News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We can do better than DuckDuckGo by jrochkind1 on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @06:37PM (#25131365)
> You do that by having a list of known good sites to answer specific types of questions, and looking at the sites they link to.

I mean, that's basically the core of original Google pagerank, right? A "good" site linking to another site is what makes that other site some amount of "good" too, links from better sites carry more 'juice'. "good" is of course not just binary, but a quantitative weight.

I don't know to what extent that's still at the core of their relevancy rankings. I don't know how all those annoying spammy recipe blogs or content farms get to the top of the results either. I don't think it's because Google's engineers believe they are "good" results.

Relevancy ranking on web search is clearly a hard problem, mainly because so many authors are trying to game it, it's a feedback loop.

If Google can only do as google does despite pouring a whole lot of money into it, I don't see a reason to bet that better will be what's basically an over-simplified description of how Google started out doing it (and then evolved it because it wasn't good enough).

Re:We can do better than DuckDuckGo by JProthero on Wednesday November 18, 2020 @01:17AM (#25133729)
That was exactly my thought on reading that part of the article: that the author was describing Pagerank, but substituting Pagerank's design objective of algorithmically outsourcing quality judgments to the global community of website publishers with the programmer's prejudices instead.

I hope the project of improving on DuckDuckGo is successful though, and some of the other proposals in the article sound promising to me.

In the future I would like to see an open source search engine 'paid for' using some combination of homomorphic encryption, blockchain and Tor-style technologies to trade bandwidth and processing power with its userbase in exchange for search results and other services, but I don't have the expertise to assess how feasible that might be.

Re:We can do better than DuckDuckGo by pksebben on Thursday November 19, 2020 @09:04AM (#25149537)
the money really is the crux of the issue, too. if you take as a given that consumers won't pay for a service they can get for free, then you're kind of in a bind creating an unopinionated search - if you're truly objective, and reflecting the underlying value of each link faithfully, who do you charge?