.html

        =====
        Troy Gardner http://www.troyworks.com

        "How you live your seconds, is how you live your days, is how you live your life..."

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
        http://sbc.yahoo.com
      • wayne radinsky
        ... *Sigh*... My point was only that there is room for improvement. The fact is, there are queries where Google does poorly, or where you have to be really
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 24, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Troy Gardner <thegreyman@...> wrote:
          >> I think, if somebody can invent a search engine with good
          >> natural language processing.where you can type in a
          >> question and it can take you right to pages with the
          >> answer...
          >
          > this really isn't so much googles fault, [etc etc]

          *Sigh*... My point was only that there is room for
          improvement. The fact is, there are queries where Google
          does poorly, or where you have to be really clever with the
          search terms to find the answer you're looking for. Google
          is very good, but it is not the end-all-be-all of search
          engines.

          To give a specific example. Suppose John Smart says there
          is a robot that learned to fly in 3 hours. To find the
          article about it, you put "flying robot 3 hours", or
          something like that, into Google. But you won't find the
          article about it. To find the article, you have to put
          something more specific, such as "Krister Wolff and Peter
          Nordin" or "Chalmers University of Technology" along with
          the search. But how do you know those names? It takes some
          effort to dig that out of the other search results.
          Eventually you can find the article. So it can be done, but
          it takes work. I can envision a search engine where you can
          query, "robot that learned to fly in 3 hours" and
          it can find the article directly.

          By the way, here's a neat article "Winged Robot Learns To
          Fly" about a robot that learned to fly in 3 hours. :)

          http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992673

          > Google, amoung others is working on the semantic web, but
          > as previously it's really more up to the content creators
          > than the search engine.

          I disagree. A "semantic web" is useful for automating many
          tasks that must be done manually today, but it is still
          possible to make a search engine that does not depend on it
          -- that simply has better *understanding* of the stuff
          that's on the web already. Google is just indexing words.
          It's got an extremely clever way of indexing words, I'll
          grant you.

          >> The Webification of TV is happening
          >>
          >
          http://news.com.com/2010-1078-281523.html?legacy=cnet&tag=bt_pr
          >
          > Conversely the Movieification of the web is happening.
          > Can't tell you how many sites (of course since I'm a
          > flash/rich media author my viewing habits are a bit biased)
          > are starting to look more and more like movie trailers and
          > movies, use of movement, transitions, plot (conflict,
          > emotional content), video clips are getting longer and
          > longer and higher resolution, yet with the ability to jump
          > to interesting parts fairly easily.

          You didn't give any examples...? :)

          http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/AYB2.swf

          A lot of corporate websites are using Flash animation
          now, too.

          http://www.nttdocomo.com/

          But that site doesn't exactly look like a movie
          trailer.

          Our friends at KurzweilAI also use Flash, but I don't
          think Flash adds very much to that site.

          http://www.kurzweilai.net/

          > Also today in my reading i found these statistics of what
          > people do on the net intriquing.
          >
          >
          http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_1466661,00.html

          Funny, "porn" does not appear anywhere on that list. They
          "sanitized" the list!

          In the early days of the 'net, I saw an article that said
          that 70% of bandwidth was used by porn. Of course, that was
          largely due to the fact that early on, that was almost the
          only thing that people used images and video for, and
          images and video are huge bandwidth hogs compared with text.

          > Do you Yahoo!?

          Yeah.




          --- Troy Gardner <thegreyman@...> wrote:
          > > I think, if somebody can invent a search engine with
          > > good natural language processing.where you can type
          > > in a question and it can take you right to pages with
          > > the answer...
          >
          > this really isn't so much googles fault, but rather the lack
          > of
          > contextual/semantic information on the content creation side.
          > Sure a bot with
          > the amount of background information as we have could infer
          > much of the context
          > via the web as it currently is -but then it would be as
          > intelligent or moreso
          > than we currently are. Even with intelligent processing like
          > that, it's still
          > easy to get confused and it generally makes more sense to have
          > the authors tell
          > it explicitly where it falls in, and what the relationships
          > are, right now
          > people are too lazy and the tools aren't accesibly enough.
          >
          > Google, amoung others is working on the semantic web, but as
          > previously it's
          > really more up to the content creators than the search engine.
          > As it is now,
          > there isn't enough momentum, and searching on the web isn't
          > that horrible
          > typically (or at least the 'there has to be a better way'
          > isn't as clear), to
          > get it over that adoption hump in short order, so semantic
          > networks are
          > currently confined to specialized areas in research/companies.
          >
          > > The Webification of TV is happening
          > >
          >
          http://news.com.com/2010-1078-281523.html?legacy=cnet&tag=bt_pr
          >
          > Conversely the Movieification of the web is happening. Can't
          > tell you how many
          > sites (of course since I'm a flash/rich media author my
          > viewing habits are a
          > bit biased) are starting to look more and more like movie
          > trailers and movies,
          > use of movement, transitions, plot (conflict, emotional
          > content), video clips
          > are getting longer and longer and higher resolution, yet with
          > the ability to
          > jump to interesting parts fairly easily.
          >
          > An article in Newsweek said that more people today (like 56%)
          > would be willing
          > to give up Coffee versus (34%) the internet. Course coffee has
          > many other
          > comparible replacements (tea, soda, juice, etc) don't know if
          > the internet
          > really has any direct competitors..libraries, tv, video
          > arcades,
          > magazines/movies, and phones are all sort of tangential: most
          > are too static,
          > to one on one, and non-interactive.
          >
          > Also today in my reading i found these statistics of what
          > people do on the net
          > intriquing.
          >
          >
          http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_1466661,00.html
          >
          > =====
          > Troy Gardner http://www.troyworks.com
          >
          > "How you live your seconds, is how you live your days, is how
          > you live your life..."
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
          > http://sbc.yahoo.com
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
          http://sbc.yahoo.com
        • Troy Gardner
          ... True, I made the same mistake and used 3 instead of three if you use the later it does pop up. On that particluar subject, the original article john
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 24, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > To give a specific example. Suppose John Smart says there
            > is a robot that learned to fly in 3 hours. To find the
            > article about it, you put "flying robot 3 hours", or
            > something like that, into Google. But you won't find the
            > article about it.

            True, I made the same mistake and used '3' instead of 'three' if you use the
            later it does pop up. On that particluar subject, the original article john
            passed around was on Yahoo news, and it has been archived so not much chance of
            anybody finding. By the way there's a good pdf on their work (and related
            humanoid robotics) by the creators, I was anticipating something much smaller
            than the actual devise used for 'flying':

            http://www.frt.fy.chalmers.se/cs/people/wolff.html

            RE:The Movieification of the web is happening.

            > You didn't give any examples...? :)

            Well I see, and fail to bookmark. Most aren't ones I go back to, and often I
            don't even watch the full thing, though I have seen lots these days. I'm
            impressed that the NTT DoCoMo site chose do to the _entire_ thing in Flash,
            versus some Flash/html hybrid.

            Hillman curtis has done some great pseudo video work in flash,

            http://www.hillmancurtis.com/site2/webmotion01.html
            http://www.hillmancurtis.com/site2/sharing_minimovie_arc.html

            Many of the big consumer oriented biz are increasingly using flash or other
            plugins for demoing products. Flash is increasingly used like Premiere for
            assembling elements, rather than it's vector animation capabilites,

            http://www.sonystyle.com/images/flashmovies/dscu10/flash_resize.html

            though vectorization of 3d still is neat:
            http://www.swift3d.com/v3/default.asp

            Since Flash MX can use just about any video source, it's only getting better.
            http://www.eaglef1.com

            tangential are things like BMW producing short movies in which the car plays a
            major character. These types of ads wouldn't make it into the rather fixed
            formats that dominate cable/tV, and despite being made by movie directors
            wouldn't make it to most mainstream movie theaters.
            http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/06/07/bmw.htm

            and of course there is other media out there too like viewpoint(3d)
            http://www.viewpoint.com/demos/vpdemos/auto/expedition/index.html

            > Our friends at KurzweilAI also use Flash, but I don't
            > think Flash adds very much to that site.

            I agree. As a designer/programmer (particluarl fond of Flash) I'm torn by cool
            interface and design, yet the lack of viable content and overall poor usability
            on many sites. Sadly my site has been in that category for awhile, but is
            slowly coming up to speed. http://www.troyworks.com

            The use of flash/rich media tends to be like a movie trailer, to hook in the
            audience so they will look for more, or come back, or show their friends.

            > Funny, "porn" does not appear anywhere on that list. They
            > "sanitized" the list!

            neither did online gaming, unless you classify that as financhial trading
            (gambling online like porn is fairly big) however the stats may be skewed...how
            many in a live survey, or even web survey would answer that question honestly?
            or alternately how many on this list would answer that survey at all?

            Troy.


            =====
            Troy Gardner http://www.troyworks.com

            "How you live your seconds, is how you live your days, is how you live your life..."

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
            http://sbc.yahoo.com
          • Peter C. McCluskey
            ... There are some ways in which Google does want sites optimized for Google- like search engines. It wants sites to be easy for it to parse (it will help bias
            Message 5 of 8 , Sep 25, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              ml@... (Mike Linksvayer) writes:
              >On the subject of Google, some people seem to be under the impression
              >that its status as the preeminent search engine is as dangerous as
              >Microsoft's overwhelming share of the desktop OS market. Some marketers
              >claim to optimize sites for Google. If sites get optimized for Google,
              >doesn't this put Google in the position of Microsoft, where software
              >must run under Windows to have a market?
              >
              >No, no, no!
              >
              >First of all, Google doesn't want sites to be Google-optimized, as any

              There are some ways in which Google does want sites optimized for Google-
              like search engines.
              It wants sites to be easy for it to parse (it will help bias sites towards
              plain html and away from depending on audio or images). This effect seems
              desirable.
              It also wants sites to be optimized for not causing lawsuits against
              Californian companies which make the sites easy to find. It is disturbing
              that the dominant search engines all seem to be subject to a jurisdiction
              that is heavily influenced by hollywood and scientology.
              --
              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen!
              http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
            • Mike Linksvayer
              ... Bias towards text does seem desirable, but it applies to all of Google s competitors as well, so Google-like is superfluous in optimized for Google-like
              Message 6 of 8 , Sep 27, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 08:56, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
                > There are some ways in which Google does want sites optimized for
                > Google-
                > like search engines.
                > It wants sites to be easy for it to parse (it will help bias sites
                > towards
                > plain html and away from depending on audio or images). This effect
                > seems
                > desirable.

                Bias towards text does seem desirable, but it applies to all of Google's
                competitors as well, so "Google-like" is superfluous in "optimized for
                Google-like search engines".

                > It also wants sites to be optimized for not causing lawsuits against
                > Californian companies which make the sites easy to find. It is
                > disturbing
                > that the dominant search engines all seem to be subject to a
                > jurisdiction
                > that is heavily influenced by hollywood and scientology.

                Good point. AllTheWeb (Norway) is one exception. I'd recommend getting
                out of California for the high cost of doing business, nevermind the
                social evils of hollywood and scientology. However, I'm nothing but a
                hypocrite on these matters -- my company, which aspires to be something
                of a junior google for files, is based in San Francisco.

                --
                Mike Linksvayer http://gondwanaland.com/ml http://bitzi.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.