Google’s always been in the awkward position of claiming that PageRank is algorithmic, not editorial, while also explaining that they’re constantly adjusting their algorithms to ensure that PageRank reflects editorial judgments of quality. Here’s a peek inside the machine.
-
» Front Page
Bookmark & Feeds
-
Today's Popular
-
Recently Commented
- Charlie The Unicorn (9)
- WPA Cracked (265)
- The Bathroom Reader (34)
- Dreams. What Do They Mean? (298)
- bSuite (23)
- Flickr Adds Video (2)
- Free Report On Accessible Web Design From Jakob Nielsen (8)
- Small Video Cameras (820)
- TV-B-Gone (3)
- ?I Want My Money? (7)
- Movie: Bowling for Columbine (13)
- Sending SMS Messages (21)
- Grizzly Man (1600)
- Nokia 770 (10)
- Who Doesn’t Want a Caboose? (70)
The Requisite Tag Cloud
apple art blog blogging bstat bush copyfight copyright flickr food funny future libraries george bush george w bush google google economy internet iphone ipod lib20 libraries library library 2.0 library catalog mac movie music mysql opac open source photo php plugin politics presentation search social software statistics Travel video w web 2.0 wordpress wordpress plugin wpopacCategories
- Blink (140)
- Books, Movies, Music (163)
- Copyrights & Intellectual Property (76)
- Dispatches (145)
- Kitchen (32)
- Libraries & Networked Information (362)
- Photoblog (162)
- Planes, Trains, & Automobiles (70)
- Politics & Controversy (307)
- Questionable…funny. Pointless. (326)
- Redstone Brewery (6)
- Style, Fashion and Food (74)
- Technology (714)
- Travel (115)
- Uncategorized (46)
- Warren (59)
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- April 2008 (16)
- March 2008 (21)
- February 2008 (10)
- January 2008 (58)
- December 2007 (16)
- November 2007 (23)
- October 2007 (21)
- September 2007 (28)
- August 2007 (21)
- July 2007 (31)
- June 2007 (73)
- May 2007 (35)
- April 2007 (40)
- March 2007 (34)
- February 2007 (17)
- January 2007 (13)
- December 2006 (13)
- November 2006 (22)
- October 2006 (22)
- September 2006 (32)
- August 2006 (43)
- July 2006 (31)
- June 2006 (33)
- May 2006 (28)
- April 2006 (51)
- March 2006 (56)
- February 2006 (45)
- January 2006 (48)
- December 2005 (78)
- November 2005 (67)
- October 2005 (78)
- September 2005 (61)
- August 2005 (55)
- July 2005 (56)
- June 2005 (44)
- May 2005 (42)
- April 2005 (47)
- March 2005 (38)
- February 2005 (28)
- January 2005 (38)
- December 2004 (62)
- November 2004 (42)
- October 2004 (56)
- September 2004 (35)
- August 2004 (30)
- July 2004 (18)
- June 2004 (13)
- May 2004 (16)
- April 2004 (6)
- March 2004 (35)
- February 2004 (19)
- January 2004 (9)
- December 2003 (2)
- October 2003 (4)
- August 2003 (6)
- July 2003 (7)
- June 2003 (1)
- May 2003 (2)
- April 2003 (10)
- March 2003 (10)
- February 2003 (6)
- January 2003 (5)
- December 2002 (10)
- November 2002 (10)
- October 2002 (6)
- September 2002 (7)
- August 2002 (6)
- July 2002 (11)
- June 2002 (19)
- May 2002 (5)
- April 2002 (3)
Elsewhere...
-
Subscribe (RSS)
-
Meta
-
Popular Searches
- wikipedia api (20)
- GEN H-4 helicopter (13)
- bluetooth hack (8)
- sample passport numbers (8)
- scary ads (8)
- موقع89 (7)
- filme xxl (7)
- weres mrs.butterworth.com (7)
- bluejacking software with n95 (6)
- www.sex.com (6)
- cheap gas efficient cars (5)
- ebay customer service number (5)
- December 1,2,3 1950 life magazine cover pictures (5)
- where's mrs butterworth (4)
- xxl porno (4)
One Comment
This doesn’t prove anything! Google has quality control people checking to see if algorithms are working well? So? Surely the point is to figure out how to get algorithms that will pick up on problems, so they can be improved, not to try to solve quality rating by having people do it. That would be insane and go against every way that Google works.
Heck, I do the same thing at LibraryThing. I’ve had LT employees rate six or seven different recommendation results. From that, I can see which of my algorithms performs the best. That doesn’t mean I’m asking employees to rate recommendations for 3 million titles!
Post a Comment