Beta
×

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!

Google Partners With Twitter For Search

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the tracking-your-tweet dept.

Google 108

An anonymous reader writes "According to the Google blog, it has partnered up with Twitter to bring tweets into its search results in the next few months. While this is exciting news, how the feature is going to present itself is a huge question. Indiblogger presents a comprehensive list of how it should be. From the article, the points discussed are: relevance of tweets with the search term, twitter and Google advertising, even a Google-Twitter API."

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bing Too (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833695)

Twitter cut deals with Bing and Google. [techcrunch.com]

Bing claimed exclusivity (3, Interesting)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833727)

The funniest part is the news articles presenting the Bing partnership as an exclusive one.

Bet Steve's tossing chairs now.

Microsoft claimed no such thing (2, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833817)

Just because the press doesn't do their jobs anymore...

Here's the Telegraph's article...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/6401062/Microsofts-Bing-signs-landmark-deals-with-Twitter-and-Facebook.html [telegraph.co.uk]

I quote (emphasis mine):

Both deals are understood to be non-exclusive, with rumours of similar conversations ongoing between Twitter and Google

( Ah, and yes, Facebook, too. The only 'surprising' thing is that /. didn't report on this, but does report on the Google deal, without even a reference to the Bing deal. )

Re:Microsoft claimed no such thing (1)

TheReal_sabret00the (1604049) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833849)

That fact that no one cares about Bing is hardly new.

Re:Microsoft claimed no such thing (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834989)

Too bad the US Intelligence community just invested in that Visible boondoggle. [slashdot.org]

They'll NEVER catch up to the work of the NSA/Stanford side-project, under the command of Dr. Schmidt.

One important distinction (1)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836819)

Microsoft has already implemented this in Bing (www.bing.com/twitter/) and Google is just announcing...vaporwarwe? That's sort of funny.

Now I am quitting Twitter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29833717)

As I don't want my porn collection to appear on search engines........ Long live privacy!

WTF! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29833729)

Why the f**k would I want to have mindless twits mixed in with my search results?

Re:WTF! (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833757)

This is the Internet, your search results are probably already getting a mix of useful stuff and mindless twits ;) This probably will worsen the "twit-to-usefulness" ratio, though.

On the plus side, if people abbreviate things a lot to fit in the 140 character limit then maybe Google search won't accidentally pick them up!

Re:WTF! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29833907)

If you've been on the internet for a long while (read: > 5 minutes), you're already accustomed to mindless twits.

Re:WTF! (3, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834029)

Exactly. I was upset enough when spammy blogs with duplicate content filled my search results, but now I wave to deal with one-line tweets, too? Ugh.

Re:WTF! (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834149)

if they filter out tweets that don't have retweets, it might be not that bad. Twitter addresses another aspect of the internet: Viral marketing, and near-realtime content

Re:WTF! (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834343)

You're starting to see the value, but remember that the value of PageRank isn't that it's got one useful metric, but dozens. Re-tweets are akin to links. PageRank considers links to a page, but it also considers who is linking. Get re-tweeted by someone who frequently gets re-tweeted, and there's going to be more juice in that. By the same token, if you use more than two hash-tags or currently trending terms, and there should probably be a reduction in your rank, since that's likely just automated. A few others:

* Does it contain a link? What's the page rank of that link?
* Google Image Search could pick up tweeted images, which often contain breaking news, traffic scenes,
* How often have a user's tweet's been shared on other social services and RSS link-sharing services like Google Reader?
* If the user links to their Twitter feed in a Google Profile, what's the rank of their other pages?
* How many people follow the tweeter?
* How many people does the tweeter follow? (is that a plus or minus, or is it more complex?)
* How often does the tweeter tweet?
* What's the average length of the tweeter's tweets compared to the current message?
* Is the tweet a reply? (probably a minus, but not a huge one)
    * Is it a reply to more than one other user?
* Does the tweet use plain English or is it l33t?

There are many more factors you could consider. Noise attenuation is a hard problem, but fortunately one Google is pretty good at.

Re:WTF! (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834737)

Twitter addresses another aspect of the internet: Viral marketing, and near-realtime content

You forgot "mindless drones yapping on about irrelevant bullshit". My search results are bad enough as it is, thank you very much.

Re:WTF! (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834505)

I really hope it's turned off by default. It's bad enough getting a hundred blog posts parroting the same press release or news article when you search for something, never mind having a few (hundred)thousand tweets mixed in there too.

Re:WTF! (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835547)

I'm hoping they'll turn up in a sidebar along with "sponsored" links.

But hopefully Google will only crawl twitter and use it to improve rankings, since twitter users seem to like to tweet links to URLs they like.

So this will probably just enhance google search results the same way they did when they brought in StumbleUpon. A lot of google results show StumbleUpon rankings and listings to comments, maybe now they'll also have a "X,XXX tweets" metric as well.

But far be it from me to speculate.

Re:WTF! (1)

KDEWolf (972921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836239)

EVEN WORSE: How many Twitts are EXACTLY links to another (real) webpage? It'll be like shortening ow.ly urls with bit.ly... Endless chain of links.

Re:WTF! (1)

Greenisus (262784) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836949)

Twitter's pretty handy if you want to search about something that's happening *right now* and hasn't had time to be blogged about and then indexed by the search engines. For instance, there were several helicopters flying overhead and none of us knew what was going on, so we searched Twitter and discovered that someone was filming a scene for a movie.

Just let me turn it off. (5, Insightful)

Remloc (1165839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833737)

As long as I can turn it off. Permanently in my login profile.

I do not want the inane ramblings of some twittering teen-ager littering my Google results.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833779)

Get off my ... Google search!

Re:Just let me turn it off. (4, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833905)

If in doubt, GiveMeBackMyGoogle.com [gmbmg.com] has succeeded in stripping out results from many "sponsored" domains and aggregating sites for a good long time. I expect they'll list twitter as one of the blocks before long.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 4 years ago | (#29840455)

Awesome link...TYVM

The added trash and duplication in my google search results for the last year or so has been an increasingly annoying issue.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#29840547)

I'd hope most Slashdot users would know this, but it seems it's not the case. You can perform Google searches without visiting the google.com webpage, just as you can perform eBay, imdb, flickr, wiki, etc. searches without first visting those webpages.

With respect to filtering Google searches (along the lines of what's provided by givemebackmygoogle website), just create a bookmark with an appropriate Keyword (a simple "g" would suffice) with the Properties of:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%s -inurl:(kelkoo|bizrate|pixmania|...)

When done, you can type "g mysearchwords" in the address bar to get your results. Obviously, you can add additional search parameters into the URL. The "inurl:|-inurl:" is just one of many.

As always, Google for more info. There's plenty of people who have already figured out the correct search strings for numerous sites and offer a convient, downloadale file you can import into Firefox's bookmarks.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833999)

If google is as good at figuring out the relevance of tweets as they are at figuring out the relevance of everything else, you won't mind.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (2, Funny)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834035)

If Google does that, there'll be nothing left. Why have the deal at all?

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834509)

I'd rather have an answer under 160 bytes than no answer at all. I haven't had 1 or 2 results in ages, but I often have no results. I wouldn't mind some inadequate results that pointed me in the right direction... at least it's better than nothing.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834791)

It was a joke, drinkypoo. Lighten up.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834673)

I'm quite certain you'll find that like the web, there are nuggets of good stuff on twitter -- they're just hard to find.

Most of us using Google may forget the days when crawling through dozens of pages of irrelevant search results was necessary to find the data we were looking for.

Google does an excellent job of maintaining a high signal to noise ratio with websites, I don't doubt they'll do the same for tweets.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837017)

The problem with Twitter is that the SNR is absurdly low, particularly if we subtract the signal that's just a link to a useful blog post. Bear in mind that all of this gets crawled by Google anyway; Twitter is just another website.

What Twitter is supposedly good at is "real-time", but again the signal (real reporting by real witnesses) is very difficult to verify and usually lost amid a sea of crap.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834159)

I do not want the inane ramblings of some twittering teen-ager littering my Google results.

Twitter doesn't seem to be popular with teenagers. The inane ramblings are from the 25-40 crowd who've just discovered this "social networking" thing.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (2, Insightful)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834261)

Twitter doesn't seem to be popular with teenagers.

Probably because it is filled with "the inane ramblings are from the 25-40 crowd." I never thought I would say this, but, man, am I happy to be over 40!

Google has no such feature. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834253)

So you are safe.

Only Micro$ost Bink will parse Twits...

Ooo... The irony!

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

Dersaidin (954402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834307)

Hopefully it'll be similar to site: or url:

So you only get results on twitter if you search using:
tweet:query here

And normal searches don't include twitter results at all.

Re:Just let me turn it off. (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838671)

Better still, it should be off by default, and be off for non-logged-in users. If I want tweets in my search results I should have to log in and go to preferences.

Or else make it one more link at the top: Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail Twitter more

But if tweets start showing up in my search results all the time with no action on my part I swear to God I'll switch to Yahoo.

Response to Bing? (2, Informative)

TwistedGreen (80055) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833751)

That was fast. Yesterday Bing announced they were going to integrate realtime Twitter and Facebook status updates into search. Competition is good, but Bing will have to find a better strategy.

Re:Response to Bing? (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834011)

At first i thought that Microsoft had beaten Google to the punch and gotten an exclusive deal with Twitter. That would have been a raw deal for Twitter but not much of an issue for Google.

Bing will have to deliver something more useful than copying Google. Google needs a blowtorch up their behinds but i dont think Microsoft is capable of holding it the right way. The last thing Google needs is to sink all the way down to Microsofts level.

News (1)

AniVisual (1373773) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833773)

This will be good in getting tweet-sized breaking news from Google.

Been covered on TWiG (2, Insightful)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833795)

Leo Laporte and This Week In Google covered this with an interview with Google.
Basically it boils down to: Twitter results can be valuable for real-time, breaking news. Less so after the fact. If you googled for "Trafigura" a week or so ago, you wouldn't have seen much of interest. If you searched Twitter whilst it was breaking news of the injunction, it was full of info. Google are savvy with search and I'm sure they've got this all factored into PageRank already.

Re:Been covered on TWiG (2, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833861)

I think it twitter search would also be useful to anyone managing a product or project being used publicly. Being able to find mentions on twitter would allow one to be more proactive in dealing with issues and also help find happy customers/users more quickly.

I had a gripe about adobe air on linux a while back and posted about it on twitter. Within minutes I was contacted by two Adobe developers and they helped me file a bug report. That was the first time I saw a real opportunity for twitter to be something more than a way to keep in touch with friends.

Re:Been covered on TWiG (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834347)

I think it twitter search would also be useful to anyone managing a product or project being used publicly. Being able to find mentions on twitter would allow one to be more proactive in dealing with issues and also help find happy customers/users more quickly.

Twitter already has search capabilities (there is a giant search field on twitter.com) and I'm pretty sure people are already doing exactly this. Frankly, search engine integration seems like a huge piece of non-news, and likely to be quite annoying (as others have mentioned - why would I want 'tweets' cluttering my search results?).

Re:Been covered on TWiG (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834575)

That was the first time I saw a real opportunity for twitter to be something more than a way to keep in touch with friends.

*Paranoia mode* What, as a tool for companies to spy on you and get their sales reps to pounce when you say bad words about them?

Re:Been covered on TWiG (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834671)

Nobody pounced - they helped me out, fixed the issue in an update and made it work better. It was an awesome example of customer service.

Re:Been covered on TWiG (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834325)

Twitter results valuable for real-time breaking news?

I can just see it now. I hear about a gas main explosion in Portland and do a search to find out more.

Search for: "explosion in portland maine"

Twitter: 100,000,000,000 duplicate results "OMFG did u reedz da n00z? Expl0zorz in P0rtlnd M@1nzorz!"
Local news has some relatively detailed breaking news pages.
Everyone else has regurgitated Reuters stories: "Gas main explosion takes out home in some hicktown in middle of frozen hinterlands, no one hurt. We assume that's because no one lives there"

I'd be VERY hard-pressed to imagine a circumstance where any original news would emanate from Twitter that would stand a chance of being original and accurate. I subscribe to several newsfeeds on it, but those are available via the regular newsfeeds that go to Google News as well, so Twitter is a "regurgitation channel" for those newsblurbs.

sure it's recycled news.. (1)

Briden (1003105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836099)

your probably right, for mainstream media news stories anyway, most of the tweets would be pointless repeating.

but what about news that the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear?

for example, anti-olympic protesters at the upcoming games in Vancouver BC could use this to search for first hand accounts of the protests. i could see co-ordinators using this service to communicate with protestors in realtime to amplify and distribute virally what will be posted on sites like indymedia.org.

that is but one example, i can think of a lot more types of first person, accurate, original news that the likes of Reuters, CNN, NBC and Fox wouldn't like you to hear.

not that im saying thats good justification for enabling google to search tweets, that particular kingdom of retardedness can stay outta my search results please.

Re:sure it's recycled news.. (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836287)

OK, I can see that - where the government or the media are suppressing news having Twitter is better than having nothing.

Of course, since Google has a history of caving to government demands, I wonder - will they simply lock down the search results in the same way? Or, alternatively, will the first person and accurate reporting be lost in a sea of Twitter astroturfing?

I mean, some of them are going to be obvious. A few people take real pictures in Iran at the election protests, then suddenly we get 12 billion hits of Ahmadinejad being licked by fluffy puppies, then we have turfsign.

But a concerted, coordinated effort by a group with an axe to grind will end up creating some really effective astroturf, and in fact the very organizations that are trying to suppress the breaking news also have the resources, employees, and high-speed Internet connections to build a pretty deep layer of turf.

Re:Been covered on TWiG (1)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835101)

If they filter out all the Twitter spam it could be "full of info" Twitter Trends is useless with all the people who put trending words in a tweet just to get their tinyurl hidden malware links looked at.

Re:Been covered on TWiG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29839233)

If Google is so amazing at search then why do I find the link a little ways up the page to Give me back my GOOGLE so useful?

a comprehensive list of how it should be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29833807)

  • an easy way to turn it off

Oh no! (2, Insightful)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833815)

It's time for Twoogle!

Re:Oh no! (1)

magsol (1406749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833831)

Since we already have Bitter [bing.com] .

140 chars - the holder of so much info (3, Funny)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833835)

Great. I'm sure that with Twitter messages in the search results they'll just become so packed with information. After all, 140chars can hol<eof>

Re:140 chars - the holder of so much info (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833971)

Results 1 - 10 of about 368,000,000

Cant reply im on the toilet right now LOL

Re:140 chars - the holder of so much info (1)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834183)

Who goes to page 2 these days? I'm sure I read something somewhere about how most people would refine their search term rather than venture to the second page. They'll just keep doing that until they get the results they want. I know i'm guilty of this..

Re:140 chars - the holder of so much info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834329)

Yeah, who needs page two when you have Google set to return 100 results per page amirite?

This could be beneficial... (2, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833889)

I can see this being immediately useful for news searching, as tweets tend to be an extremely fast source for breaking news in all fields. Twitter has also been useful for finding interesting articles on topics relevant to my interests (security, IT and a bit of politics), so tapping this could open up a lot of information previously hidden behind Twitter's walls.

Re:This could be beneficial... (3, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834075)

britneyspears: im eatin a donut lol i now i shoodnt but there so delish
britneyspears: donut stuck
britneyspears: cant breeth
britneyspears: srsly sum1 dial 9!1
britneyspears: help mi u fckrz

The entertainment world was rocked today by new of the untimely death of troubled diva Britney Spears...

I think we may have different ideas on what "useful" means.

Re:This could be beneficial... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834691)

And while funny, what possible search would've lead to those results?

Go Google something generic sometime like "mom" or "health" or "driving" and see how good Google is at filtering out "I was driving yesterday and saw my mom working the side of the road. The potential effects on her health worried me" from someone's personal website.

Re:This could be beneficial... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834239)

I can see this being immediately useful for news searching, as tweets tend to be an extremely fast source for breaking news in all fields.

Ain't that the truth. RIP Jeff Goldblum and Kanye West!

What's that?? Those were rumors widely propagated on Twitter and are totally false?? You mean I can't trust that Random_McLiar knows what he's talking about and is telling me the truth?? But it's on the Internet... it MUST be true... Heresy I tell ya...!!

Re:This could be beneficial... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834637)

You can find useful articles on Twitter? Wow, that's quite an achievement. I've found Twitter accounts via blogs where the Twitter is just an RSS feed for the blog I came from, and I've found Twitter accounts that I thought might be interesting but weren't (like Miguel de Icaza, since I work with Mono/C#) but I've yet to actually find anything useful on there that isn't either a) available elsewhere (e.g. a proper RSS feed) or b) horribly drowned out by noise.

Please go away (2, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833903)

How long before Twitter becomes a has-been like Everquest, Myspace, Tron Guy, and that rabbit that balances pancakes on its head? Anyone got an estimate on the timeline? Don't these things usually take 18 months to complete?

Oh yeah, right, twitter is a game-changer that can overthrow governments. Good job they did in Iran, wot?

Re:Please go away (2, Informative)

Nihixul (1430251) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833973)

While I'm hardly a Twitter devotee, I don't think it's fair to measure the value of Twitter's service during the Iran election fallout by whether or not it actually led to a regime change.

Re:Please go away (1)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834025)

I don't really understand why people complain about things like twitter or "everquest". Sure, things like myspace are trashy and annoying, but it's not like anybody is FORCING you to go to these websites. I do not remember ever unintentionally running into a single myspace or twitter page, and that is with copious amounts of Stumbl(eUpon)ing in firefox. Sure, you hear about twitter in the news once in a while or companies set up myspace pages to try to be hip, but does that really affect you? If other people like playing everquest or using myspace, let them use it. It's not hurting anybody. I (or someone who twitters) could just as easily complain that WoW is sucking away tons and tons of time and energy from all sorts of people that could be spent bettering society. Why don't more people whine about WoW?

Re:Please go away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834471)

What? There's a rabbit that balances pancakes on its head? Why am I always the last to know these things?

Re:Please go away (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835821)

How long before Twitter becomes a has-been like Everquest, Myspace, Tron Guy, and that rabbit that balances pancakes on its head? Anyone got an estimate on the timeline? Don't these things usually take 18 months to complete?

Email and IM haven't gone away have they? Twitter has been around for three years now, and really growing in mindshare and popularity for two. It's not going anywhere.
 
 

Oh yeah, right, twitter is a game-changer that can overthrow governments. Good job they did in Iran, wot?

I predicted the lack of effectiveness back when the story hit Slashdot. I was ignored.
 
I did recently read two interesting articles; one on the lack of effect [singularityhub.com] from accounts with large numbers of followers, and one speculating that a "tweetbomb" [singularityhub.com] could possibly outshine the impact of the Slashdot Effect [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Please go away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29836895)

ICQ has largely gone away. Email and IM have stuck around because they aren't centrally hosted. In my opinion, Twitter doesn't offer anything revolutionary and the big problem is that it is all centrally hosted.

IM could be more popular I think but you have to have accounts on multiple different IM systems to chat with all your friends. Social networking would be more interesting to me if I wasn't locked in to a specific web site to use it.

Re:Please go away (1)

AlexBirch (1137019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837557)

Email and IM haven't gone away have they? Twitter has been around for three years now, and really growing in mindshare and popularity for two. It's not going anywhere.

Email and IM now have a lovely child called Wave [google.com]

So, If I Google "Kayne West" (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833917)

I'm going to get 140,000,000 hits of "RT @mrmarky RIP Kayne West Imma let you finish, but balloon boy had the best hoax of all time lol!"

Fuck.

Re:So, If I Google "Kayne West" (2, Insightful)

ShiningSomething (1097589) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834127)

Of course, that will be your own fault for googling "Kanye West"

Just adds more noise.. (2, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833947)

This does not seem to be a good thing. I find that Google already brings up far too much noise in the form of forum posts. All this does is add a whole new level of noise.

I dare say Demi Moore will find this useful, but I do not want this at all. I guess I now have to add a "-twitter" along with the "-ebay -amazon -wikipedia", etc qualifiers in order to actually find something of value.

Re:Just adds more noise.. (2, Informative)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834493)

I completely disagree with the idea of "forum noise" unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow. My searches very often land me on a useful forum page somewhere. For example, if I'm looking up an answer to a question related to a game or technical help with software, I will more often than not end up on a forum where people have discussed or are discussing the issue. Of course, if you are also adding -wikipedia to your searches, we are working in two completely different planes of existence.
For twitter, though, I do agree with the sentiment that there should be an option to disable it.

except for this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29833957)

Most of the content on produced on twitter is complete garbage,
Clicking and reading any of the trending topics makes your wish you where eating your own excrement instead.

It would be nice (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29833987)

It would be nice if this could just be a preference, sort of like include special opt in from twitter, else just keep my searches the way they are....also by default this option is selected keep it the way it is, I hate having to rechange everything configured each patch.

Why the indiblogger link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834013)

The indiblogger blog linked to in the summary isn't exactly providing an insightful or groundbreaking list of ideas. A search engine considering relevance of results? They should look into how they are going to perform indexing? Not exactly redefining the genre when it comes to search engine design considerations.

Selling ED Hardy :Handbags For Female,Jacket For M (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834051)

Http://www.tntshoes.com

  we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos
if you are interested in our product, please email me by ,hellow pls see our website in the photos attached attached is our store's website, we are a online shopping store, we are selling large brand new shoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc, our products are all best quality with the cheapest price. You will see the more pictures and the price for our product in our website, we are selling all brand new handbag, please see below some price list of the product. We accept paypal as payment, and give free shipping. Jeans : A&f Armani artful dodger jeans Bape BBC christian audigier COOGI D&G diesel ED HARDY lrg etc $33-50 free shipping. Jersey NBA Jersey MLB NLBM nike puma adidas $12-30 free shiping.

  OUR WEBSITE:

                                                  YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                        MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                              HTTP://www.tntshoes.com

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834245)

More crap and nonsense for Google to index.

Bing (1)

bravecanadian (638315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834409)

And the earlier announcement that Bing has also signed a Twitter & Facebook search deal??

Oh right, slashdot.

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29834477)

Great, more useless results to sift through.....

Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (3, Interesting)

ponos (122721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834665)

Honestly, given the nature of the site and the kind of communication it promotes, I wonder whether there is any *original* information that can be found in there. I mean, great scientists, philosophers and artists did exchange letters in the past, but even if we're talking about some real geniuses, I don't see how the "tweet" format can ever contain anything more than shit. It's not easy to convey a properly argumented original thought in 160 characters... So, in the end I don't see why anyone would care to search tweeter data at all. Other maybe for the purpose of some obscure IgNobel-worthy research or in the case of stalkers following the hot star of the moment (when exactly did she pee? that is the question...).

P.

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (1)

prunedude (806692) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835469)

From the techcrunch article [techcrunch.com] :

Now that Google and Bing are getting the firehose, it could have a big impact on search results. For the search engines, the firehose is much more valuable than any single Tweet. They can index it and sift it, looking for patterns and spikes in keywords and shared links to get a better sense of what people across the Web are paying attention to at any given moment. This data can then be folded back into regular search results, even if the top result isn't a Tweet.

For example, if a link to a post about healthcare reform on an obscure blog suddenly gains currency and is retweeted hundreds of times, that is a signal to perhaps rank that link higher in searches about "healthcare reform." If people stop Tweeting about it, then maybe it goes down in the ranking. But Google and Bing can use the firehose as a rich source of signals to mine and then blend back into regular search results.

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (1)

ponos (122721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835719)

Please mod parent up...

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835845)

I wonder whether there is any *original* information that can be found in there. It's not easy to convey a properly argumented original thought in 160 characters...

I take it then, that you've never heard of a URL?

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29841145)

I take it then, that you've never heard of a URL?

You don't think that the resource corresponding to the URL is probably already indexed by google, before someone tweeted it? In what way is a link to something original information? (unless the URL is secret...) The question is what is the value of indexing the tweet itself. In that case, the poster above argued that tweeting about something will modify its popularity rankings. That seems like a valid argument to me. Otherwise, you fail miserably.

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (1)

Prien715 (251944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29840625)

I don't see how the "tweet" format can ever contain anything more than shit

E=MC^2 (6 chars)

How's that?;) For googling mathematical formulas, it might actually be nice. I can imagine not remembering how to calculate standard deviation, check the value of a constant, or take some exotic integral off the top of my head...and 160 chars or less would be perfect for an answer.

Maybe what is the capital of X questions could be useful twitter fodder...maybe you could even ask topical questions like "Is interstate 10 closed right now in Houston?"...others like "Is Kanye West dead?" may not be so helpful;)

I'll wait and try it...maybe it won't suck...Google has released good products in the past and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29841223)

E=MC^2 (6 chars)

You missed the "argumented" part :-) Anyway, for any of that stuff you can just hit wikipedia or wolfram. I don't see why you need the general theory of relativity in twitter format, although it would be an interesting endeavor. For people who enjoy programming, for example, in Brainfuck or Befunge. I could imagine a thesis in twitter format, although it would be write-only.

Re:Who needs to search tweeter? To find what? (1)

Tussinator (694343) | more than 4 years ago | (#29840867)

It's not easy to convey a properly argumented original thought in 160 characters...

I agree that Twitter in its current form would be terrible for argument mapping. However, in one sense it would be beneficial to limit a single claim or assertion to a certain character length, provided that there is a way to represent the overall argument as a tree or web of assertions. The limitation would force the arguer to organize their elaboration.

Elaboration is crucial to productive arguing, but it's something the reader should be allowed to hide during their initial encounter with the argument.

I hope something like DebateGraph.org [debategraph.org] catches on as the infrastructure for arguing in the future.

Oh no (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834717)

I'm not interested in twitter and I'm already annoyed by the huge amount of auto generated blog pages that result from google searches these days. I'm using Wikipedia more and more than Google to search things because with Wikipedia I know I'll get an interesting page as result, not some unwitty blog page. And now even MORE twitter and similar things are going to mixed into this? No thanks.

Using Twitter to confirm Gmail is down (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 4 years ago | (#29834995)

Ironically when Gmail and Google go down, I search Twitter to see if it's just me or if anyone else is experiencing it too.

Great... just great (1, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835025)

So Google's signal to noise ratio just dropped through the floor. Each day it'll now be indexing several million variations on "I just ate a delicious sandwich for lunch - yum!" and other such high-quality Twitter content.

Twiggle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29835119)

I can't wait to Twiggle something.

Exciting news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29835179)

What happened to "site:twitter.com"

That usually works for me.. if I ever had had the need to catch up on inane 140 char rants

Leave the strings attached (2, Interesting)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835183)

I see I am not in disagreement with anyone as to the additional clutter that this will likely add to our search results. It seems that Google continuously piles more straw on the metaphorical haystack, leaving the few needles of information I seek buried ever deeper. The thing is that all those pieces of straw really have strings attached in the form of metadata. Google knows - or should know - where all the pages they index come from. They should be able to relatively easily categorize those sites as manufacturer's sites, shopping sites, news sites, magazine sites, truly educational sites, blogs, forums, etc. But it seems Google cuts all those strings when they pile the indexed pages into the haystack leaving me to sort through them manually. Isn't that what we invented computers for? If they would simply leave the strings attached and allow users to "pull them" then we could simply choose not to receive results from shopping sites or whatever. As it is, looking for a manufacturer's specifications on something can be maddening because of all the shopping sites that come up instead. (Remember, one does not always know the URL to a manufacturer's web site.)

In effect, I wish Google would institute a system wherein we could check off or uncheck which types of sites we would like to receive search results from.

P.S. What the heck is wrong with this text edit box. The text cursor only shows up when I hover the mouse over some portions of the text in this box. When I hover over other portions the regular pointer cursor is displayed. If I click when that pointer is displayed it does not place the cursor into that location in the text. Instead it selects the box within the HTML and typing does not go into the box (the box does not have focus). This is a real pain. The code on Slashdot is getting worse with every revision. Geez, it even prevents me from selecting text in some locations even if I have already started the selection drag. This is insane! Please bring back the old editor.

Here comes the noise... (1)

Scubafish (1224972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835595)

I'm trying to figure out what kind of useful/relevant information a tweet could contain. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why people use twitter. Does that make me old or just not a narcissist?

More cruft (0, Offtopic)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 4 years ago | (#29835843)

Honestly, I don't understand the necessity of people to document the minutiae of their lives. Nobody cares that you just ate a cheese and mustard sandwich, and now have gas. I came up with this little gem discussing twitter the other day:

"What's in a name? that which we call a turd
By any other name would smell as tweet."

That about sums it up (with apologies to Willy the Shake, Romeo and his SO.)

Re:More cruft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837933)

Nobody cares that you just ate a cheese and mustard sandwich

What kind of cheese was it?

wut u tkn bt? (2, Insightful)

uncanny (954868) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836323)

I dont understand the point of all of this? How will joining twitter into google searches bring me more porn?

Value (2, Insightful)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836611)

and nothing of value was found..

Twitter does have its (commercial) uses but there seems to be such an enormous amount of crap posted and 'retweeted' ad infinitum. I hope bing/google can reliably filter and sort it so only good stuff surfaces but I have my doubts.

The dumbing down of Google (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29836719)

Over the past two years, it seems that Google has been redesigning their search system for dumber and dumber users. They now seem to be targeting the room-temp IQ crowd.

Google used to just suggest spelling corrections. Now, it applies them. If you don't want spelling correction, you must put the search term in quotes. This leads to results like the one for "ndia intellectual property", where NDIA is the National Defense Industrial Association. Google gives back mostly results about "India", not "NDIA". This happens on all searches where the term searched is near a common word.

Then there's the missing word problem. It used to be that if you searched for several words, all the words had to be present. That's no longer true. Google will return results it likes that don't contain some of the words. If you want to insist that a word be present, you have to quote it.

FRIST STOP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29839123)

shall we? OK! rules are Th1s downward spiral. another folder. 20 too many rules and

May be OK (1)

GlobalEcho (26240) | more than 4 years ago | (#29839809)

Can I just contradict all the pessimists here for a sec? The only people I know who currently use Twitter are techies who use it to exchange systems support tidbits with each other. Things like "How do I make Cyrus IMAP listen on an alternate port?"

As long as the questions come with subsequent answers, Google will probably do a good job with this stuff. And don't forget the information value in any links provided in response tweets.

(BTW I don't use Twitter myself, and have never even tried it)

seriously (1)

mistahkurtz (1047838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29840705)

this is about the most donotwant that i've seen in a while.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?