 | |
Semantic Searches - Knowledge Engines
Search Engine Optimization Discussion about SEO/Search Engine Optimization (alt.internet.search-engines)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Semantic Searches - Knowledge Engines -
10-09-2005
, 01:47 AM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I missed this group very much after an absence of two weeks or so (vacation). This newsgroup still remains my favourite. |
I'm snipping the heavy thoughtful stuff, all about the future of
search, because it's Sunday. And because I can.
Why was it you missed us again? I like to hear that bit.
BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
Elvis does my SEO
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 06:47:12 +0100, Roy Schestowitz newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote: I missed this group very much after an absence of two weeks or so (vacation). This newsgroup still remains my favourite. Hey - I asked after you; they didn't! |
Really? *flattered* What thread (e.g. subject line)? I'd be curious to find
out. I think this newsgroup is among the very few that might sense my
absence.
Quote:
|
I'm snipping the heavy thoughtful stuff, all about the future of search, because it's Sunday. And because I can. |
Fair enough. At least it was read by somebody.
Quote:
|
Why was it you missed us again? I like to hear that bit. BB |
Withdrawal symptoms perhaps. Last month was hectic and I fell behind in many
aspects of life. I must have posted over 1000 messages a month (to UseNet
alone) and couldn't keep up with the rest of my responsibilities. I had to
cut down on newsgroups participation. *frown*
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Somebody, give this politician a wedgie"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
3:50pm up 45 days 4:04, 3 users, load average: 0.81, 0.67, 0.39
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Thoughts have occupied my mind which relate to the vocation of search technology. As we all (should) begin to realise, data and software are migrating to the Web so no more will we need to handle things locally, i.e. on/from our hard-drives. Web 2.0 also comes to mind, but it's not related directly to search engines. Now, here's a crazy thought... |
Man, where did you go? I can't think of a place that would induce such
heavy thoughts while vacationing ;-) Was it a library you went to for
couple weeks? If I may, I'd suggest you go to a nice beach next year,
unwind, and then go back to the real world of fighting over SERP9 as
oppose to SERP11, ready for another year of battle.
I myself find it a bit diffcult to respond to such heavy thought on a
Sunday ;-) Gotta give it another try tomorrow.
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
http://www.1-script.com/download.php
Free Search Engine Scripts
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------#
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archiv
http://www.1-script.com/forum
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 15710 messages and counting
##-----------------------------------------------##
#5
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Roy Schestowitz wrote: Thoughts have occupied my mind which relate to the vocation of search technology. As we all (should) begin to realise, data and software are migrating to the Web so no more will we need to handle things locally, i.e. on/from our hard-drives. Web 2.0 also comes to mind, but it's not related directly to search engines. Now, here's a crazy thought... Hey Roy, welcome back! |
Thanks! By the way, when Google referrals reverted back to their old pace
about 1.5 weeks ago (for me, at least), I instantly thought I'd point it
out to you. I held back as I needed to 'phase out' ahead of my departure.
Has this Google change in SERP's and priorities affected you too?
I more latterly suffer from plenty of referral spam that comes from Tonga's
sex & pills domains. I get about 500 'undeserved' visits counted each day.
My referrals logs are flooded by a sordid mess, bandwidth leaks and the Web
server badly suffers because a 100k+ HTML file (yes, tons of aggregated
HTML code) is repeatedly requested and it's generated _on-the-fly_ using
PHP. Goddamn spammers!
Quote:
|
Man, where did you go? I can't think of a place that would induce such heavy thoughts while vacationing ;-) |
I thought about it in the airport. Genealogy sprung to mind.
Quote:
|
Was it a library you went to for couple weeks? If I may, I'd suggest you go to a nice beach next year, unwind, and then go back to the real world of fighting over SERP9 as oppose to SERP11, ready for another year of battle. |
The beach burned me. *smile* Manchester offices are terrible preparation for
sunny beaches and prolonged exposure to lethal rays.
Quote:
|
I myself find it a bit diffcult to respond to such heavy thought on a Sunday ;-) Gotta give it another try tomorrow. |
With GBP 140 per brand-new Linux box, this definitely looks affordable. I am
guessing that Google will do that sooner or later. Speaking of which, I
must be more careful when selecting threads to follow-up...
http://www.google.com/search?q=roy+schestowitz
Result number 9: "Are Google stupid?" (NOTE: not my words)
This is always a bad idea when recruiters take the alta vista. I once had my
name bound to "Re: Need a PDA that's not a piece of shit" despite the fact
that I vigorously evangelise Palm. I had a friend contact me because of
this search result, which reached page 1 of the SERP above.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:50pm up 45 days 6:04, 3 users, load average: 2.08, 1.20, 0.73
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Roy Schestowitz wrote: With GBP 140 per brand-new Linux box, this definitely looks affordable. I am guessing that Google will do that sooner or later. What do you think of the whole Google-Sun-Star Office thing? Speaking of which, I must be more careful when selecting threads to follow-up... http://www.google.com/search?q=roy+schestowitz Result number 9: "Are Google stupid?" (NOTE: not my words) This is always a bad idea when recruiters take the alta vista. I once had my name bound to "Re: Need a PDA that's not a piece of shit" despite the fact that I vigorously evangelise Palm. I had a friend contact me because of this search result, which reached page 1 of the SERP above. We can help you with that. Start a thread "I love Google" and we'll have a long conversation about the virtues of not being evil. |
*LOL* That would be cocky and undeserved, don't you think?
Quote:
|
Welcome back by the way. Yes, you were missed. Your presence in the group helps making the conversation on topic :-) Mikkel |
Thanks Mikkel. The idea continued to burn in my mind last night and I
couldn't fall asleep for 2 hours. So, this morning I bought and set up a
new domain. I have a draft proposal already...
http://iuron.com/
I guess the above is the first link to the domain. The second will appear in
a blog later today, but this will probably end up among the domains
graveyard.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:15am up 45 days 18:29, 3 users, load average: 0.67, 0.56, 0.54
#7
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
Given all the data which is contained in our E-mail box(es), our files (photos, documents and sounds to name a few), wouldn't inference be the natural direction to follow? Extracting the semantics from our data and forming a network of knowledge will enable us to search for answers rather than text that resembles our query. As for personal search (limited scope due to privacy), the implications can be particularly revolutionary. |
whom, if I may ask? If you *are* the person your system is profiling, you
already have pretty good knowledge of who/what you are (leave pathology
aside for the sake of the argument). Privacy implications are immediate
and obvious, even the actual “limit” that you are referring to, is
debatable. There may be VERY good reasons to leave some (most?) parts of
your life outside of public domain of knowledge. Who gets to decide what’s
indexed and what’s not? What about people not familiar with the system
that accidentally let it index things not intended to be indexed?
Quote:
|
Rather than "search engines" we will be talking about "knowledge engines" (Googlism is maybe worth citing). There is currently no barrier that stands in the face of implementation apart from computer power and code. With Open Source software, I think it will soon be achieved. |
Well, on the other hand, you make it sound like it’s a mega-reminder
system you’ve conceived. Like, you’ve already had that piece of
information, but it eludes you, so you need an aid to find it. Well, in
this case it could be useful.
Quote:
|
Just imagine a neural network out there which rather than contain text with your name >as got complex knowledge about who you are. |
Umm… once again, myself and the closest family pretty much make up the
complete list of parties I would ever want to have knowledge of who I am.
I don’t need no stinking network having my “intellectual thumbprint”
available to advertising agencies, political parties, law enforcement,
IRS, Greenpeace, well, you go ahead and complete the list of who’d want to
know not only my name but my way of life, too. I have enough trouble with
too many people knowing my social security number and my home phone number
as it is.
Quote:
|
Moreover, it can answer questions that involve you and is too complex to be explored by a human. If it’s too complex to be explored by a human(?), I do not want to be |
Therefore I would not want to donate any personal data into this project.
Quote:
|
To many bodies including governments this would be invaluable, so be sure it's headed that way. |
over before it’s too late!
You are conceiving a system that may, eventually, become more dangerous
than Google. How’s that for a statement? Google is already indexing much
more data than is required to provide “knowledge” in its academic sense.
It can already be used for any kind of site penetration or at least doing
an extensive research plotting a penetration attack. Credit card numbers
accidentally indexed, social security numbers, account numbers – you name
it, Google has it. Personally I don’t think Google has developed a set of
morals yet that would lead them through managing these problems. They are
pretty much letting it be this way: you left it visible to our bot – you
are responsible. This leaves out a basic argument: if there were no bot,
the data won’t be compromised.
So, if you did not think hard about implications, think again. You still
have time to do it right (if of course there is such possibility).
Good luck!
--
Cheers,
Dmitri
No need for a personal sig - you'll find all info about me from the site
sig below
-------------------------------------
--
##-----------------------------------------------#
Article posted with Web Developer's USENET Archiv
http://www.1-script.com/forum
Web and RSS gateway to your favorite newsgroup -
alt.internet.search-engines - 15763 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
__/ [Mikkel Møldrup-Lakjer] on Sunday 09 October 2005 18:32 \__ We can help you with that. Start a thread "I love Google" and we'll have a long conversation about the virtues of not being evil. *LOL* That would be cocky and undeserved, don't you think? |
has a coolness value and a branded friendliness near the top of the web,
I believe these people are heading for serious problems with sticking to
their motto: "Don't be evil".
It's a good motto, I like it and I like Google, but I am thinking of how
long they will be able to be true to their ideals, now that they are
connecting with Sun, taking over more and more companies and launching
new enterprises.
Now that the "fight on the beaches" against Microsoft has been declared,
I am going to watch closely to see what happens.
What preoccupies me the most is perhaps not the outcome of the fight - I
doubt neither will win - but the strategy of the people at Google.
Will they stick to their motto which suggests that you cannot fight evil
with evil? Will they stick to fighting evil with good?
Or will they - or have they? - already become a company as companies are
most?*
(*As using tricks like Yahoo and Adobe who force users to download the
Yahoo Toolbar in order to upgrade their Acrobat Reader).
Quote:
|
Thanks Mikkel. The idea continued to burn in my mind last night and I couldn't fall asleep for 2 hours. So, this morning I bought and set up > a new domain. I have a draft proposal already... http://iuron.com/ |
Iuron?
Quote:
|
I guess the above is the first link to the domain. The second will appear in a blog later today, but this will probably end up among the domains graveyard. |
Mikkel
--
http://lakjer.dk/mikkel/freeware.shtml
#9
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
Roy Schestowitz wrote: Given all the data which is contained in our E-mail box(es), our files (photos, documents and sounds to name a few), wouldn't inference be the natural direction to follow? Extracting the semantics from our data and forming a network of knowledge will enable us to search for answers rather than text that resembles our query. As for personal search (limited scope due to privacy), the implications can be particularly revolutionary. So, you think an “intellectual thumbprint” of a person can be useful? |
To /ourselves/ it may be, not to others (_NOT_ public). Data that is
contained among E-mails, for example, has been read already so no new
information would crop up in our minds. Rather, pieces would be put
together more cohesively. It's like a memory aide to oneself.
Quote:
|
To whom, if I may ask? If you *are* the person your system is profiling, you already have pretty good knowledge of who/what you are (leave pathology aside for the sake of the argument). Privacy implications are immediate and obvious, even the actual “limit” that you are referring to, is debatable. There may be VERY good reasons to leave some (most?) parts of your life outside of public domain of knowledge. |
Not public domain. Think about tools like Google Desktop, putting aside the
security hacks that toy had in the past.
Quote:
|
Who gets to decide what’s indexed and what’s not? What about people not familiar with the system that accidentally let it index things not intended to be indexed? |
I think that's an entirely different issue. You are referring to people who
participated in UseNet, for example, oblivious to the fact that text would
often 'leak'.
Quote:
|
Rather than "search engines" we will be talking about "knowledge engines" (Googlism is maybe worth citing). There is currently no barrier that stands in the face of implementation apart from computer power and code. With Open Source software, I think it will soon be achieved. Well, on the other hand, you make it sound like it’s a mega-reminder system you’ve conceived. Like, you’ve already had that piece of information, but it eludes you, so you need an aid to find it. Well, in this case it could be useful. |
The only daunting aspect as this, as often we see in life, is that so-called
'robots' become more capable than humans, which can shatter self-worth. I
bet this is how a group people felt when Deep Blue became a Chess champion.
It was inconceivable in the past that anything could perform than a wise
man. What about photography and painting...?
Quote:
|
Just imagine a neural network out there which rather than contain text with your name >as got complex knowledge about who you are. Umm… once again, myself and the closest family pretty much make up the complete list of parties I would ever want to have knowledge of who I am. I don’t need no stinking network having my “intellectual thumbprint” available to advertising agencies, political parties, law enforcement, IRS, Greenpeace, well, you go ahead and complete the list of who’d want to know not only my name but my way of life, too. |
This, in fact, is why inference based on the World Wide Web (in its present
form) can be dangerous. Some things on the Web are public although they
should not be. Some would list Google Earth's high-resolution maps and vile
political content as examples.
Quote:
|
I have enough trouble with too many people knowing my social security number and my home phone number as it is. Moreover, it can answer questions that involve you and is too complex to be explored by a human. If it’s too complex to be explored by a human(?), I do not want to be involved because I would not be able to understand what it means to me. Therefore I would not want to donate any personal data into this project. To many bodies including governments this would be invaluable, so be sure it's headed that way. Yeah, way to go, Roy! Things are already headed that way, anyways, so bend over before it’s too late! |
When I wrote this I was merely making a prediction. Sooner or later somebody
might attempt to do that because the financial incentive is there. I loathe
the idea just as much as you do, but what I thought would be valuable is:
-Public domain: a collection scientific facts (think of chemistry for
instance) where you can form a knowledge pool that's easily accessible
using queries.
-Private (personal scope): a "life manager" as Jeffrey Hawkins called it.
Quote:
|
You are conceiving a system that may, eventually, become more dangerous than Google. How’s that for a statement? Google is already indexing much more data than is required to provide “knowledge” in its academic sense. It can already be used for any kind of site penetration or at least doing an extensive research plotting a penetration attack. Credit card numbers accidentally indexed, social security numbers, account numbers – you name it, Google has it. Personally I don’t think Google has developed a set of morals yet that would lead them through managing these problems. They are pretty much letting it be this way: you left it visible to our bot – you are responsible. This leaves out a basic argument: if there were no bot, the data won’t be compromised. |
Speaking of which,
http://tinyurl.com/drwyl
Look at that worrying smile...
Quote:
|
So, if you did not think hard about implications, think again. You still have time to do it right (if of course there is such possibility). Good luck! |
When I think of the public domain, I still have this mental picture of
someone looking for a way to solve a mechanical problem with some
electronic device. A query can solve this just as well as a proficient
person in a call centre.
On a personal (non-public level), I am thinking about the ability to ask
questions like "when was my grand-grandmother born"?
I don't see anything evil in the scenarios above apart from the fact that
our human mind become futile and interaction with people less necessary.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Warning 0x12C: ispell feels tired
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:00am up 46 days 14:14, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.55, 0.64
#10
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
Roy Schestowitz wrote: Roy, it's nice to see some blue-sky thinking here. |
Thanks for the compliment. The former follow-up interpreted my words as a
/personal/ grand plan that's intended to infiltrate people's privacy. That
was clearly a misleading misinterpretation.
Quote:
|
As we all (should) begin to realise, data and software are migrating to the Web so no more will we need to handle things locally, i.e. on/from our hard-drives. Can't say I agree with that, for a whole host of reasons. |
That'll probably be a major battleground for the desktop giant and the
alliance of Web giants.
Quote:
|
Web 2.0 also comes to mind, but it's not related directly to search engines. Now, here's a crazy thought... The way I see it (if I understand you correctly) is that the real problem is that computers cannot understand complex linguistic constructs ('natural language query'), nor human behavioral patterns ('who i am' in a purely deterministic way) in any kind of meaningful way, you're assuming that more processing power would solve that, but I'd argue that its not computationally possible because there are too many gaps in behaviour and communication that the human brain ignores. |
Practically, it is more viable than most people imagine. Translating
sentences to first order logic is not too hard a task and in excess of
training data/input you can compensate for abundance of complex natural
language. In my days as a computer science student, we actually wrote some
programs to scan text and translate it to logic, predominantly using
compiler technologies. Issues then become languages, homonyms, synonyms,
subtle meanings and cultural factors.
Also remember that we transform into a _semantic_ Web so it contains more
information than we see. What about XFN, for example? Look at the
implication of links on ranks, reliability and relevancy.
Quote:
|
Thats not to say that the current state of artificial intelligence, along side folksonomy and contributor lead webservices could lead to some very interesting research. Re: http://iuron.com/ - why not a wiki (it's more web2.0!)? |
Great idea. I'll do that once I'm done with that proposal. I have about 5
documents lying around at the moment (mainly the academic stuff), so it may
take time. I should probably stick to phpWiki because I have experience
with it.
Quote:
|
I've also been toying with an idea of DMOZ as a wiki - no corrupt editors, just people power. Or is that just plain silly? |
Because of spammers, it would require even more maintenance. The idea of
self-maintenance relies on morals or a system that penalises the crooks.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 85% of plant life in in the oceans
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
2:25am up 46 days 14:39, 2 users, load average: 0.49, 0.59, 0.49
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.