The way I see it, I think Apple should make their OWN search engine and make it better than google and bing combined.
Mr. Jobs has a habit of seeing something, and making it 10x better. If I was him right now, I would do this:
1. Ban ads inside apps and use the excuse "We take 30% of all profits from paid apps, if they are free than we don't get any money". That will kill Google's investment in AdMob before they even profit from it.
2. Use Lala's music streaming to let people access their music from the cloud without needing to download and sync it everywhere.
3. Make our own search engine that has better features than other search engines. Use it to search iTunes too for music (something Google and MS can't compete with).
4. Look into technology that would be helpful to Google, and then buy it before they can.
I really like #2 and #3. Especially #3. This is what Apple should do and needs to do. We know that Apple is already making iTunes web version so to have a search engine that helps locate songs in iTunes on the web, this is a win for Apple. I really hope we see them do this.
Also, I don't mind seeing Apple trying out new avenues of revenue by buying smaller company to invest in, like web advertising or some other web based profit technology. I think that at this point we are in the early stages of what will lead to a climax in in the computer/mobile/internet space within the next 5 to 10 years. Things will be more cemented in terms of content providing, web advertising and Apple needs to see these things and excute with forethought.
It's not natural language search. If you meta tag the most commonly used words in English and include the mechanism for completion of the most commonly expected words as you start typing them it gives the illusion one is getting semantic searching. Never mind the fact the context of such search will continue to be a crap shoot.
google is just fine at natural language search. i use it to search support information for MS products and it's better at it than Microsoft's crappy support site and Bing. I can start typing in an error and it will automatically complete it for me
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. In my post I mentioned how I was trying to search based on my request"
"language and the development of technology"
Now a human would realise that I'm looking for information that shows how language has affected the development of technology for example English lead to the Industrial Revolution and as English was a common language in many countries due to the British Empire of the time it meant technology could develop more rapidly.
Doing a search in Google brought me information that didn't even come close to being relevant and therefore was completely useless.
Google does not use a natural language algorithm to do its searches. Natural language implies context and that's where search engines fail because they search for words and phrases but not the context of those words and phrases. As such the above example led to a search like so:
language + and + the + development + of + technology
But Google blocks searches of "and", "the", and "of" because these are common words and therefore reduces the search to:
language + development + technology
Which A: makes no sense and B: alters the search structure immensely therefore my problem of getting incorrect results.
Search engines are thus flawed right from the beginning because they work based on how computers work not based on how humans work.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. In my post I mentioned how I was trying to search based on my request"
"language and the development of technology"
Now a human would realise that I'm looking for information that shows how language has affected the development of technology for example English lead to the Industrial Revolution and as English was a common language in many countries due to the British Empire of the time it meant technology could develop more rapidly.
Doing a search in Google brought me information that didn't even come close to being relevant and therefore was completely useless.
Google does not use a natural language algorithm to do its searches. Natural language implies context and that's where search engines fail because they search for words and phrases but not the context of those words and phrases. As such the above example led to a search like so:
language + and + the + development + of + technology
But Google blocks searches of "and", "the", and "of" because these are common words and therefore reduces the search to:
language + development + technology
Which A: makes no sense and B: alters the search structure immensely therefore my problem of getting incorrect results.
Search engines are thus flawed right from the beginning because they work based on how computers work not based on how humans work.
You could always put your search in quotes so as to do a whole phrase search so as to avoid your issue with the whole disregarding common words "issue". Or you could have made your search more precise and got the results you are looking for.
I think you haven't even done a minute's worth of research on how to use a search engine properly.
Good luck on bridging the gap between analog human thought and digital computer behavior. For the time being Google does a great job of it.
Apple won't get in to the search business and Google won't stifle Apple withing its SERPs.
Both companies could cause major damage to their core business if they start to meddle with the way things are right now.
All were seeing here is Google's parallel strategy taking effect. All big successful companies have them in order to survive. Those that have all their eggs in one basket don't stay around for very long.
Still, it's a good time for rumours.
I'd expect Apple to either partner with http://www.cuil.com or buy them out.
It's just a matter of time before Apple enters the search business, and then it will be a full-blown official war between these two. How quickly times can change. One day they are the best of friends, and the next they couldn't have a bigger enemy.
I hope not. Apple is a hardware company, not a search company. They can have a partnership with Yahoo (microsoft) or ASK.com to help write better algorithms, but the same way that Google will never make an actual phone (they will outsource that to HTC) Apple will never make search (they will outsource they search know how with finder for what its worth to someone else at best).
You could always put your search in quotes so as to do a whole phrase search so as to avoid your issue with the whole disregarding common words "issue". Or you could have made your search more precise and got the results you are looking for.
I think you haven't even done a minute's worth of research on how to use a search engine properly.
Good luck on bridging the gap between analog human thought and digital computer behavior. For the time being Google does a great job of it.
If you actually read my post you'd have noticed that I did indeed say I tried various methods, including using quotes, to refine my search and all bought up results that were worthless.
Your assumptions of my knowledge of search engine use are unfounded given the information I had already provided.
Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo, et al all use the same computer based searching which is not indicative of human questioning and therefore is flawed. It might work for very simple searches or broad searches but it does not work for specific searches because Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo et al do not take into context they only search for words so if someone uses a different phrase or different wording to what you're after it will not find that information because it can't.
The point I was making is that we should NOT have to be forced to think like computers to get the information that we are searching for. Computers need to think like us because our brains are infinitely superior to computers and work far better than computers and we only use at best 10% of our potential.
If you actually read my post you'd have noticed that I did indeed say I tried various methods, including using quotes, to refine my search and all bought up results that were worthless.
Your assumptions of my knowledge of search engine use are unfounded given the information I had already provided.
Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo, et al all use the same computer based searching which is not indicative of human questioning and therefore is flawed. It might work for very simple searches or broad searches but it does not work for specific searches because Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo et al do not take into context they only search for words so if someone uses a different phrase or different wording to what you're after it will not find that information because it can't.
The point I was making is that we should NOT have to be forced to think like computers to get the information that we are searching for. Computers need to think like us because our brains are infinitely superior to computers and work far better than computers and we only use at best 10% of our potential.
I read your post where you mention it on your website. However, I searched more precisely and got relevant results.
Besides, why would there necessarily be a web page article about what you were looking for anyhow? You'd be better off searching in a library or encyclopedia, and no, wikipedia isn't going to have an article on it either.
Comments
Why wouldn't Apple go up against Google?
The way I see it, I think Apple should make their OWN search engine and make it better than google and bing combined.
Mr. Jobs has a habit of seeing something, and making it 10x better. If I was him right now, I would do this:
1. Ban ads inside apps and use the excuse "We take 30% of all profits from paid apps, if they are free than we don't get any money". That will kill Google's investment in AdMob before they even profit from it.
2. Use Lala's music streaming to let people access their music from the cloud without needing to download and sync it everywhere.
3. Make our own search engine that has better features than other search engines. Use it to search iTunes too for music (something Google and MS can't compete with).
4. Look into technology that would be helpful to Google, and then buy it before they can.
I really like #2 and #3. Especially #3. This is what Apple should do and needs to do. We know that Apple is already making iTunes web version so to have a search engine that helps locate songs in iTunes on the web, this is a win for Apple. I really hope we see them do this.
Also, I don't mind seeing Apple trying out new avenues of revenue by buying smaller company to invest in, like web advertising or some other web based profit technology. I think that at this point we are in the early stages of what will lead to a climax in in the computer/mobile/internet space within the next 5 to 10 years. Things will be more cemented in terms of content providing, web advertising and Apple needs to see these things and excute with forethought.
It's not natural language search. If you meta tag the most commonly used words in English and include the mechanism for completion of the most commonly expected words as you start typing them it gives the illusion one is getting semantic searching. Never mind the fact the context of such search will continue to be a crap shoot.
Sorry, Google works quite well for me.
google is just fine at natural language search. i use it to search support information for MS products and it's better at it than Microsoft's crappy support site and Bing. I can start typing in an error and it will automatically complete it for me
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. In my post I mentioned how I was trying to search based on my request"
"language and the development of technology"
Now a human would realise that I'm looking for information that shows how language has affected the development of technology for example English lead to the Industrial Revolution and as English was a common language in many countries due to the British Empire of the time it meant technology could develop more rapidly.
Doing a search in Google brought me information that didn't even come close to being relevant and therefore was completely useless.
Google does not use a natural language algorithm to do its searches. Natural language implies context and that's where search engines fail because they search for words and phrases but not the context of those words and phrases. As such the above example led to a search like so:
language + and + the + development + of + technology
But Google blocks searches of "and", "the", and "of" because these are common words and therefore reduces the search to:
language + development + technology
Which A: makes no sense and B: alters the search structure immensely therefore my problem of getting incorrect results.
Search engines are thus flawed right from the beginning because they work based on how computers work not based on how humans work.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. In my post I mentioned how I was trying to search based on my request"
"language and the development of technology"
Now a human would realise that I'm looking for information that shows how language has affected the development of technology for example English lead to the Industrial Revolution and as English was a common language in many countries due to the British Empire of the time it meant technology could develop more rapidly.
Doing a search in Google brought me information that didn't even come close to being relevant and therefore was completely useless.
Google does not use a natural language algorithm to do its searches. Natural language implies context and that's where search engines fail because they search for words and phrases but not the context of those words and phrases. As such the above example led to a search like so:
language + and + the + development + of + technology
But Google blocks searches of "and", "the", and "of" because these are common words and therefore reduces the search to:
language + development + technology
Which A: makes no sense and B: alters the search structure immensely therefore my problem of getting incorrect results.
Search engines are thus flawed right from the beginning because they work based on how computers work not based on how humans work.
You could always put your search in quotes so as to do a whole phrase search so as to avoid your issue with the whole disregarding common words "issue". Or you could have made your search more precise and got the results you are looking for.
I think you haven't even done a minute's worth of research on how to use a search engine properly.
Good luck on bridging the gap between analog human thought and digital computer behavior. For the time being Google does a great job of it.
Apple won't get in to the search business and Google won't stifle Apple withing its SERPs.
Both companies could cause major damage to their core business if they start to meddle with the way things are right now.
All were seeing here is Google's parallel strategy taking effect. All big successful companies have them in order to survive. Those that have all their eggs in one basket don't stay around for very long.
Still, it's a good time for rumours.
I'd expect Apple to either partner with http://www.cuil.com or buy them out.
It's just a matter of time before Apple enters the search business, and then it will be a full-blown official war between these two. How quickly times can change. One day they are the best of friends, and the next they couldn't have a bigger enemy.
I hope not. Apple is a hardware company, not a search company. They can have a partnership with Yahoo (microsoft) or ASK.com to help write better algorithms, but the same way that Google will never make an actual phone (they will outsource that to HTC) Apple will never make search (they will outsource they search know how with finder for what its worth to someone else at best).
You could always put your search in quotes so as to do a whole phrase search so as to avoid your issue with the whole disregarding common words "issue". Or you could have made your search more precise and got the results you are looking for.
I think you haven't even done a minute's worth of research on how to use a search engine properly.
Good luck on bridging the gap between analog human thought and digital computer behavior. For the time being Google does a great job of it.
If you actually read my post you'd have noticed that I did indeed say I tried various methods, including using quotes, to refine my search and all bought up results that were worthless.
Your assumptions of my knowledge of search engine use are unfounded given the information I had already provided.
Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo, et al all use the same computer based searching which is not indicative of human questioning and therefore is flawed. It might work for very simple searches or broad searches but it does not work for specific searches because Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo et al do not take into context they only search for words so if someone uses a different phrase or different wording to what you're after it will not find that information because it can't.
The point I was making is that we should NOT have to be forced to think like computers to get the information that we are searching for. Computers need to think like us because our brains are infinitely superior to computers and work far better than computers and we only use at best 10% of our potential.
If you actually read my post you'd have noticed that I did indeed say I tried various methods, including using quotes, to refine my search and all bought up results that were worthless.
Your assumptions of my knowledge of search engine use are unfounded given the information I had already provided.
Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo, et al all use the same computer based searching which is not indicative of human questioning and therefore is flawed. It might work for very simple searches or broad searches but it does not work for specific searches because Google, Altavista, Bing, Yahoo et al do not take into context they only search for words so if someone uses a different phrase or different wording to what you're after it will not find that information because it can't.
The point I was making is that we should NOT have to be forced to think like computers to get the information that we are searching for. Computers need to think like us because our brains are infinitely superior to computers and work far better than computers and we only use at best 10% of our potential.
I read your post where you mention it on your website. However, I searched more precisely and got relevant results.
Besides, why would there necessarily be a web page article about what you were looking for anyhow? You'd be better off searching in a library or encyclopedia, and no, wikipedia isn't going to have an article on it either.