What could you do if you were Google and you had their databases?
- Transfer
For a long time, I wondered what was so valuable on Google+ for Google and why they were promoting it so much. In the end, Google had already tried “sociality” before, and many said that Google needs to concentrate on its core business - search, and leave “sociality” for others. But what if they had no choice? What if they really needed sociality and really needed it?
This article describes the hypothetical possibility that Google+ could be of great strategic importance to Google in its core business - search.
Ingredients:
Suppose you have a search engine and you have redefined how people navigate the Internet. Sooner or later, you will find that the very Internet that you relied on when generating your index first starts to rot from the inside out. This is a classic case where the observer changes what he is observing. This cannot be avoided for two reasons:
Certainly, from some point on, the value of links will be so small that they will no longer be a significant input parameter for the search algorithm. You can come up with a lot of alternatives using the information found on the Internet, but what else can be done?
Next come pure reflections ... An
analytical tool will provide an opportunity to check who is watching, but he will not tell you anything about the user. A social network will not tell you much about what people read, but it will say something about their reputation. As a rule, people with a higher status in a social network, belonging to certain professional circles, can be mistaken for experts in various fields.
If you combine analytics with a social network, you can understand which people, from which circles, and circles are certain areas of interest that go to which pages.
This can be used to reduce the degradation of the cost of the link, because it helps a lot to find out who gets the information and where. A regular spam page will be closed after a split second, but if a user who is a professional in a certain field lingers on a page with an article in this field, then this is a good criterion by which this article can be considered worthy.
It is difficult to decide what information from a social network, along with analytics, who visited which page and how long it was on it, to take as input in the algorithm. Nevertheless, I am sure that you would bring it to the end if it would help to achieve a significant leap in the quality of search results. Such an in-depth analysis of this is just what Google is doing superbly. And these are the kind of tasks that Google’s technology staff will happily take care of. I know that I would take;)
After all, there is no better tool for distinguishing between bad and good content than the human mind. If attracting people to solve computationally complex problems worked for image classification, then with a sufficiently large user base, you can do the same with the search. To do this, you just need to connect what users are viewing with their reputation. There is also a feedback loop caused by the fact that people search for a huge part of information directly through Google, having access to their analytics, which is based on a large amount of data. For example, Google may simply deduct those clicks to sites for which it is responsible. Thus, there remain professional relationships between people (email or personal messages), selected user links and links from sites,
If my hypothesis is true, then it is very likely that every Google+ user is now a free Google employee whose actions affect search results. This will explain why Google is so active in promoting Google+.
It would be great to find a way to refute this. However, one of the main reasons why I believe in this is that it fits well with the latest changes to Google’s privacy policy.
This article describes the hypothetical possibility that Google+ could be of great strategic importance to Google in its core business - search.
Ingredients:
- Search Engine + Linked Index
- Analytics
- Social network
- A large number of servers
- Group of talented developers
Suppose you have a search engine and you have redefined how people navigate the Internet. Sooner or later, you will find that the very Internet that you relied on when generating your index first starts to rot from the inside out. This is a classic case where the observer changes what he is observing. This cannot be avoided for two reasons:
- people who used to rely on links will now rely on your search, thereby reducing the value of links
- people who understand that you value links will create a lot of them, thereby further reducing the value of links between sites
Certainly, from some point on, the value of links will be so small that they will no longer be a significant input parameter for the search algorithm. You can come up with a lot of alternatives using the information found on the Internet, but what else can be done?
Next come pure reflections ... An
analytical tool will provide an opportunity to check who is watching, but he will not tell you anything about the user. A social network will not tell you much about what people read, but it will say something about their reputation. As a rule, people with a higher status in a social network, belonging to certain professional circles, can be mistaken for experts in various fields.
If you combine analytics with a social network, you can understand which people, from which circles, and circles are certain areas of interest that go to which pages.
This can be used to reduce the degradation of the cost of the link, because it helps a lot to find out who gets the information and where. A regular spam page will be closed after a split second, but if a user who is a professional in a certain field lingers on a page with an article in this field, then this is a good criterion by which this article can be considered worthy.
It is difficult to decide what information from a social network, along with analytics, who visited which page and how long it was on it, to take as input in the algorithm. Nevertheless, I am sure that you would bring it to the end if it would help to achieve a significant leap in the quality of search results. Such an in-depth analysis of this is just what Google is doing superbly. And these are the kind of tasks that Google’s technology staff will happily take care of. I know that I would take;)
After all, there is no better tool for distinguishing between bad and good content than the human mind. If attracting people to solve computationally complex problems worked for image classification, then with a sufficiently large user base, you can do the same with the search. To do this, you just need to connect what users are viewing with their reputation. There is also a feedback loop caused by the fact that people search for a huge part of information directly through Google, having access to their analytics, which is based on a large amount of data. For example, Google may simply deduct those clicks to sites for which it is responsible. Thus, there remain professional relationships between people (email or personal messages), selected user links and links from sites,
If my hypothesis is true, then it is very likely that every Google+ user is now a free Google employee whose actions affect search results. This will explain why Google is so active in promoting Google+.
It would be great to find a way to refute this. However, one of the main reasons why I believe in this is that it fits well with the latest changes to Google’s privacy policy.