* Bullard, Claude L (Len) <> [2005-08-23 11:34]:
>
>
> From: Robert Koberg [mailto:]
>
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> > Index what? Ideas, ideas emerging from conversations, the conversations?
>> > So far, what you are describing seems to be Google. Can you out Google
>> > Google?
>>
>> It is not like google. Google indexes HTML and it gives better rankings
>> to well marked up (according to google) HTML (which is why small
>> companies like us can get page rankings as high or higher than much
>> larger companies).
>>
>> With an XML indexer, you can index glossentries, faqs, quizes, whatever
>> and keep them separate so if you want to run a query against just faqs,
>> you can.
>>
>> You can do a search to get all external links (we distinguish between
>> external, internal and whatever other kind of links there might be) and
>> validate them.
> So your index is as good as the markup? Fine. That's what markup
> was created to provide (the extensibility AS meaning theory). The
> human does the intelligent analysis when they tag and the engine
> dutifully records that. That is just another indexer, not a
> semantic aggregator. Tagging makes searching easier by leveraging
> the author's intelligence.
I need to pull some of this into a blog entry, quote it. I'd be
frustrated with you for being so dismissive, if I was confident
that you're speaking from hard-won experience.
I'd like to create a semantic aggregator, or something like it,
through human intervention, but making it easier to specify the
structure of indices, or by allowing for the adjustment of
ranking by participants in a social network.
> What about content in non-tagged sources (say XML-Dev) and gamed
> content?
Aren't these two very different problems?
My solution to gamed content is accountability. That's were you
depart from the hosted indices, hand have personal indices that
have an individual's endorsement.
> How about correlation of hidden couplers?
Hidden couplers? Just Googled [hidden couplers] and the lucky
spot was one of your "Is Web 2.0 the new XML?" postings.
> Show me an engine that can intelligently index because it can
> drill for insights and provide those to the user. In other words,
> a deep analysis system can find the root causes for failures
> rather than superficial causes as might be tagged incorrectly
> something humans do consistently well: promote superstition to
> knowledge.
> HTML scales because it is somewhat 'opinion free'. Although
> layout is a form of opinionated expression, it can be ignored.
That's a nice engine. I'm not sure how to extract knowledge from
opinion, or how to approach an algorithm that would eliminate
bias. I think through accountability, you could begin to at
least identify the bias.
--
Alan Gutierrez -
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
