Subscribe: Comments on Geeking with Greg: The brain as a spam filter
http://glinden.blogspot.com/feeds/4365225022216802328/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
agree  algorithm  approach  back end  give  history  information  people  relevant documents  relevant information  relevant  search  searcher  tools 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Geeking with Greg: The brain as a spam filter

Comments on Geeking with Greg: The brain as a spam filter





Updated: 2017-12-14T07:09:15.803-08:00

 



Great point, Jeremy. I think instant answers and ...

2008-02-08T10:59:00.000-08:00

Great point, Jeremy. I think instant answers and snippets are a good example of that. In some cases, people can get the answer they need right from text on the search result page, no clicks, no actions.



Just a quick followup: This is something I think t...

2008-02-04T09:27:00.000-08:00

Just a quick followup: This is something I think that gets lost in a lot of the A/B testing, click-stream only testing, that happens on the web. There is this feeling that something on the web is only useful if someone clicks on it, or otherwise performs some sort of action.

But tools can be just as useful even if they never get used, because they serve as view ports into the black box, as feedback from the algorithm that the algorithm is understanding the user's intent.



Oh, I absolutely agree. I think without the algor...

2008-02-04T09:22:00.000-08:00

Oh, I absolutely agree. I think without the algorithmic intelligence on the back end, the whole point of search is lost. And I see nothing wrong with tying it to searcher history. Frankly, I believe that recent searcher history is more important than long term searcher history, but I don't have the numbers to back that up, off-hand. But either way, I'm definitely not against what you're proposing.

I'm just saying that your sort of blathering will probably be most effective when coupled with my sort of blathering, so as to give the searcher an overall sense of what the back end algorithm understands. And allow the searcher to modify the algorithm's understanding. It is the black box that I object to, not the algorithmic back end.

The first part of that is key to me, though. Offering explicit tools doesn't just give the searcher an opportunity to give feedback to the algorithm. It also gives the algorithm a chance to give feedback to the searcher! The searcher can actually see how well the algorithm has understood his/her intent, by seeing the information actually populating the tools.



Hi, Jeremy! Absolutely, I think this favors a com...

2008-02-01T19:01:00.000-08:00

Hi, Jeremy! Absolutely, I think this favors a combination of the tools approach you advocate and the personalization approach I'm always blathering on about.

In particular, the tools will have provide substantial search functionality beyond existing interfaces, but also pay attention to individual searcher's interests and history.

Do you agree?



Hmm.. I think I agree with your conclusion, but no...

2008-02-01T18:54:00.000-08:00

Hmm.. I think I agree with your conclusion, but not the route you took to get there :-)

More information is not better. To be most productive on a task, we want to maximize our ability to filter for relevant information, not maximize our ability to acquire information.

Well, actually, it's a mixture of these two things. We want to maximize our ability to acquire relevant information, right?

Not only is precision more important than recall, not only should we help people filter data and focus their attention

I don't quite see how you get to this conclusion from the previous idea. Both precision and recall are still important. E.g. suppose you only have 4 brain slots to fill with information, and you do a search.

Would you rather have a search system that returned only 2 relevant documents, and nothing else? Or would you rather have a search system that returned 3 relevant documents and 1 non-relevant document? The former is more precise, but has lower recall. And vice versa.

Given that you can always ignore the non-relevant document returned by the search engine, I would prefer the engine that gave me 3 relevant documents. Especially since I probably have a better chance from that point forward in finding even more relevant information, because I now have 3 examples of relevant information rather than 2. Precision is not necessarily more important than recall.

but also we may want to explicitly help people form and retain a working set of knowledge to apply to their task.

This is the crux of what you are saying, I think. Can I ask you: Should this working set of knowledge be implicitly represented, i.e. embedded in the search engine as some sort of parameter weight, or explicitly represented, i.e. shown to the user in a way that the user can interact and manipulate and give feedback on that worked set of knowledge?

The former is the personalization approach that you often advocate. The latter is the "tools-based" approach I'm always blathering on about. You say:

More generally, I think it is useful to think of searchers as skimming and filtering the information on pages as they try to build a small set of relevant information for their task. This may suggest methods we might consider to filter and help focus attention, such has highlighting parts of a page that are particularly likely to be useful, explicitly attempting to determine what may be distracting on a page for specific types of tasks and reducing those distractions, and carrying information and history across pages as people work on their tasks.

This seems to favor the explicit approach, the "tools" approach, rather than the personalization approach. Am I correctly characterizing what you are saying?



Wow, that's really interesting.Did you ever meet p...

2008-02-01T13:39:00.000-08:00

Wow, that's really interesting.

Did you ever meet people who take great offense at what we would generally think of as normal or even trivial kinds of day to day issues and problems? Quite often they can recount the entire chain of events which led up to these things in excruciating detail while you, as as listener, are thinking "You got all worked up about that? I'd barely remember it!"

Perhaps there is a reason that some people are thicker-skinned than others.