Skeletje Posted August 31, 2006 Posted August 31, 2006 just filed a new patent that involves you guys and now there are stock holders and tons of money involved Ultimately, Google is striving to create the best possible search results for their visitors. This patent proposes one possible method for doing that. For the most part, search engine algorithms have reached their peak. We've known for quite some time that an algorithm-based search engine can nevër permanently deliver excellent results. Why, you might ask. Simply because there will always be people out there trying to reverse-engineer the system. Therefore, a cat and mouse game is created. Out of this problem, a number of solutions have evolved. One of these is social search engines, which rank their results based on the wisdom of crowds. Another solution to arise from this problem is a human editorial process. And now, Google has proposed in their patent application a hybrid mechanism which combines algorithmic search with a human based editorial process. By integrating editorial opinion, they are looking to enhance the quality of their search results. The patent describes the process of identifying favored and non-favored sources in order to improve search results. Favored Sources: Websites that are identified as being useful or containing authoritative content on the desired topic. Non-Favored Sources: Websites that are identified as sources of misinformation or over-promotion on that particular topic. Basically, Google is trying to patent a system for identifying good sites and bad sites in order to rank them accordingly in the SERPs. They have proposed a semi-automatic system for determining favored and non-favored sources. "In an implementation consistent with the present invention, the set of favored and non-favored sources may be automatically determined. To accomplish this, exemplary queries in the query theme may be classified into a set of topics (e.g., an online topic hierarchy, such as Yahoo!, Open Directory, or Google) using the approach for classification described above. Web hosts that appear in the URLs associated with the best matching topics to the query theme may be taken to be favored sources. For example, if the query theme is "sites that help in finding accommodation," then web hosts listed under the Open Directory category "http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Travel/Lodging" can be taken as favored sources." addition, they have also combined with this a new system of relevancy and theme-based queries to improve their results. "For example, for the query theme "sites that provide frëe downloads," web sites that actually provide frëe software downloads would be considered "favored sources" and web sites that mislead search engines with words such as "free" and "download" (popularly known as "spam techniques"), but do notin fact provide access to frëe downloads, would be considered "non-favored sources." The patent application infers that "resource" sites have a brighter future in the search engines, especially Google. Therefore, don't be afraid to link out to other sites. The more value you provide to your visitor, the more you will be rewarded in the end. Your ultimate goal is to become an authority in your particular topic. As an online marketer, you should also put more thought into the quality of the pages your site delivers as a whole. This is one of the very few patents that refers to a site as a whole rather than individual pages.
Meta hutcheson Posted September 1, 2006 Meta Posted September 1, 2006 Nothing has changed. Google, by filing this patent, is (at most) merely trying to restrict other people's behavior -- which is not the same thing as promising to use that algorithm themselves. But I'm not even sure it would go that far. Possibly Google intends this as a defensive patent, because the only practical defense against a patent suit is mutually-assured-patent-gridlock. Just like yesterday, Google (and everyone else) is welcome to make whatever use of the ODP it wishes, subject only to the Terms of Use (which basically require a linked attribution--and that only on pages of ODP material posted in directory form.) The potential for profit in day trades on Google stock is more enthusiastically addressed elsewhere: if that is your interest you're in the wrong forum. As for the scenario of active editors acting like online marketers ... if that is a concern, you're in the wrong universe.
spectregunner Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 Scenario 1: Google changes nothing. Typical ODP editor response: That's nice, excuse me while I go edit. Scenario 2: Google increases its reliance on the ODP Typical ODP editor response: That's nice, excuse me while I go edit. Scenario 3: Google decreases its reliance on the ODP Typical ODP editor response: That's nice, excuse me while I go edit. Scenario 4: Google stops using the ODP Typical ODP editor response: That's nice, excuse me while I go edit. Can anyone detect a pattern here?
Meta pvgool Posted September 1, 2006 Meta Posted September 1, 2006 Can anyone detect a pattern here? OK, OK, I get the hint. Excuse me while I go edit. :moz: I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
jeanmanco Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 The application for that patent was filed in December 2000. In the meantime, technology has moved on. But I don't think that Google has resolved the problem that it frankly states in the patent. Although it would in theory be helpful to fold an element of manual selection into the algorithm, they need to find a way of doing it that would scale with the Net. Simply using the ODP would not be a complete answer. The patent points out that even the largest directories - ODP and Yahoo - cover only a fraction of the Net. There isn't much of a clue how they hope to find a more scalable solution. However it is interesting to see a willingness to bring in a human element. There is no doubt that hand-editing helps in the war against spam.
The Old Sarge Posted September 1, 2006 Posted September 1, 2006 ... a number of solutions have evolved. One of these is social search engines, which rank their results based on the wisdom of crowds. The wisdom of crowds. Not a very wise thing to do in many cases. Google has proposed in their patent application a hybrid mechanism which combines algorithmic search with a human based editorial process. Cyborg editors? Look. I know some of us have very little personality and others of us may be deficient in the social graces ... but resorting to cyborgs?! Favored Sources: Websites that are identified as being useful or containing authoritative content on the desired topic. Non-Favored Sources: Websites that are identified as sources of misinformation or over-promotion on that particular topic. They have proposed a semi-automatic system for determining favored and non-favored sources. By whose/what standards? During more than a few periods in history, people burned books because they were "bad" ... or not authoritative. People have been tortured and burned at the stake or hanged for spreading "misinformation." Of course all these things happened because some "crowd" deemed them "wise" things to do. Go figure. Semi-automatic system, huh? Great idea! Try appealing to a system that opperates even semi-automatically. Some set of standards needs to be forthcoming before any of this plan sees the light of day. Just my humble opinion. But, then ... if you trust Google ... The Old Sarge War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stewart Mill
Skeletje Posted September 1, 2006 Author Posted September 1, 2006 Scenario 4: Google stops using the ODP Typical ODP editor response: That's nice, excuse me while I go edit. That doesn't sound very smart now does it, without google you would get like 0.0000023% of the traffic you are receiving now. Perhaps you don't care about traffic but I'm sure you care if people watch the content you have reviewed and listed in the directory and I'm sure you prefer that 1000 people look at it instead of 1. Ow yes and I do think google is going to use that patent and they are going to use the ODP as a source for it. There are way to much garbage sites in the top results these days and a lot of great material has sunk to page 450 of google's serps. The quality of google isn't what it used to be so they need to improve again.
Skeletje Posted September 1, 2006 Author Posted September 1, 2006 The wisdom of crowds. Not a very wise thing to do in many cases. Cyborg editors? Look. I know some of us have very little personality and others of us may be deficient in the social graces ... but resorting to cyborgs?! By whose/what standards? During more than a few periods in history, people burned books because they were "bad" ... or not authoritative. People have been tortured and burned at the stake or hanged for spreading "misinformation." Of course all these things happened because some "crowd" deemed them "wise" things to do. Go figure. Semi-automatic system, huh? Great idea! Try appealing to a system that opperates even semi-automatically. Some set of standards needs to be forthcoming before any of this plan sees the light of day. Just my humble opinion. But, then ... if you trust Google ... Sarge you shouldn't be so philosophical about this, google is currently based on a mathematical algorithm wich uses around 300 different factors. Google thinks that with adding a human touch (ODP touch would the most logical one) they can improve the quality of their search engine. This all sounds very logical to me: use current algorithm relevancy = 80% + (example) ODP relevancy = 20% __________________________________ result= improvement of google search results +3.5% No guarantee that google will use the ODP directory for this, they could hire 5000 people and start from scratch but this mixture will improve their engine, no doubts there.
Meta shadow575 Posted September 1, 2006 Meta Posted September 1, 2006 That doesn't sound very smart now does it, without google you would get like 0.0000023% of the traffic you are receiving now. Perhaps you don't care about traffic but I'm sure you care if people watch the content you have reviewed and listed in the directory and I'm sure you prefer that 1000 people look at it instead of 1. Google doesn't drive editors to volunteer nor does it aide in our effort (beyond searches) to build the project. We do it because we find it a useful and satisfying hobby. Google doesn't compensate the editors for their work (at least I haven't seen my paycheck yet ) and to my knowledge they don't contribute one bit to the project beyond using the data it produces. Loosing Google as a data user would be disappointing but overall irrelevant to the editors. They will still continue to do what they enjoy and do so for everyone else still using the data. Ow yes and I do think google is going to use that patent and they are going to use the ODP as a source for it. There are way to much garbage sites in the top results these days and a lot of great material has sunk to page 450 of google's serps. The quality of google isn't what it used to be so they need to improve again. If they choose to use the ODP as part of it great, thats what it is there for but it still doesn't change the way an editor will work. Shadow *The opinions I offer are my own and may not represent the opinions of Curlie.org or other editors.* It can take anywhere from two hours to several years for a site review to take place. I do not respond to private messages requesting site status checks. _______________________________________________ https://shadow575.wordpress.com/
Meta hutcheson Posted September 1, 2006 Meta Posted September 1, 2006 I think we need to shut off this discussion. The important point is, what Google does isn't relevant to us, except insofar as it is one of several effective ways of finding good sites to review. And for those who want to engage in uninformed speculation about what Google may do next year, there are many other forums where such confidences are eagerly exchanged.
Recommended Posts