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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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:
-
Anonymous 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.
-
September 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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:
-
Anonymous 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.
-
September 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
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.
Post a Comment