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.
Huh? Google is only a search engine, a tool, and Chrome their browser, Google search can be used from any browser. Not sure I understand your beef? What would your replacement be?
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." Robert Wilensky
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us...This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right." Neil Postman
'Amusing Ourselves to Death'
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.
I personally use Duck Duck Go instead of Google. However, too many people are to lazy to find alternatives to Google search. Until that happens Google will continue to dominate.
Quote from: lecarrjan on June 25, 2019, 12:25:01 PM
Huh? Google is only a search engine, a tool, and Chrome their browser, Google search can be used from any browser. Not sure I understand your beef? What would your replacement be?
Veritas just produced an additional argument to what many already knew: Google produces liberal-biased search results.
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/25/breaking-new-google-document-leaked-describing-shapiro-prager-as-nazis-using-the-dogwhistles/
Quote from: supsalemgr on June 25, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
I personally use Duck Duck Go instead of Google. However, too many people are to lazy to find alternatives to Google search. Until that happens Google will continue to dominate.
As far as I know, Duck Duck Go uses Google search engine. It is more private but I haven't noticed big difference in the results between Duck and Google.
Quote from: Zak on June 25, 2019, 12:48:12 PM
As far as I know, Duck Duck Go uses Google search engine. It is more private but I haven't noticed big difference in the results between Duck and Google.
Bingo Zak!!!
I too have noticed Duck Duck gives the same results as goog, so they're essentially using the same algorithm that seeks to ban Conservatives and Conservative while boosting leftists sites and BS in your search.
Google Teaching Artificial Intelligence To Attack Conservativeshttp://www.conservativehq.com/node/30503
It is kinda hard blaming a search engine for the results, since you did the search. Do we blame a library for the books they hold. Personally I have never found an example of a search that was biased. If you disagree, give us the search words and we can test. I do admit the results are often staggering.
But I do think that some may give less weight to hate and conspiracy sites, but you can still find them if you look. I was just looking for Carl Cameron's new news site and came up with " About 386,000,000 results (0.52 seconds) " LOL crazy huh.
"As we are, so we see." William Blake
QuoteI have never found an example of a search that was biased.
No a Lib would not find a problem. :lol:
Quote from: lecarrjan on June 25, 2019, 04:31:13 PM
It is kinda hard blaming a search engine for the results, since you did the search. Do we blame a library for the books they hold. Personally I have never found an example of a search that was biased. If you disagree, give us the search words and we can test. I do admit the results are often staggering.
"As we are, so we see." William Blake
Not sure what your point is. This is not a critique of you, I'm probably missing something. I am not happy with Google and you are, fine. Are you saying I shouldn't suggest thinking about an alternative unless I convince you that Google sucks? Are you saying you would help me to fund building an alternative if I convince you? I mean I am really at a loss here. And who are "us?" Who are "we?" Are you speaking on behalf of this forum?
QuoteAre you speaking on behalf of this forum?
NO way in Hell!!
Quote from: lecarrjan on June 25, 2019, 04:31:13 PM
It is kinda hard blaming a search engine for the results, since you did the search. Do we blame a library for the books they hold. Personally I have never found an example of a search that was biased. If you disagree, give us the search words and we can test. I do admit the results are often staggering.
But I do think that some may give less weight to hate and conspiracy sites, but you can still find them if you look. I was just looking for Carl Cameron's new news site and came up with " About 386,000,000 results (0.52 seconds) " LOL crazy huh.
"As we are, so we see." William Blake
Did you miss this?
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/30503
Quote from: Solar on June 25, 2019, 06:33:45 PM
Did you miss this?
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/30503
It's starting to seem to me that these social media companies are part of a shadow government (Hussein, Kerry, ex-deep state operators, etc).
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.
Building a search engine is not hard. Providing search results with an AI as sophisticated as Google's is a different story.
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.
How would you return results, based on or conservative principals?
Quote from: lecarrjan on June 25, 2019, 04:31:13 PM
It is kinda hard blaming a search engine for the results, since you did the search. Do we blame a library for the books they hold. Personally I have never found an example of a search that was biased. If you disagree, give us the search words and we can test. I do admit the results are often staggering.
But I do think that some may give less weight to hate and conspiracy sites, but you can still find them if you look. I was just looking for Carl Cameron's new news site and came up with " About 386,000,000 results (0.52 seconds) " LOL crazy huh.
"As we are, so we see." William Blake
A computer program only does what it's programmed to do. Did you know that?
Quote from: Solar on June 25, 2019, 06:33:45 PM
Did you miss this?
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/30503
I think it's Midcan.
Quote from: taxed on June 25, 2019, 07:32:26 PM
I think it's Midcan.
I knew he sounded familiar...
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.
And related to this article: https://conservativehardliner.com/dont-break-social-media-companies-crack-them-open-instead
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Quote from: taxed on June 26, 2019, 06:29:32 AM
How would you retain the settings for that user?
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?
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.
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.
All are good questions that i don't want to think about until I start working on it.
Quote from: Solar on June 26, 2019, 06:46:23 AM
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:
People must have been so disinterested in politics. Hillary... Trump/Cruz... then Hillary/Trump...
Quote from: Zak on June 26, 2019, 06:59:58 AM
All are good questions that i don't want to think about until I start working on it.
Let me know, I have tons more... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm glad it is hard to "kill" Google". We're not commies.
Quote from: Zak on June 26, 2019, 06:59:58 AM
All are good questions that i don't want to think about until I start working on it.
Figured you might be interested in this one. Someone on Gab has been using it. (I added CPF and CH):
https://www.goodgopher.com/
Quote from: taxed on June 29, 2019, 04:26:25 AM
Figured you might be interested in this one. Someone on Gab has been using it. (I added CPF and CH):
https://www.goodgopher.com/
I just tried it and searched conservative forums, and vice versa. Try it and see what you get.
Quote from: Solar on June 29, 2019, 07:32:30 AM
I just tried it and searched conservative forums, and vice versa. Try it and see what you get.
I just added them before I posted that... It should take a little time to update...
Quote from: taxed on June 29, 2019, 04:26:25 AM
Figured you might be interested in this one. Someone on Gab has been using it. (I added CPF and CH):
https://www.goodgopher.com/
It needs that extra touch.
It needs to auto fill/recommend when you enter:
example "CNN is honest" to CNN is dishonest", "CNN is fake news", or "CNN is a bunch of liars".
:thumbsup:
While we're on the subject of search engines, I've been trying out Yandex (Russia's search engine). I have to say, I think it's the best, but I've only been using it for the past few days. If anyone else is using it let me know what you think.
https://yandex.com