Can somebody explain to me why is it so hard to kill Google?

Started by Zak, June 25, 2019, 12:01:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

taxed

#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Quote from: Zak on June 25, 2019, 12:01:54 PM
I am sure you have ideas on how to build a better, more objective, and more private search engine.  I do too.  Where are the conservative venture capitalists? I think it could be done under 1mln in less than 6 months.

To answer your question on why Google is so hard to kill, the answer is: government.

Government created Google, and they are essentially a CIA/DARPA outpost masked as a "private company".  They are hard to kill because with their ascent in the marketplace via unlimited funds and media promotion, they are the biggest browser, email provider, video storage, and mapping provider on the planet.  For over a decade, usage of these technologies by billions of people have fed a massive amount of information processed by black tech (AI) to become the search engine they are today.  The AI on the search results can be tailored, on the fly, by who you are what you typically search for, your political preferences, and a multitude of other criteria -- much of from what we don't even know publicly.

This is hard to compete against with a few coders and a $1mm.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

taxed

#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Zak

Quote from: taxed on June 25, 2019, 07:23:33 PM
Building a search engine is not hard.  Providing search results with an AI as sophisticated as Google's is a different story.

AI is overrated and is not needed, certainly at the first stage. Google has been doing without it for a long time. Anyway, with the tools available now, AI is not a big deal. I could do AI.

Zak

Quote from: taxed on June 25, 2019, 07:29:46 PM
How would you return results, based on or conservative principals?

Several possibilities.  Google gives weights to the sources based on PageRank. The simplest solution would be to give a higher rank to the conservative publication. What I have in mind though, is to offer a customized engine. First, the sources should be separated into clusters,  so that NYT, WP, CNN, and millions of others who repeat the same bs, would be pulled into one class. This is a way to use the correlation between sources that as far as I know, Google (intentionally?) doesn't do. Then the user can give different weights to different classes. Or some machine learning algorithm will watch which results of the search the user likes and assigns the weights accordingly. 
The search engine should be easily customizable so that for different categories of searches (political, scientific, hobbies, legal,..., or any other classification) one could use different algorithms. On top of that, the users should be able to form groups in each category and combine their search preferences.

lecarrjan

QuoteA computer program only does what it's programmed to do.  Did you know that? Taxed

That's true but if the information is available you can find it. Given the large numbers of links it becomes almost impossible to search if your search is not specific or limited by quotation marks, for instance.

Would not creating a search engine that ruled on the value of a site be censorship?  China and Russia do that now, do we really want that in America? Saudi Arabia is another example. 

Zak

Quote from: taxed on June 25, 2019, 07:46:16 PM
This is hard to compete against with a few coders and a $1mm.

True, but I'd love to give it a shot. Trump didn't have any chance against the government machine either. Not comparing myself with him, just pointing out that occasionally black swans happen.

taxed

Quote from: Zak on June 26, 2019, 04:49:13 AM
AI is overrated and is not needed, certainly at the first stage. Google has been doing without it for a long time. Anyway, with the tools available now, AI is not a big deal. I could do AI.

Google is 100% AI with their search engine.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

taxed

Quote from: lecarrjan on June 26, 2019, 05:34:00 AM
That's true but if the information is available you can find it.
You can go to various sites to get the information, but that doesn't involve a search engine.

Quote
Given the large numbers of links it becomes almost impossible to search if your search is not specific or limited by quotation marks, for instance.
Hence why the search engine is programmed to return results.

Quote
Would not creating a search engine that ruled on the value of a site be censorship?  China and Russia do that now, do we really want that in America? Saudi Arabia is another example.
Google admits to doing that.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

taxed

Quote from: Zak on June 26, 2019, 05:10:17 AM
Several possibilities.  Google gives weights to the sources based on PageRank. The simplest solution would be to give a higher rank to the conservative publication. What I have in mind though, is to offer a customized engine.
How would you retain the settings for that user?

Quote
First, the sources should be separated into clusters,  so that NYT, WP, CNN, and millions of others who repeat the same bs, would be pulled into one class.
What about for hard news?  These sites, as Marxist as they are, do have news stories, news archives, and other content that is left-leaning but important or exclusive, or even neutral.  For example, the Politico story on Project Cassandra.  How would you let that specific article through, from the thousands of articles on Politico?

Quote
This is a way to use the correlation between sources that as far as I know, Google (intentionally?) doesn't do. Then the user can give different weights to different classes. Or some machine learning algorithm will watch which results of the search the user likes and assigns the weights accordingly.
When you hear "algorithm" in the context of Google, that really means "artificial intelligence".  You're not doing this project without AI, unless it's a small collection of sites... and even then that's a task.

Quote
The search engine should be easily customizable so that for different categories of searches (political, scientific, hobbies, legal,..., or any other classification) one could use different algorithms. On top of that, the users should be able to form groups in each category and combine their search preferences.

I assume this would be a very small search engine.

A few questions to think about:

- how would you determine what to classify as conservative and not?  Is a site about cooking "conservative"?

- how are you determining intent?  If I'm searching for a boxer, am I searching for a dog or a fighter?  Or, are you just going to return anything with "boxer" in the text? I don't want that.  Example, type "boxer" into Google and see how it handles it, and think about how Google determined the context of those sites and how to split it up for you in those search results.

- how are you managing the state of the URLs?  If you have, say, 1mm URLs, how often are you checking to see if they're returning 200?  Or are you including dead URLs in your search results?  How much bandwidth and processing power are you going to need for your bots?

There's a million items I could post here, but in the end, there's no way you're not doing this without a learning AI.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

taxed

Quote from: Zak on June 26, 2019, 05:57:37 AM
True, but I'd love to give it a shot. Trump didn't have any chance against the government machine either. Not comparing myself with him, just pointing out that occasionally black swans happen.

I love the positive attitude.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: lecarrjan on June 26, 2019, 05:34:00 AM
That's true but if the information is available you can find it. Given the large numbers of links it becomes almost impossible to search if your search is not specific or limited by quotation marks, for instance.

Would not creating a search engine that ruled on the value of a site be censorship?  China and Russia do that now, do we really want that in America? Saudi Arabia is another example.
Isn't that cute, you claim it's all about searching for information. What if you are the provider of said info they're banning?
his is outright discrimination by those in charge of dissemination of information deciding what books the library allows the public to see.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Quote from: Solar on June 26, 2019, 06:33:00 AM
Isn't that cute, you claim it's all about searching for information. What if you are the provider of said info they're banning?
his is outright discrimination by those in charge of dissemination of information deciding what books the library allows the public to see.

It reminds me of the time this forum, close up to the 2016 election, had some of the lowest traffic we had in years.  People were getting into politics for the first time, but somehow we hit a dip during that period.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: taxed on June 26, 2019, 06:35:29 AM
It reminds me of the time this forum, close up to the 2016 election, had some of the lowest traffic we had in years.  People were getting into politics for the first time, but somehow we hit a dip during that period.
Oh Taxed, I'm sure it was just an accident that goog banned us from search for exactly 180 days leading up to Trump's victory, that leftist sites all across the globe were banning Conservatives.
I even wrote to ABC asking why I had been banned and how could I be reinstated. Oddly enough, no one even seemed to know what I was talking about, What discussion platform? WE don't have one. So they referred me to Disney, their parent company, Disney said they don't deal with trivial matters, and referred me back to ABC HQ, who claimed Disney handled it.

Nah, I'm sure it was a simple oversight, libs would never ban a dissenting voice. Remember, they were the party that claimed "We may not agree with what you say, but will fight for your Right to say it".
So yeah, it had to have been an accident. :rolleyes: :sneaky:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!