Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Social Networks May Kill Search as We Know It

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the we're-here-not-to-mourn-search-but-to-honor-him dept.

Google 209

mattnyc99 writes "Recently we discussed a startup that's blending social networking with traditional Web search. But now high geek Glenn Derene takes it one step further, pronouncing that our increasingly traceable online footprints will transform Google's dominant algorithm and open up the world of Web search for the 21st century. Speaking to a tuned-in VC guy and scoring a rare interview with Google's VP of search, Derene may have some meat behind his newly-coined term: 'faceboogle.' From the article: 'As we each carve out our individual niche on the Web, the logic of search may well flip inside out. Since we are essentially meta-tagging ourselves through our social networking memberships, shopping habits and surfing addictions, it's conceivable that the information could attempt to find us — the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"

cancel ×

209 comments

oh god (5, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094362)

If anyone says "faceboogle" to me, I swear I'll knock them out...

Re:oh god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094388)

Seconded.

Re:oh god (4, Funny)

BMonger (68213) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094406)

faceboogle!

But seriously I think most of us are thinking the same sentiment.

Re:oh god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23095366)

Bam! How's your face liking them boogles now, huh?

Re:oh god (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094492)

Knock them out??? If anyone says it to me they will never find the teeny tiny body parts scattered all over the country.

Re:oh god (1)

aeskdar (1136689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094630)

Googleface!

Re:oh god (1)

mberigan (997354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094654)

"faceboogle," sigh! Anybody else remember the creative term "Veronica" search (Very Easy Rodent-Oriented Net-wide Index of Computerized Archives) that we used to search across gopher servers? Sheesh! I feel old.

Re:oh god (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094916)

Real geeks used jughead.

Re:oh god (5, Informative)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094948)

Anybody else remember the creative term "Veronica" search

Yep, guess that makes you old. Veronica is obviously a "backronym" (the phrase behind it was invented to afterwards to match the word). There is the WWW now, which essentially replaced Gopher space, but before that the 'net was all about FTP. To seach public FTP archives you used "Archive Search", which was contracted to the nickname "Archie". Then Gopher came out which added structure to the big pile of archives, and a Gopher search was made for it. Since it was a search utility "companion" to Archie it was named Veronica (as in the comic book characters).

Later a localhost-only, optimised search utility for a Gopher host was made called....Jughead (because it was the "lazy friend" of Archie and Veronica).

This article reminds me of theories about the 'net eventually becoming sentient...with this big trail of info crumbs we might find our friends Archie, Veronica and Jughead will turn into stalkers...

Re:oh god (1)

Noexit (107629) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094890)

So your mom says "baby, you can do anything you want..." And I'm all "faceboogle?"

Re:oh god (4, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094956)

Sounds like a term used in porn to me....

Re:oh god (2, Funny)

BGrif (1190941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095566)

Faceboogle is bad but the alternates are even worse. What if people used Goofaced? Think of how mad you would be if you found out someone Goofaced you.

Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094366)

I love the smell of a frizosty in the morning

Social networking and Wikis (4, Insightful)

Raineer (1002750) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094372)

Not sure how google will outlive the threat from human-tagged information, both from social networks and Wiki's.

Ever notice Wiki is in the top three hits to EVERY SEARCH in Google?

Re:Social networking and Wikis (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094420)

I've noticed that a lot, and I actually think Google inflates their ranking since they are usually a great resource, but I doubt they would ever admit it... Maybe I'm wrong though.

Re:Social networking and Wikis (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094544)

It's frequently in my search results, because I frequently search for "wiki [terms]" specifically so I can find the Wikipedia page about it. Wikipedia is such a useful resource about things that I'd rather check there first before trying to find something else.

Re:Social networking and Wikis (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095504)

Why not just add site:wikipedia.org to the search terms?

Re:Social networking and Wikis (4, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095356)

I've noticed that a lot, and I actually think Google inflates their ranking since they are usually a great resource, but I doubt they would ever admit it... Maybe I'm wrong though.
Google is setup to naturally favor sites like wikipedia. Wikipedia has a high page rank because it's full of useful information and links to lots of other useful sites as well as well rooted self linking and tagging (which Google loves) and it doesn't produce any kind of spam.

In addition to that, lots of people link to wikipedia with appropriate terms boosting wikipedia's page rank even higher... it just happens to cover broad enough topics that it seems to come up all the time.

I find that searching for movie related information usually gets imdb in the top results... it's just that these sites happen to be the most referenced on the web and Google caters to well referenced sites.

Re:Social networking and Wikis (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095030)

Google used to be a lot better, these days I get better results out of Yahoo. There's just too much crap that gets pushed to page one on Google because the algorithm failed to recognize that it was a typosquatter, search link or other site cheating to get to the top. Many times I end up on page two or three before I see anything that's potentially worthwhile.

I don't personally see any reason to use the #1 search engine if I have to put up with that sort of crap as well. It'd be nice to be able to black list sites or better yet IPs so that I have don't have to look at them immediately. Perhaps treat them sort of like repeated matches are now.

And yes, I do realize that it's not easy to keep enterprising cheats from gaming the system.

Noticing where you were (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095060)

Not sure how google will outlive the threat from human-tagged information, both from social networks and Wiki's.

Ever notice Wiki is in the top three hits to EVERY SEARCH in Google?


Did you ever notice you are on Google, and not the Wiki search page, when you make that observation?

Obviously there's a reason. Wiki's (esp. Wkipedia which I'm sure is what you were really referring to) are great resources but are certainly not the only link I look at in search results - even if they are the top hits in many searches.

Re:Noticing where you were (1)

Raineer (1002750) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095420)

Did you ever notice you are on Google, and not the Wiki search page, when you make that observation?

Not sure what point you are trying to make with that.

Yes I understand there are other links in the world, but it stands to reason that Wikipedia can practically stand on it's own if it is typically the "most relevant link" on most searches.

Sure, google will always "exist", just as webcrawler and lycos still do, but their relevance isn't exactly impressive anymore.

Re:Noticing where you were (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095534)

You are claiming Wikipedia is more relevant than google, or will become so.

I submit that if Google is always where you start from, it cannot be ever less relevant than Wikipedia. Even if it's mostly a wikipedia search engine! Even under the scenario of being a gateway into Wikipedia, it maintains relevance in that it's deciding what parts of Wikpedia matter to you based on what you were searching for.

Sure, google will always "exist", just as webcrawler and lycos still do, but their relevance isn't exactly impressive anymore.

But I don't use webcrawler or lycos anymore, which is why they are not relevant (no-one does). I do use Google, and I don't see that changing for me or most other people as not all information I search for is in WIkipedia. Possibly something else can replace Google but we've not seen it yet.

Re:Noticing where you were (1)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095490)

Wiki's
That should be "Wikis"; you just wrote "Wiki is are great resources". As a general rule, you only need the apostrophe when you're cutting out words or denoting posession. There are many exceptions, but that's a good place to start.

fuck no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094390)

nm

Start your watches. (0, Offtopic)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094392)

Cue the 'Soviet Russia' jokes in three...

Two...

One...

Re:Start your watches. (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094478)

In Soviet Russia, social networks kill you!
...Anyone else sense some truth to that?

Re:Start your watches. (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094532)

Cue the 'Soviet Russia' jokes in three... Two... One...

Here you go: In Soviet Russia, faceboogles you.

For the record, "faceboogle" sounds like something that happens at the end of a pr0n film.

Re:Start your watches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094734)

For the record, "faceboogle" sounds like something that happens at the end of a pr0n film.

So does "gooface," so it works either way.

Re:Start your watches. (1)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094764)

Ok predictions: how long till 2 girls, one faceboogle?
I put the over under at one week.

Re:Start your watches. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094722)

In Soviet Russia, hot random sorority girl friend you!

Push Media (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094394)

"the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"

You push it! You push it real good!

All joking aside, I have serious doubts that push media could account for my eclectic tastes. My friends can't even figure me out, how is a stupid computer going to?

Re:Push Media (3, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094482)

By finding people with similar tastes, and showing you things they liked (well, more complex than that, but you get the idea). After all, if you have one in a million tastes, that means there are a couple thousand people online with similar tastes -- and several hundred of those even speak English. If the algorithms work well, then the computers have the potential advantage over humans of having *lots* of data to work with.

Re:Push Media (5, Funny)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094508)

Well sure, but what if I belong to multiple social groups with differing interests? For instance, what if I belong to a Cthulhu fan group (just since we're having a con over here this weekend) and a fitness group. Will the algorithm try to tell me how to get fit with Cthulhu, or will it send me ads for both tentacle porn and diet supplements?

Re:Push Media (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094888)

That would be the part where intelligent algorithms are needed. Hopefully it would observe that the content correlated poorly with love for things Man Was Not Meant to Know, and not bother using your Cthulhu fan club contacts to decide whether to recommend it for you.

Obviously, for this to be interesting, you need both good algorithms and (lots of) good data. Without either, the other doesn't help much.

Re:Push Media (1, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094548)

I can assure you, that my tastes are fairly unique. I doubt that there are ten people that have my tastes and interests.

That being said, Slashdot is one of my favorite places, not necessarily for Tech news, but rather for the wild assortment of people that visit here. I have a little in common with most people here. But I also have very little in common with most, individually.

How does a computer rate such things?

Re:Push Media (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094970)

Off the top of my head, break the problem into pieces. If it's trying to figure out what type of TV show you'll like, your political tastes are probably only peripherally relevant. Unique as you might be in total, I highly doubt that every piece of your tastes are unique. So maybe you correlate with group A for TV shows, B for techie news sites, C for... That just means that it needs to figure out what category the item in question belongs to before deciding whether or not you're likely to like it. And those categories don't have to be an exact match. Maybe your tastes are better described as things group X likes that group Y doesn't like, even though those two groups don't correlate strongly with each other (positively or negatively). Now, teasing out those correlations in a computationally tractable manner might be quite difficult (and I have no clue how to go about it), but I expect they're there to be found if some sufficiently clever person attacks the problem in the right way.

Re:Push Media (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23095546)

Sure, you think you're unique. No one could possibly have the same tastes and interests as you.

And the 100,000 other people with the same tastes and interests as you, they all think the same thing.

Should we rename it ... (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094806)

Facebooble? If that's not the right name for you, it is for someone. And given all the spam, er, push media, I think it exists.

Re:Push Media (2, Insightful)

*weasel (174362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095090)

I have serious doubts that push media could account for my eclectic tastes. My friends can't even figure me out, how is a stupid computer going to?
Easy. They'll simply send you everything and then let you turn off whatever you find annoying.
"the old concept of push media, but in a far spammier way"

Frankly, the idea is laughable. Never in the history of these half-baked schemes has a significant quantity of content honestly identified itself. So long as every incentive exists to game the system, and none exists to play by the rules, it will be useless.

"Faceboogle"?!?!? (3, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094408)

Derene may have some meat behind his newly-coined term: 'faceboogle.'

I literally spit out a mouthful of Diet Coke upon reading that. "Faceboogle" replaces "blogmarklet" as The Worst New Word Ever. (Although it's still less annoying than "__? Not so much.)

How does one get to become "high geek", anyway?

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094438)

How does one get to become "high geek", anyway?
Easy, you smoke dope until you think "faceboogle" is a neat word.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (2, Funny)

snarkh (118018) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095070)


You will need at least LSD.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094446)

Smoke pot while writing shell scripts.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094616)

> "Faceboogle" replaces "blogmarklet" as The Worst New Word Ever. (

Blogosphere? Mindshare? It's a pretty packed marketplace, this buzzword bullshit.

I fail to see how anything will replace googling for something. I want to know something - I'll go to something vaguely trustworthy like Wikipedia, or Usenet, and see the info, and people's reactions to it. I won't see who's online and ask them, or what have you.

Also, I'm not remotely concerned about my `online footprint`, whatever the fuck that is. I search for different things using different PCs - how is it remotely possible to track that in any meaningful way, and why would anyone want to?

This paranoia business is going to be huge, I tell you! Fear of funny-looking foreigners and police-types is just the start. We should probably give it a stupid, empty name like Fearosphere or something.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094744)

Blogosphere? Mindshare? It's a pretty packed marketplace, this buzzword bullshit.
It is just another attempt at boondoogling the public by the boogleymen.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094842)

You know what buzzword I really hate? Buzzword. Buzz is popular gossip, gossip is words, buzzword means popular words-word.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094908)

I see you are trying to synergize with the jargon of this new post dot-bomb era Web 2.0 paradigm. Perhaps you could use face time to leverage the diverse mindshare of your peers.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094646)

"__?

Pirate smilie with a hook caught in their bad eye?

Could have been worse... (1)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094672)

"Meat" and "Faceboogle" brought to mind the final scene of "Boogie Nights."

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094846)

How does one get to be high geek?

Koon-ut-kal-if-fee.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (1)

jamie (78724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094912)

"Faceboogle" replaces "blogmarklet" as The Worst New Word Ever.

I used to work for a company that was convinced the next big thing was going to be vertical web portals -- Vortals.

But I think you may be right.

Re:"Faceboogle"?!?!? (2, Funny)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095038)

I literally spit out a mouthful of Diet Coke upon reading that.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Wrong assumption (5, Insightful)

ColoradoAuthor (682295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094430)

The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.

When I search, however, it's usually because I want to find information on something NEW.

Can it possibly be true that most searching is just for the same old topics--teenagers looking for the latest gossip on their favorite celebrity? Perhaps. But that sure doesn't describe how I--and most of the folks I know--use search.

Re:Wrong assumption (1)

SuperByelich (1046482) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094494)

Yeah, that would be most sad if it came to that.

Re:Wrong assumption (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094792)

The Faceboogle concept assumes that I want to search just for those things which already match my existing online footprint.

Not only that, it seems to me that its assuming you only search for products (to buy). I can see how a review about a recently announced video card might get 'pushed' to me...

But if I'm looking for information about how to barbeque chicken, or how to treat a burn wound caused by hot barbequed chicken, or how to remove barbeque sauce stains from a white carpet, or how to install a new white carpet... really is that going to 'push itself' to me?

I spend a big chunk of my time searching for technical articles on very specific subjects. For example "how to bind an asp.net 2.0 gridview to a linq to sql datasource via an objectdatasource and support 2 way databinding, paging, sorting, using only poco objects outside of the data access layer, where the generated sql queries are clean and efficient (no loading 100,000 records when I only want 10, etc).

Or how to get dual monitors working 'just so' in ubuntu on an nvidia 8800GTS.

I don't have the slightest bit of interest regarding a 'how to' article on how to bind an asp.net 2.0 gridview to a data reader... I'm not interested in an NHibernate article, I'm not interested in how it might be done in Ruby, I'm not interested in how it was done during the beta,... etc, etc.

As for the ubutu search - I'm not interested in how its done with an ATI card, or with two PCI cards...etc.

And once I have my answer, I'm not generally really interested in more discussion on the subject.

I can't imagine how a 'push' model would do anything remotely relevant in a LOT of cases.

Re:Wrong assumption (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095254)

It's all part of the homogenization of culture and thought here in the good ol' USofA. The goal is to fit in -- not stand out. If you stand out, there's probably something wrong with you. So really, why is there any reason to search for something that your friends haven't already found??

Not likely (5, Insightful)

Robert1 (513674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094432)

This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know. Whether that information be used for personal enjoyment - learning something new for the sake of learning something new - or for personal research, like say looking up probable diseases you may have based on symptoms. For anything like this, social networking information will never provide you with what you need.

The only realm where such a thing were to exist is in adolescents. Your friend discovered an new Naruto website with awesome backgrounds and your interest in Naruto, which is listed in your profile, allows the network to make the connection.

Re:Not likely (5, Insightful)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094652)

For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know. Whether that information be used for personal enjoyment - learning something new for the sake of learning something new - or for personal research
Then you are not using the internet correctly. Don't you see? You aren't meant to want to "learn" anything new - all you should be using the internet for is buying things, passing meaningless chatter with "friends" to enable advertisers to better target you - and then look at those adverts. If you are using it for anything else then you are a p2p criminal who funds terrorists and you should be banned by your ISP.

The internet isn't a knowledge tool (at least as far as the global corporates are concerned), it is one giant shop where "consumers" go to buy things or be influenced to buy things. If "Facebook" genuinely cared about their users then Beacon would have been abhorent to them - instead they insipidly conceived and silently implemented it without their users consent. I am amazed anybody gives characters like that a single piece of information, they are absolute sharks.

Re:Not likely (2, Funny)

mini me (132455) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094680)

or for personal research, like say looking up probable diseases you may have based on symptoms

I don't know about that. When you update your status message to say: "Robert hurts when he pees." Faceboogle will automatically provide the probable diseases in your news feed.

Re:Not likely (1)

Stalyn (662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094682)

This will never happen. For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know.

The internet is for learning about new things? Dude.. that's so Web 1.0.

Re:Not likely (2, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095430)

For myself and most people I know, the internet is about acquiring information about things we aren't familiar with, not about rehashing information which we already know

True. But one way to find out about those things is to be told about them by a group of your peers with similar interests. Even /. operates like that. But, "all your friends enjoy reading about X, would you like to know about X as well" seems like a really good* way to learn about new topics you might enjoy.

*Good meaning effective. Other value judgements (moral, scary-big-brothery) not applied.

Searching For Weapons Of Mass Destruction?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094440)



Ask this Gunrunner [whitehouse.org] .

FACEBOOGLE?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094448)

Seriously! You must die now!

A faceboogle is something you find on the tip of your finger if you search really hard in your nose.

Die die die!

Web searching + research (4, Insightful)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094460)

Let's refine this a bit. *Perhaps* there is a use for boolg'ling web search content toward consumer taste. But it's likely that not many of my friends are researching topics similar to my own.

So, social tags would be relevant only for - let's pretend, here, c'mon - consumer taste. Everything else - like scholarly research, etc - I'm afraid has to be done the hard, old way - by knowing how and where to search.

--Dave

Re:Web searching + research (2, Interesting)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095224)

Wrong. This is Berners-Lee's "semantic Web" at play. I'd love to see it put to work. Once researchers get used to tagging their output, this will become a reality. And it won't be through Facebook. It also won't be through meaningless drivel like "we're-here-not-to-mourn-search-but-to-honor-him", or, for that matter, "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense".

Here, I installed Semantic MediaWiki, and it works like a charm. You can have Lists of Things that don't require a mob-monkey to update, or vandalise, or both. If scholarly, technical, legal, etc. articles are tagged properly (i.e., not using tags, but fields), they'll be found by semantic methods.

Blogs haven't already done this? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094496)

Maybe it's just me, but nowadays my searches are flooded with crappy blogs (and not the spam kind either, at least not true spam).

Re:Blogs haven't already done this? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094598)

All those stupid blogs really aren't any better than spam.

Re:Blogs haven't already done this? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094620)

Try any non-Google search engine and you won't have nearly as much irrelevant crap like this in your results.

Unsolicited ads for duct tape (1)

wintermute42 (710554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094556)

If Google, or any other search engine, hammers home the idea that they keep track of your IP address and past searches it could cause an outcry and a demand for privacy. Connecting ad content to past searches is exactly such a hammer. A significant number of internet searches involve sex. If a user starts getting ads for duct tape because they previously did searches for "hamster duct tape sex" they might suddenly get behind regulations that would control the way Google used information.

For the humor impaired: I utterly abhor the abuse of animals. This is a reference to the joke discussion group of long ago alt.sex.hamsters.duct.tape.

Re:Unsolicited ads for duct tape (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094660)

Not even your IP. If you don't clear cookies like 99.9% of surfers, any search engine has a complete search history. If you ever logged in to any Google/Yahoo/MSN account it's now correlated to your personal identity. Google's cookie used to expire in the 2030's. Don't know what the default it now since I block them except when I'm logging in to a throwaway gmail account and allow a session cookie.

hmmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094558)

I thought faceboogle was a sex act but then again I also though hulu was was a popular dance fad

seems kind of orwellian (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094602)

Imagine this: Peter Doofus writes a blog and subscribes to slashdot under the name DooferXOXO and visits a few political blogs as Bliftipper. DooferXOXO is a nice enough schmoe - a reasonable persona. But Bliftipper allows him to speak in a very different voice, where he can test reactions, and Bliftipper is known as a bit of troll. At one point he responds on his own blog as Bliftipper.

Suddenly Peter Doofus is linked to his own content, and, well, things pretty much unzip from there. I have a lot of misgivings about Google these days. They say "Do no evil" but it seems they are slowly becoming something I don't really approve of...

RS

a LOT of buts in todays' gooed 'news' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094622)

eye gas everthing's hunkey dokey again? just like yesterday, or tomorrow? let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Re:a LOT of buts in todays' gooed 'news' (1)

Raineer (1002750) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094818)

wut

Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094692)

How about no.

That's the point stupid (1)

kungfu_larry (1234040) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094724)

"As we each carve out our individual niche on the Web, the logic of search may well flip inside out. Since we are essentially meta-tagging ourselves through our social networking memberships, shopping habits and surfing addictions, it's conceivable that the information could attempt to find us â" the old concept of push media, but in a far more refined way.'"

Faceboogle == metadata tagging == semantic web

Its all the same set of possibilities once we have better data (about the data) that we aim to use in our algorithms.

When will the jargon end? Is this guy actually being made noteworthy for re-iterating the functionality being strived toward by all involved in the semantic web initiative?

One big happy Google Search (1)

xPsi (851544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094740)

Hey! Whatever happened to searching for good ol' ordinary information? The Faceboogle concept is a desperate attempt to create a new viral word, but seems too "people-specific" and, moreover, sounds like something that happens suddenly in a p0rn clip. Frankly, searching for people-oriented things is fairly small fraction of what I use search engines for (I know this is a fallacy to project this onto others, but I can't be alone in this). In fairness, Facebook has been pretty good at people-finding for me; but when Google decides to buy Facebook, the point will be moot anyway. It will all quasi-statically merge into one big happy Google Search.

A total load of crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094772)

Yes, a total load of crap. The word, the concept, push technology, you name it. Crap.

Seriously (1)

Safiire Arrowny (596720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094774)

I will quit working with the internet and computers completely if the term faceboogle becomes real industry jargon.

Spamming opportunity (1)

Starturtle (1148659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094782)

"...just imagine how accurate a search could be if every time you had a query, the mass of data about you that exists on the Internet could inform the results."
Yes, Google Ads do this to a limited extent by trying to determine what you're interested in by your search and email content. However, for the most part, it's doubtful that most people would knowingly want to share this information for this purpose it was intented for as the line is too blurry between helpful tool and opportunities to spam.

Uh, Faceboogle? (1)

Artuir (1226648) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094820)

Who's coming up with these terms, Bill Cosby?

No one cares about your life... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094836)

"As we each carve out our individual niche on the Web"

Because my day hinges on knowing what someone else had for dinner last night, how many times they use its/it's and your/you're incorrectly, and how frustrated their boss makes them. No one cares and no one will ever care about your crap, so just stop worrying about how people will search it.

Google would be better off just ignoring any "look at me, I'm smart enough to make a Internet websites!!!" sites.

yeah right (1)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094852)

Just like visiting friends killed libraries in the 1800s. No way in hell are searches going down the drain! Every time somebody sends me something, then I do more searching to find out more about it.

Yeah, because I want advertisements (1)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094904)

Certainly this is every advertizer's wet-dream - to stop their advertisements from being parasatized by filthy content.

  What if everyone just say down at their computers and allowed themselves to be passively inundated with whatever they were told to like. Wouldn't that be wondrous?

  I don't doubt that such targeted advertizing is going to increase dramatically in both power and sophistication over the coming years - and that the percentage of ads I see which are for things that I might actually want will rise dramatically. But will this replace google, which does a good job of providing me with things that I actually want to see for my own purposes? No, it won't. Not in a million years.

The info that finds you not quite what you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094910)

The idea that the 'computer' will decide what I want and what is 'good for me' reminds me a lot of the machine that made the tea in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe". http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/tea.shtml [bbc.co.uk] The machine decided what would please you more than anything and not quite provide it.

The facegoogle sounds a lot like the tea machine.

Why do you think I want to show you my pokemon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23094914)

All these people that parade themselves across the internet, posting information about themselves. I don't care about them; and, I don't care to do the same. I can only imagine that I am not alone.

Why do those that participate in these 'social networks' think everyone else wants to join in?

HELLO TO THE STATIC PERSONALITY (4, Interesting)

E1v!$ (267945) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094934)

Anyone interested in changing themselves for the better, anyone wanna make a happier life?

Remember how every time you tried something new in H.S. or somewhere your peer group push you back into the mold of you they thought was 'the real you'? Ever have that happen in life? With parents? With all your long-term relationships?

Now the web will do the same thing

HELLO TO THE STATIC PERSONALITY. We don't change, nope never happens. You just refine your search algorithm and help us figure out who we are by marketing 'content' at us. Yeah.

IMO, Phucked.

Re:HELLO TO THE STATIC PERSONALITY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23095318)

Remember how every time you tried something new in H.S. or somewhere your peer group push you back into the mold of you they thought was 'the real you'?
Nope. If I wanted to try something, and my peer group at that point thought it was a bad idea, I found different peers to hang out with.

Social pressures only work if you let them.

Re:HELLO TO THE STATIC PERSONALITY (1)

jdunn14 (455930) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095422)

Good for you! Way to be an individual, anonymous coward.

There's more interest in this on the ad side (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094946)

The use of "social networking" data for search has been discussed before in the search technology community, where it's not well thought of. "Inertia" in search, where your search history affects your later results, turns out to be a pain. Search becomes nonrepeatable, both for the individual and for others. This adds more hassle than the gain provided by "inertia".

Reading both the article and the interview with the Google VP, it's clear that the article exaggerates Google's interest in this area.

Social networking data is taken seriously on the advertising side, where using social networking data for ad selection is already being done by Myspace and their ilk. Amazon and Netflix already have rather good systems for deciding what to recommend to their customers. That's where this really works, where the seller has a big product selection and the user is already prepped to buy something. Myspace isn't doing as well, but then, as we've pointed out before, their advertisers are mostly bottom feeders. [sitetruth.net] Ad rates on Myspace are very low [nytimes.com] , and it shows.

A key question is who controls the use of the social networking data for ad selection. Not the user, of course; the disagreement is between the social networking sites and the search engines. Look for a battle in that area, perhaps followed by mergers.

What's up with all this social networking? (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23094968)

Am I the only one left who doesn't get it and certainly won't benefit from such a contorted way of searching for information?

I have mailing lists for discussing particular activities or fields of knowledge, good, 'ol full-text search aided with a bix of context for searching on the web and a group of actual friends for socialising, not a list of other peoples' accounts that someone labeled "friends" for no good reason when making the UI.

Is there actually anything this all "social networking" is good for?

Re:What's up with all this social networking? (0, Redundant)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095206)

No, you are not the only one. I know only one person who actually has a membership to a social network, and he tried to get me to sign up as well (MySpace, back when it was new). I signed up, and the only time I went back to the site was to delete my profile. ...and yes, I am under 30.

I find the idea of a social network intriguing, but I have yet to see any value in any of the offerings presently available.

Do not want (2, Interesting)

mopower70 (250015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095164)

I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any of those social sites precisely because of the quality of the content there and the caliber of the people who use them. There's nothing on those sites that I look for, and I routinely ignore search results with social networking site results because of my experience with the crappy quality of information there: think Nextag and product searches.

Quotes like "Search has always been about people" show a fundamental ignorance of how most people over the age of 25 use search, and whatever accuracy it may contain is a damning indicator of the underachievement of those for whom it is true.

Would this be Web3.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23095186)

... then we could have 3.1 or maybe 3.5 hey even 3.51

The future is ours!

I don't think this will affect me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23095190)

...when I post on the internet, I post anonymously.

but then... (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095212)

maybe they won't. I sure know that most of the searches I do have little to do with my profile.

Tagged! (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095300)

tagged youvegottobefuckingkiddingme

No lie!

You FaIl It (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23095468)

Of reality. keep empire in decline, United States of share. Fr0eeBSD is task. Research May disturb other if I remain Log on Then the

Will not work (1, Insightful)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23095540)

Because,

1) Desire for privacy will win out.

2) The data will totally get spammed.

3) Push has *never* succeeded online and never will.

There are more, but 3 is enough.

The internet is the ultimate pull media, and those who push stuff hate that about it, mainly because they can't get in our way.

Even the first ever push medium, the classic banner ad, has never gotten any traction. They get ignored. Newsletters are also overrated. Most mail that comes from sources that we opt-in and subscribe to get glanced and deleted. Only coupons are worthy of any motivation to act for most of us. Even ads inserted before movie clips are avoidable. Find us on a different tab, looking at something else.

The last time I clicked on a banner was in the 90s, and I think it was my own to check if it was working.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...