What could you do if you were Google and you had their databases?
For a long time, I wondered what was so valuable on Google+ for Google and why they were promoting it so much. In the end, Google has already tried “sociality” before, and many have said that Google needs to concentrate on its core business, search, and leave “sociality” to others. But what if they had no choice? What if they really needed sociality and needed it very much?
This article describes the hypothetical possibility that Google+ may be of major strategic importance to Google in its core business, search.
Ingredients:
Suppose you have a search engine, and you have redefined how people navigate the Internet. Sooner or later, you will find that the very Internet you relied on when generating your index first of all begins to rot from the inside. This is a classic case when the observer changes what he observes. This can not be avoided for two reasons:
Definitely exactly at some point, the value of the links will be so low that they will no longer be a significant input parameter for the search algorithm. You can come up with a huge variety of alternatives, using the information found on the Internet, but what else can you do?
')
Then there are pure reflections ...
An analytical tool will give you the opportunity to check who is watching what, but he will not tell you anything about the user. A social network will not tell you much about what people read, but it will say something about their reputation. As a rule, people with higher status in a social network, belonging to certain professional circles, can be considered experts in various fields.
If you combine analytics with a social network, you can understand what people, from what circles, and circles - these are certain areas of interest, go to what pages.
This can be used to reduce link cost degradation, because it greatly helps to know who gets the information and where it comes from. A regular spam page will be closed in a split second, but if a user who is professional in a certain area has stayed on the page with an article on this area, then this is a good criterion by which this article can be considered worthy.
It is difficult to decide what information from the social network, along with analytics, who visited which page and how long it was on it, take as input in the algorithm. Nevertheless, I am sure that you would bring it to the end if it would help to achieve a significant jump in the quality of search results. Such an in-depth analysis is just what Google does an excellent job with. And this is the kind of task that Google’s technology staff will happily take on. I know that I would take it;)
In the end, there is no better tool in distinguishing bad content from good than the human mind. If engaging people to solve computationally complex problems worked to classify images, then, having a fairly large user base, you can do the same with search. To do this, you only need to associate what users are viewing with their reputation. There is also a feedback loop, caused by the fact that people search for a huge part of information directly through Google, having access to their analytics, which is based on a large amount of data. For example, Google can simply subtract those referrals to the sites for which it is responsible. Thus, there remain professional connections between people (email or private messages), selected user links and links from sites that the user (and not some algorithm) found important.
If my hypothesis is correct, then it’s very likely that every Google+ user is now a free Google employee, whose actions affect search results. This will explain why Google is actively promoting Google+.
It would be great to find a way to refute this. However, one of the main reasons I believe in this is that it fits well with the latest changes in Google’s privacy policy.
This article describes the hypothetical possibility that Google+ may be of major strategic importance to Google in its core business, search.
Ingredients:
- Search engine + related index
- Analytics
- Social network
- A large number of servers
- A group of talented developers
Suppose you have a search engine, and you have redefined how people navigate the Internet. Sooner or later, you will find that the very Internet you relied on when generating your index first of all begins to rot from the inside. This is a classic case when the observer changes what he observes. This can not be avoided for two reasons:
- people who used to rely on links will now rely on your search, thereby reducing the value of links
- people who understand that you value links will create a lot of them, thereby further reducing the value of links between sites
Definitely exactly at some point, the value of the links will be so low that they will no longer be a significant input parameter for the search algorithm. You can come up with a huge variety of alternatives, using the information found on the Internet, but what else can you do?
')
Then there are pure reflections ...
An analytical tool will give you the opportunity to check who is watching what, but he will not tell you anything about the user. A social network will not tell you much about what people read, but it will say something about their reputation. As a rule, people with higher status in a social network, belonging to certain professional circles, can be considered experts in various fields.
If you combine analytics with a social network, you can understand what people, from what circles, and circles - these are certain areas of interest, go to what pages.
This can be used to reduce link cost degradation, because it greatly helps to know who gets the information and where it comes from. A regular spam page will be closed in a split second, but if a user who is professional in a certain area has stayed on the page with an article on this area, then this is a good criterion by which this article can be considered worthy.
It is difficult to decide what information from the social network, along with analytics, who visited which page and how long it was on it, take as input in the algorithm. Nevertheless, I am sure that you would bring it to the end if it would help to achieve a significant jump in the quality of search results. Such an in-depth analysis is just what Google does an excellent job with. And this is the kind of task that Google’s technology staff will happily take on. I know that I would take it;)
In the end, there is no better tool in distinguishing bad content from good than the human mind. If engaging people to solve computationally complex problems worked to classify images, then, having a fairly large user base, you can do the same with search. To do this, you only need to associate what users are viewing with their reputation. There is also a feedback loop, caused by the fact that people search for a huge part of information directly through Google, having access to their analytics, which is based on a large amount of data. For example, Google can simply subtract those referrals to the sites for which it is responsible. Thus, there remain professional connections between people (email or private messages), selected user links and links from sites that the user (and not some algorithm) found important.
If my hypothesis is correct, then it’s very likely that every Google+ user is now a free Google employee, whose actions affect search results. This will explain why Google is actively promoting Google+.
It would be great to find a way to refute this. However, one of the main reasons I believe in this is that it fits well with the latest changes in Google’s privacy policy.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/140232/
All Articles