Google.
-
I think "technical" vs. "layman" would be a good start. There's Google scholar, but that references academic papers. I use that, but for everyday searching I would prefer something other than "Wikipedia" in my top 10. Richard says -Wikipedia can be used as a switch, but that only eliminates one source. I also dislike the "pay to be higher in the rankings" scheme Google runs. I feel it rather distorts the purpose of search. Like I said, I don't want "popular", I want "relevant".
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think "technical" vs. "layman" would be a good start. There's Google scholar, but that references academic papers. I use that, but for everyday searching I would prefer something other than "Wikipedia" in my top 10. Richard says -Wikipedia can be used as a switch, but that only eliminates one source. I also dislike the "pay to be higher in the rankings" scheme Google runs. I feel it rather distorts the purpose of search. Like I said, I don't want "popular", I want "relevant".
Computer algorithms can work out popular. Technical vs layman requires more human intervention. I don't know if it is still true, but Yahoo was originally supposed to be human constructed, but it couldn't compete with Google as a search engine. And, like I said, "relevant" is not in a form that can be operationalised. Of course, how technical the results you get are depends in part on what search terms you use. But I hear your pain. Google is fabulous much of the time, but it can also be very frustrating.
John Carson
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think "technical" vs. "layman" would be a good start. There's Google scholar, but that references academic papers. I use that, but for everyday searching I would prefer something other than "Wikipedia" in my top 10. Richard says -Wikipedia can be used as a switch, but that only eliminates one source. I also dislike the "pay to be higher in the rankings" scheme Google runs. I feel it rather distorts the purpose of search. Like I said, I don't want "popular", I want "relevant".
Computer algorithms can work out popular. Technical vs layman requires more human intervention. I don't know if it is still true, but Yahoo was originally supposed to be human constructed, but it couldn't compete with Google as a search engine. And, like I said, "relevant" is not in a form that can be operationalised. Of course, how technical the results you get are depends in part on what search terms you use. But I hear your pain. Google is fabulous much of the time, but it can also be very frustrating.
John Carson
Yes, "popularity" proxying for "relevant" is the source of my irritation. My other reply got misplaced I think but in it I suggested that some kind of Flesch-Kincaid threshold score would perhaps be useful. Additionally, I would like an option to have search results that exclude organizations paying to have their search results boosted. I also think that a more heirarchical organization of the internet would be much better. For instance, true separation between .com, .edu, .net, .org, and a set of specialized addresses for pornography. I think this would be fantastic and boost efficiency and speed and I could search by domain; i.e. only .edu, for example. Perhaps I can do this already, I'll have to go over the link to GoogleGuide.
-
I think "technical" vs. "layman" would be a good start. There's Google scholar, but that references academic papers. I use that, but for everyday searching I would prefer something other than "Wikipedia" in my top 10. Richard says -Wikipedia can be used as a switch, but that only eliminates one source. I also dislike the "pay to be higher in the rankings" scheme Google runs. I feel it rather distorts the purpose of search. Like I said, I don't want "popular", I want "relevant".
Further to what I wrote earlier, have you had a look at some of Google's experimental search offerings? (can't help you as far as killing paid higher raking returns) Take my example above "algebra -wikipedia" this will return ordinary results for algebra without wikipedia entries, and as far as I am aware not restricted to the one switch. Replace that search string by "algebra view:info -wikipedia" The results will be initially similar but at the top of page there are other option that enable other filters. On right there are other options as well. While looking at the returned results, click the timeline and (well I think so) interesting results are now returned. Using the timeline appears to give more specialized results for algebra. Now try the query using your "Polygon Clipping" interesting results
-
Yes, "popularity" proxying for "relevant" is the source of my irritation. My other reply got misplaced I think but in it I suggested that some kind of Flesch-Kincaid threshold score would perhaps be useful. Additionally, I would like an option to have search results that exclude organizations paying to have their search results boosted. I also think that a more heirarchical organization of the internet would be much better. For instance, true separation between .com, .edu, .net, .org, and a set of specialized addresses for pornography. I think this would be fantastic and boost efficiency and speed and I could search by domain; i.e. only .edu, for example. Perhaps I can do this already, I'll have to go over the link to GoogleGuide.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I also think that a more heirarchical organization of the internet would be much better. For instance, true separation between .com, .edu, .net, .org, and a set of specialized addresses for pornography. I think this would be fantastic and boost efficiency and speed and I could search by domain; i.e. only .edu, for example. Perhaps I can do this already, I'll have to go over the link to GoogleGuide. Quote Selected Text
You can. Just click on Advanced Search.
John Carson
-
This may sound like an odd question/rant, but I detest the way Google presents its search results. In particular, it annoys me immensely that I see Wikipedia results in the top 10 search list. Everytime I search for something I get a link to Wikipedia within the first three results, guaranteed. I can't stand this. This is not a search output that presents the most relevent information, it's a search service that presents the most popular relevant information. Popular does not equate to relevant for me. I wish Google had a way to disable this, but obviously their advertisement income model depends on this type of presentation. So, is there any other search engine out there that doesn't default to this kind of search result ranking?
One thing is great with Google: it's free. What do you expect? That people will put a search engine for you with their own money? Advertising is how they get their money.
-
One thing is great with Google: it's free. What do you expect? That people will put a search engine for you with their own money? Advertising is how they get their money.
Le Centriste wrote:
One thing is great with Google: it's free. What do you expect?
I expect more!
-
This may sound like an odd question/rant, but I detest the way Google presents its search results. In particular, it annoys me immensely that I see Wikipedia results in the top 10 search list. Everytime I search for something I get a link to Wikipedia within the first three results, guaranteed. I can't stand this. This is not a search output that presents the most relevent information, it's a search service that presents the most popular relevant information. Popular does not equate to relevant for me. I wish Google had a way to disable this, but obviously their advertisement income model depends on this type of presentation. So, is there any other search engine out there that doesn't default to this kind of search result ranking?
:confused: Most of the time, I want to see Wikipedia results. Heck, I created a custom search so I can search Wikipedia directly from my FF address bar. :-\ You don't want to see Wikipedia, just filter it out, like Richard said above. You can even write a small console app (15 lines at most) that will take your search string, and google it for you, filtering out Wikipedia results. Put it into any folder in your system path, and you can search by going to start - run irrespective of which app you're using. I've done this at work (without the wiki filtering, obviously) and it's a pleasure to use. Let me know if you want it, I can email it to you tomorrow (at home now). How's your health? :)
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
:confused: Most of the time, I want to see Wikipedia results. Heck, I created a custom search so I can search Wikipedia directly from my FF address bar. :-\ You don't want to see Wikipedia, just filter it out, like Richard said above. You can even write a small console app (15 lines at most) that will take your search string, and google it for you, filtering out Wikipedia results. Put it into any folder in your system path, and you can search by going to start - run irrespective of which app you're using. I've done this at work (without the wiki filtering, obviously) and it's a pleasure to use. Let me know if you want it, I can email it to you tomorrow (at home now). How's your health? :)
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Most of the time, I want to see Wikipedia results. Heck, I created a custom search so I can search Wikipedia directly from my FF address bar. You don't want to see Wikipedia, just filter it out, like Richard said above.
I don't like Wikipedia very much. I know it is supposed to be accurate, but I have a few doubts. My main complaint is the ranking of search results based on "popularity" or the payment scheme to have higher priority. I know Google needs revenue, but still, I feel the results are rather biased.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
You can even write a small console app (15 lines at most) that will take your search string, and google it for you, filtering out Wikipedia results. Put it into any folder in your system path, and you can search by going to start - run irrespective of which app you're using.
Sure! Thanks.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
How's your health?
Doing okay! Trying to learn about spontaneous genetic mutations.
-
Further to what I wrote earlier, have you had a look at some of Google's experimental search offerings? (can't help you as far as killing paid higher raking returns) Take my example above "algebra -wikipedia" this will return ordinary results for algebra without wikipedia entries, and as far as I am aware not restricted to the one switch. Replace that search string by "algebra view:info -wikipedia" The results will be initially similar but at the top of page there are other option that enable other filters. On right there are other options as well. While looking at the returned results, click the timeline and (well I think so) interesting results are now returned. Using the timeline appears to give more specialized results for algebra. Now try the query using your "Polygon Clipping" interesting results
Thanks Richard. I do use Google Scholar frequently and I like it.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Most of the time, I want to see Wikipedia results. Heck, I created a custom search so I can search Wikipedia directly from my FF address bar. You don't want to see Wikipedia, just filter it out, like Richard said above.
I don't like Wikipedia very much. I know it is supposed to be accurate, but I have a few doubts. My main complaint is the ranking of search results based on "popularity" or the payment scheme to have higher priority. I know Google needs revenue, but still, I feel the results are rather biased.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
You can even write a small console app (15 lines at most) that will take your search string, and google it for you, filtering out Wikipedia results. Put it into any folder in your system path, and you can search by going to start - run irrespective of which app you're using.
Sure! Thanks.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
How's your health?
Doing okay! Trying to learn about spontaneous genetic mutations.
While you can use Richard's tip, I'd suggest using -site:wikipedia.org, beccause -wikipedia would ban all pages that simply contain the word 'wikipedia', even if it's there in an unrelated context. I'll get you the app over the next couple of days. I hope you can compile C# source, because I can't send any EXEs out of my office account.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
One thing is great with Google: it's free. What do you expect?
I expect more!
73Zeppelin wrote:
I expect more!
Of course, you're Canadian ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
One thing is great with Google: it's free. What do you expect?
I expect more!
HAHAHA Good luck with that. You could do one thing, though. Develop your own search engine and make it available for free.
-
Further to what I wrote earlier, have you had a look at some of Google's experimental search offerings? (can't help you as far as killing paid higher raking returns) Take my example above "algebra -wikipedia" this will return ordinary results for algebra without wikipedia entries, and as far as I am aware not restricted to the one switch. Replace that search string by "algebra view:info -wikipedia" The results will be initially similar but at the top of page there are other option that enable other filters. On right there are other options as well. While looking at the returned results, click the timeline and (well I think so) interesting results are now returned. Using the timeline appears to give more specialized results for algebra. Now try the query using your "Polygon Clipping" interesting results
view:info looks cool, but what does it actually do? :~ I think I'm a bit dense. Also, when I search from my FF address bar, it inserts a space between "view:" and "info" so I have to go to the Google homepage to get it working. (Of course, it's FF that is screwing up here). Small tip for you: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2921914[^]
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Most of the time, I want to see Wikipedia results. Heck, I created a custom search so I can search Wikipedia directly from my FF address bar. You don't want to see Wikipedia, just filter it out, like Richard said above.
I don't like Wikipedia very much. I know it is supposed to be accurate, but I have a few doubts. My main complaint is the ranking of search results based on "popularity" or the payment scheme to have higher priority. I know Google needs revenue, but still, I feel the results are rather biased.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
You can even write a small console app (15 lines at most) that will take your search string, and google it for you, filtering out Wikipedia results. Put it into any folder in your system path, and you can search by going to start - run irrespective of which app you're using.
Sure! Thanks.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
How's your health?
Doing okay! Trying to learn about spontaneous genetic mutations.
paid results are listed separately from normal ones. Just ignore the sponsored links section if you have a problem with it like I do normally. However when looking for a product, I find the sponsored links tend to be more likely to be what I'm trying to find than the normal ones, especially if it's something obscure.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
view:info looks cool, but what does it actually do? :~ I think I'm a bit dense. Also, when I search from my FF address bar, it inserts a space between "view:" and "info" so I have to go to the Google homepage to get it working. (Of course, it's FF that is screwing up here). Small tip for you: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2921914[^]
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
view:info looks cool, but what does it actually do?
According to [^] "See results on a timeline, map, or in context of other information types. With these views, Google's technology extracts key dates, locations, measurements, and more from select search results so you can view the information in a different dimension. Timeline and map views work best for searches related to people, companies, events and places. Info view shows all the data found for each result, to help you select the best choice. " You might also enjoy Google Sets[^] However, good tip you gave :)
-
It should be able to be customized. What good are standard search results? One should be able to customise the search using some kind of priority metric.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
view:info looks cool, but what does it actually do?
According to [^] "See results on a timeline, map, or in context of other information types. With these views, Google's technology extracts key dates, locations, measurements, and more from select search results so you can view the information in a different dimension. Timeline and map views work best for searches related to people, companies, events and places. Info view shows all the data found for each result, to help you select the best choice. " You might also enjoy Google Sets[^] However, good tip you gave :)
Yeah, but I still can't figure out how to use Info view. Maybe I have to try a wider range of terms. Or maybe I'm just dense. :) Google sets looks cool, but I don't see myself actually using it much. You may want to check out Keyboard shortcuts, which I've been using for about a year and find *very* cool. Unfortunately, while it works on IE7/XP at work, it simply doesn't on FF3/Vista at home, so YMMV.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
view:info looks cool, but what does it actually do?
According to [^] "See results on a timeline, map, or in context of other information types. With these views, Google's technology extracts key dates, locations, measurements, and more from select search results so you can view the information in a different dimension. Timeline and map views work best for searches related to people, companies, events and places. Info view shows all the data found for each result, to help you select the best choice. " You might also enjoy Google Sets[^] However, good tip you gave :)
FWIW, Keyboard Shortcuts works on FF3/Vista if I use Google.com, but not if I use Google.in :(
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
I think "technical" vs. "layman" would be a good start. There's Google scholar, but that references academic papers. I use that, but for everyday searching I would prefer something other than "Wikipedia" in my top 10. Richard says -Wikipedia can be used as a switch, but that only eliminates one source. I also dislike the "pay to be higher in the rankings" scheme Google runs. I feel it rather distorts the purpose of search. Like I said, I don't want "popular", I want "relevant".