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

Re: [bafuture] random stuff from dinner conversation

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.