Useless website index3/17/2024 ![]() ![]() For example, as a techie, 15 years ago that might have meant making sure to constantly index usenet and various mailing lists. Google's main job is to make it as easy as possible for a user to find what they want. The internet is always going to be in constant flux: SEO trickery, the rise and fall of sites which contain the most relevant data, context of the search (browser -> phone), etc. Isn't that irrelevant as far as Google's usefulness is concerned? Facebook would much rather people used their own site to search, and thereby gaining all of Google’s sources of income: User monitoring and advertising. These pages are all internal to Facebook, and Facebook has every incentive to not allow Google to crawl and search this information. Thirdly, even if this second point was false, Google could not use these Facebook pages, because Google cannot crawl them. Secondly, this makes it so that people have no natural path going from using Facebook to creating a larger web site with information, and there are no smaller model train or taco Facebook “pages” which could have links to your larger site and thereby validate its relevance. As I understand it, there is no real way, in Facebook, to make a continuously updated page with a fixed address for people to go to as a reference point about some subject, or at least people are not directed towards doing this as part of their online activity (as opposed to in the past, when it was basically the only thing which people could do). ![]() Facebook is about the here-and-now, and whatever is yesterday is forgotten. Firstly, people having a Facebook account have no place to simply place information, no incentive to simply make a web page about, say, tacos or model trains, because that’s not what Facebook is about. People making small web pages about their favorite topics (with lots of links to other people’s pages, since information was hard to find) could slowly and easily transition into making larger and larger reference web sites with lots of information, thereby attracting lots of incoming links from others, which in turn enabled people to find the information using Google’s search engine.Ĭompare this to now. This is the web which the Google search engine and its algorithm was meant to find things in, and it worked very nicely, as it took advantage of the links other people had made to your site as a proxy for relevance in search results for your site. Those sites all had content and linked to each other. What do I mean with “the threat of Facebook”? In the old days, before today’s large “social media” sites, people made their own web pages on places like GeoCities or on simpler social-media-like sites like LiveJournal, etc. It would be hard to game/cheat a random algorithm.Įxactly. The key is randomness! A random brute force-like algorithm is often just as good and sometimes better then a sophisticated system. You should not be too baised on the votes though, or you would end up with echo-chamber loops like with Spotify and Youtube. The problem with upvote bots have already been solved by social networks like Facebook, where using like-farms, follower-farms etc are not very effective. ![]() And there could be an option to discover sites you would probably like, based on which links you have upvoted, and what people that upvote sites simlar to you also up-voted - but you have not yet clicked on. When doing a search you can use sliders to fine-tune the order using popularity (upvote/downvote ratio), last updated, first found, region, and a checkbox to only show links you haven't already clicked on, or haven't already voted on. Random sorting give small interesting web sites a chance to get found. If you want to find that good site again, you just check your upvote history. But I'm thinking random plus voting, so if you find a good site, you upvote it, if you find spam you downvote it. And I could swear Google experimented with Random ranking a few years back, which gave very good results, but it was a bit annoying when you forget to bookmark a site, and not finding it when searching for it again the next day. I've been thinking about up-votes/down-votes. ![]() I wonder what the next search engine algorithm will be. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |