How Google makes improvements to its search algorithm

From: James Weinheimer <weinheimer.jim.l_at_nyob>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:04:40 +0200
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5RZOU6vK4Q

This is essentially an advertisement for Google Search, but still shows 
a few rather peculiar mindsets, at least from the librarian point of 
view. The first thing I noticed is where one of their specialists said 
that they are interested in getting the best results *for each user*, 
which actually reveal quite a bit I think.

Someone notices that a search "is not performing as well as they would 
like" and it goes to "ranking engineers" who work with it. Then it goes 
to "raters", i.e. external people who have been trained to judge whether 
one ranking is more relevant or higher quality than another. Then it all 
goes to a "search analyst" and a related committee, where the ultimate 
goal is "to provide an informed, data-driven decision and to present an 
unbiased view." Then comes a real example. Also, they claim they make 
over 500 updates a year to the search results.

So, from this short film there is an overall impression of search 
results that are changing constantly, i.e. updates of almost 2 a day; 
plus a great deal of subjectivity, i.e. the best results *for each 
user*, mixed with supposed objectivity (reliance on "experts" and 
data-driven analysis to get an unbiased view) that, when you consider 
it, doesn't really explain anything at all. For instance, who are these 
"raters" and who trains them and how? They seem to be the focal point.

I just discovered this (via a Google search!): Google General Guidelines 
for Remote Quality Raters (2007) 
http://www.seobook.com/full-text-googles-general-guidelines-remote-quality-raters-april-2007 
It was taken down along with some videos at Google's request! (That is 
revealing!) But I found a summary of it: 
http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Google-Optimization-Help/Googles-Quality-Rater-Guidelines-Leaked/. 


In spite of all this, it seems that Google remains completely a black 
box that takes in information and spits it out and no one, at least no 
one outside of the company, really knows why it ranks sites the way it 
does. What does it mean when they say a search "does not perform as well 
as they would like"? Still, reading those guidelines for raters makes me 
wonder if this is going to be what the Subject Heading Manuals will 
become someday.

I hope not!

-- 
James Weinheimer  weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Mon Aug 29 2011 - 08:06:13 EDT