Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
The future of Google Search, though, could be a very different story. In an extensive conversation, Singhal, who has been in the search field for 20 years, outlined a developing vision for search that takes it beyond mere words and into the world of entities, attributes and the relationship between those entities. In other words, Google’s future search engine will not only understand your lake question but know a lake is a body of water and tell you the depth, surface areas, temperatures and even salinities for each lake.
Google now wants to transform words that appear on a page into entities that mean something and have related attributes. It’s what the human brain does naturally, but for computers, it’s known as Artificial Intelligence.
It’s a challenging task, but the work has already begun. Google is “building a huge, in-house understanding of what an entity is and a repository of what entities are in the world and what should you know about those entities,” said Singhal.
... but Google Fellow and SVP Amit Singhal says Google doesn’t understand the question. “We cross our fingers and hope someone on the web has written about these things or topics
I'm pretty sure the height of the Empire State Building isn't what's paying the bills, either
Me: Which planets are within 20,000 light years and have a gaseous atmosphere with an atmospheric nitrogen concentration of higher than 18% with an atmospheric methane concentration of lower than 22%?
Computer: There are seven such planets. The closest one is Aldebran II-a, 256 light years away with an atmospheric....
Right now, experienced searchers might not even formulate a search such as "the ten deepest lakes in the US" but would probably come at this idea from related searches that stand a better chance of finding a text match
Now you know why Wikipedia ranks so highly, it touches on every related aspect to your search terms.I remember Amit Singhal's post after the Panda fiasco on what constitutes a "good" website. He was, consciously or not, describing Wikipedia.
What's wrong with pure text match btw? Why change something that is working?
...natural language searches with articles and pronouns and so forth....
...I didn't have the word "port" and my first old-style keyword search failed. So I fell back on what I consider my new strategy. I typed in my query as if I were talking to a human mechanic and typed in "Where do I plug an OBD reader into a Subaru Forester?" Yes, of course I know half of those are stop words, but guess what? An appropriate page, with a diagram and everything, popped up #1.
...Just like like when you google "empire state building" on [duckduckgo.com...]
Hah. And I thought DuckDuckGo was supposed to be Not Evilâ„¢. How could anyone suggest DDG as an alternative to Google when DDG is clearly also subduing the hard work of numerous webmasters without any regard for their livelihood. Oh, the humanity...
Gratuitous sarcasm aside, I had a specific Google query (not the question I typed out previously) in mind that returns, at the top of the page:
Best guess for Empire State Building Height is 381 m
Mentioned on at least 4 websites including wikipedia.org, about.com and pbs.org - Show sources - Feedback
The only problem I have with that is that the value is in meters when Google knows I'm in the United States.
But I think this is getting a bit off-topic, so I'll stop here.