Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Quick Bites: Search Evaluation at Google

Original post is here; Jeff's commentary is here. Not surprisingly, my reaction is that Google should consider a richer notion of "results" than an ordering of matching pages, perhaps a faceted approach that reflects the "several dimensions to 'good' results."

1 comment:

jeremy said...

I think one of the big problems is that Google's evaluation is of incremental changes. I don't think they know how to handle, evaluatively, a complete system reconceptualization, such as the faceted results that you suggest.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Quick Bites: Search Evaluation at Google

Original post is here; Jeff's commentary is here. Not surprisingly, my reaction is that Google should consider a richer notion of "results" than an ordering of matching pages, perhaps a faceted approach that reflects the "several dimensions to 'good' results."

1 comment:

jeremy said...

I think one of the big problems is that Google's evaluation is of incremental changes. I don't think they know how to handle, evaluatively, a complete system reconceptualization, such as the faceted results that you suggest.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Quick Bites: Search Evaluation at Google

Original post is here; Jeff's commentary is here. Not surprisingly, my reaction is that Google should consider a richer notion of "results" than an ordering of matching pages, perhaps a faceted approach that reflects the "several dimensions to 'good' results."

1 comment:

jeremy said...

I think one of the big problems is that Google's evaluation is of incremental changes. I don't think they know how to handle, evaluatively, a complete system reconceptualization, such as the faceted results that you suggest.