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 Suggest Dissected, Part II

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the kudos-for-correct-use-of-complement dept.

Google 148

Bert690 writes "To complement the recent dissection of Google Suggest's innovative front end, I investigated [Coral Link & mirror] the back end of the system in an effort to determine just how it generates suggestions. Along with some preliminary findings, you'll find a pointer to a program for enumerating all possible suggestions from a given starting point. I found the number of possible suggestions to be surprisingly small considering the immense scope of the web."

cancel ×

148 comments

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

when will they get it? (5, Insightful)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176506)

It's not the amount of data that a program references to create a result, it's the precision of it's result that matters... if it can do it with relatively little data, then it was designed/implemented by someone who knows what they're doing...

Re:when will they get it? (2, Interesting)

nayigeta (792068) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176580)

On similar note.

Instead of showing the possible results and its score as you type, I would rather it return the most probable exact single match.

Anyway, as I tried to type some of the terms I used to search for, they do not appear on the list.

So, it will be interesting to see how slow it might get if google is to index every single terms out there.

Re:when will they get it? (5, Funny)

WesG (589258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176628)

How about a Slashdot Suggest - it would score your article as you type it :-)

yay

Re:when will they get it? (2, Informative)

SunPin (596554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176818)

How about a Slashdot Suggest - it would score your article as you type it

No point in doing extra programming to make the system as random as it already is.

Re:when will they get it? (4, Interesting)

Bioanarchism (550560) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176586)

apparently google has better programmers and engineers than most tech companies. it is not only the interesting concepts that they publish, but the courage to invest and experiment thins that are others dare not or rather, they think of as time-consuming.

how can i, personally, not think of a flash clip which protrayed the merge of google and amazon, to create googlezon, based on google's extensive grid engine. lets hope that wont be an accurate prediction, coz i dun wanna live in a world that has the rest of the world's information at their fingertips.

and it seems, google is on that path to 'immortality'.

Re:when will they get it? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176638)

It's not the amount of data that a program references to create a result, it's the precision of it's result that matters... if it can do it with relatively little data, then it was designed/implemented by someone who knows what they're doing...

True for very popular searches, but it you're searching for something more obscure, size most certainly does matter.

when will they get it?-Blow up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177021)

"True for very popular searches, but it you're searching for something more obscure, size most certainly does matter."

Google: hyperinflation deviant sexual body perception

"Results 1 - 10 of about 19 for hyperinflation deviant sexual body perception. (0.48 seconds) "

when will you get it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177736)

When will people understand the difference between it's and its?

Now that they have Google Suggest (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176510)

They should now get rid of that annoying "Did you mean" bullshit that they have, otherwise, i'll stick to yahoo, or any other search engine that doesn't have that "feature".

Re:Now that they have Google Suggest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176528)

Why does that annoy you? For those of us who can't spell, it's quite helpful.

Re:Now that they have Google Suggest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176606)

For those of us who can't spell, it's quite helpful.
Get Firefox if you haven't done so, then download the spellbound extension. Then you can spell check to your hearts content.

Apparently, either the mods are on crack, or they believe that Troll=someone that goes against what they believe and to keep everything "Status Quo" by modding the ACs or the non "1337" geeks down constantly so they will be shut out and they continually get the +4 and +5 Insightful/Interesting/Informative Mods so they can really troll without really feeling the consequences. I think /. is going to fade into obscurity within the next few years.

Re:Now that they have Google Suggest (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176607)

Why does that annoy you? For those of us who can't spell, it's quite helpful.

You could have put some effort into that statement. How about

Wy doz that annoi yu? For thoze ov us hu kant spel, its kwite helpfle.

so (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176521)

I am hot

xxx I HATE NIGGERS AND JEWS xxx (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176530)

fuck you faggots!!!!

Re:xxx I HATE NIGGERS AND JEWS xxx (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176788)

Rod Carew and Sammy Davis Jr say "Hello!' (but NOT "Merry Christmas!")

Rediscovering client server computing (0)

sammyo (166904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176535)

Basically this is a hacky method of accessing fields. The code to do it is burdensome to say the least.

Is there any work on a toolkit or API that allows relatively easy access to this technique?

Re:Rediscovering client server computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176716)

No. That's why this is what they call "innovative"

Re:Rediscovering client server computing (1)

aemain (678301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177633)

There is an easy module for doing this [thepen.com] in perl, along with a working demo [teknikill.net] .

Funny (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176541)

Press "p" and the first thing "google suggests" is "Paris Hilton", hmm. Although on a cooler note when yopu press "f" the first suggestion is firefox!

Re:Funny (2, Insightful)

Performaman (735106) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176609)

And when you enter "y," the first thing you get is "yahoo."

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176611)

And what's even more amazing, if you type just 'linu', it suggests linux! And if you type "Windows " it sugg.. oh.

Re:Funny (2)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176612)

This is because, like Zeitgeist, Google Suggest is based on things people have actually searched for. OK, so that's a wild guess, but it doesn't make sense any other way.

Re:Funny (2, Informative)

tdvaughan (582870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176678)

Are you suggesting that no-one searches for 'porn' on Google? It's more likely that the results are passed through a sanitiser beforehand so that you don't have Google suggesting you look at adult content.

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176699)

Good guess, and if you actually RTFA, you'll see that while some suggestions appear to be derived from previous searches, others seem unlikely to be. Probably a combination of techniques.

Don't think so... (1)

GSPride (763993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176796)

Going by that, entering 'B' would bring up Brittney Spears, while in reality, it brings up Best Buy...

Re:Don't think so... (5, Funny)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176853)

Going by that, entering 'B' would bring up Brittney Spears, while in reality, it brings up Best Buy...

That's because nobody can spell Britney Spears correctly.

Re:Don't think so... (0, Flamebait)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176992)

Going by that, entering 'B' would bring up Brittney Spears, while in reality, it brings up Best Buy...

you made a misspelling in your post. There's only one T in 'Odious Fame Slut'.

Re:Funny (1)

Repiv (821449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176623)

Also, "T" comes up "Tara Reid" My findings: Google Suggest is into ugly plastic celebrities.

Re:Funny (1)

Nicholas Hill (762121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176640)

And typing in micr will crash the server

Self Indulgent 39th Birthday Troll :P (-1, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176582)



Happy Birthday to Me,
Happy Birthday Grubby,
Happy Birthday to Meeeeee,
Don't forget your $699 license feeeeeee....

SEO (5, Interesting)

FiReaNGeL (312636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176603)

If you're interested in Search Engine Optimization, the tool can be used like the Overture Keyword Selector Tool [overture.com] . Similar results are obtained with both, which is interesting all in itself. A guy built an interface [hooznet.com] similar to Overture to use with Google Suggest.

Other than that I can't think of a real use... I usually know what I want to search for on Google. It could help optimize queries I guess (see the "number" of results before hitting submit, but not the quality...)

Happy Holidays to all Slashdotters, by the way :)

Re:SEO (1)

illwill (843101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176943)

I like that one better, P gives u p diddy first hes much cooler than paris hilton =0

Eric Rice (1)

LSA (764123) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176616)

http://eric.blognews.com/blog/archives/2004/12/10/ 202467.html

Re:Eric Rice (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176646)

That link doesn't work, add an underscore before the "archives"

we're not all one big group (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176626)

Google needs to remember the last x queries that we submitted and the time we submitted them to better guess what we're looking for. If I hit 'p' I get Paris Hilton even though previous searches were for perl, parrot and pascal.

When will they work out that there are different classes of users out there that look for different things at different times?

Re:we're not all one big group (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176945)

Oh, I love this privacy concept. Then we'll see google ads adapt to our latest queries and you'll just be happy if they restrict that to Paris Hilton for p, too.

I'm fine with Google acquiring huge amounts of data, but with the wealth of possible info, I think I at least should be able to see a "clean" web, too. Sometimes I don't want to see only the search hits I've been likely to click on in the past. Giving me at least an option to see "unbiased" hits would be nice.

Re:we're not all one big group (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176951)

If they did that people would not stop complaining about their search habits being tracked. Personally I'd love for them to do that, but after the whole gmail episode they are probably beign careful. Regardless, your browser probably already keeps track and will "autosuggest" searches for you.
Regards,
Steve

Re:we're not all one big group (1)

stdarg (456557) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177151)

That sounds like a good application for one of their other google labs projects: google sets [google.com] . It would be cool if it could take your last few searches, try them with google sets, and see if they create a coherent category. If so, use the other results as the suggestions.

Re:we're not all one big group (1)

adeydas (837049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177378)

that would be very easy to implement with cookies. i guess google will do it eventually. btw, is there any way to suggest feature for google suggest?!

Google reinvents 1980s technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177837)

That would actually be useful. The current implementation of Google Suggest is primitive and it's usefulness is questionable. I don't understand what all the hype is about. A first year CS major could write Google Suggest. This is primitive technology that has been around for a long time. Because Google paired it with a serach engine it suddenly becomes revolutionary? I don't think so.

Google Suggest is easy! (2, Insightful)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176629)

As big as the web is, it's just the same boring drivel over and over... it shouldn't be too hard to make Google Suggest! :)

Unexpected Ways (5, Interesting)

RmanB17499 (829438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176653)

I like trying to use Google Suggest in unexpected ways: Try typing in 1ZE and see all the UPS tracking numbers that come up. Pick one and track it. Or try typing an area code with a large population (201, 212, 213, 818, etc) and maybe add a digit or two and see what telephone numbers people have been searching for lately.

Re:Unexpected Ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176735)

Mmmmm. Now I can track other people's packages. I can now rule!

In Korea, only old people use Google Suggest.

Go Accoona.com!

Re:Unexpected Ways (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176821)

Heh... good idea. I just used the program to enumerate all suggestions starting with 1ze. Not that many of them it seems.

Suggestion: 1zea54660331985982
Suggestion: 1ze20a324260463891
Suggestion: 1ze278020330000933
Suggestion: 1zea54610384411386
Suggestion: 1ze17a584283834117
Suggestion: 1ze2e8630216613599
Suggestion: 1ze6w3110315135840
Suggestion: 1ze6w3114214877030
Suggestion: 1ze13a834220148077
Suggestion: 1ze208290391650789
Suggestion: 1ze17a584265752490
Suggestion: 1ze1024v0342273265
Suggestion: 1ze077r50304406359
Suggestion: 1ze2e8630216700235
Suggestion: 1ze077r50302472013
Suggestion: 1ze077r50304451676
Suggestion: 1ze9w9999999999999
Suggestion: 1ze20a454240124654
Suggestion: 1ze240300343006145
Suggestion: 1ze17a584223627034
Suggestion: 1ze17w610341134533
Suggestion: 1ze990160346643023
Suggestion: 1ze206481210328703
Suggestion: 1ze20a234294418527
Suggestion: 1ze2e8630216797856
Suggestion: 1ze3e9996859400357
Suggestion: 1ze2e8630216767665

Re:Unexpected Ways (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177027)

Interesting. I tried "5424" but all I got is "5424000000000000". I wonder if there are any valid credit card numbers on there. Can you say "potential privacy violation"?

Some words are censored ... (1)

JPS (58437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176654)

Quite amusingly, a number of words seem to be censored... It you type, say, sex, then you have no more suggestions... Even, if you type it within a word...

Re:Some words are censored ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176672)

True... I tried searching for legit place names in the UK (which happen to contain expletives) and it stopped suggesting.

Try:

Essex
Cockfosters
Scunthorpe ...etc...

No sanitation... get a clue (1)

SunPin (596554) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176804)

It's easy to find whatever you want with Suggest. Overly broad terms don't make it into the list. Why should they? Each term shows how many results would be retrieved. Searching for "sex" or "porn" will return more digits than can fit.

Re:No sanitation... get a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177053)

Err... get a clue yourself...

the letter 's' still works (returns 1.5 billion results) and "sex" would be a subset of the results returned for the letter 's'...

Next Step (2, Insightful)

mahesh_gharat (633793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176658)

After some period Google will not only suggest but will also take decisions for you!

wait....

Isn't "I'm Feeling Lucky" option takes a decision for you?

Re:Next Step (1)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176839)

No, because 'Suggest' was first implemented as the "I'm Feeling Stupid" option.

Weird thing about Google Suggest... (4, Insightful)

tommertron (640180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176659)

... it doesn't include dirty words. I know, I may be a little immature, but it's almost always the first thing I try on anything like this. There's not even a way of turning 'safe suggest' on or off or anything. Even such innocuous (and popular!) words like 'nude' aren't suggested. What if you're searching for nude models for your art class, or the great nudes? It's just interesting... Google is becoming very corporate in terms of filtering out content these days.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176698)

Its in beta. When they release it, you can complain then. Maybe they haven't integrated into the Safe Suggest yet. Did I mention its in beta, and not done yet?

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (3, Insightful)

tommertron (640180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176782)

Its in beta. When they release it, you can complain then. Maybe they haven't integrated into the Safe Suggest yet. Did I mention its in beta, and not done yet?

Why is there always a comment like this? Yes, it's in Beta, but isn't the point of Beta to discuss the product's flaws, or criticisms about it? And then maybe when it's 'done' we won't have to 'complain' as much. And whoever said it was even a criticism? Just an observation to provoke discussion.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

suman28 (558822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176703)

You are so right. That is the first word I tried and it lists Sex and the City, but not anything related to adult material. I guess this is another one of the Google sensorships we will have to live with. Although, I am sure there is a work around for it. Knowing a company like google, they are always prosumer rather than bottom line.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176730)

I don't mind. I rather not type the world "child" or "kid" and see every pervert's references to kiddie pr0n.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

cjrichard (837078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176850)

Never mind searching for the great nudes, how about simply searching for porn? If google didn't want people to use their service for porn gathering, they shouldn't index the sites.

They have no reason to hide these words; a person who is offended by the word "sex" in their browser window shouldn't be using google at all, frankly.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176979)

Remember though that children can access this tool, and I doubt that many parents want the first suggestion their children get to be "goatse", or "midget porn with aminals". So I can see this censorship as okay. Also, I think there is enough porn noise out there to probably filter out more valid results. Just think of the many idiotic variations of the word "porn" we have floating out there.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177422)

p0rn and pr0n seem to work.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

cjrichard (837078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177791)

I definitely wouldn't let children use google. It is incredibly easy for them to stumble across inappropriate information, even with innocuous searches. There are child-friendly search engines like www.ajkids.com and www.yahooligans.com, which give results (mostly) relevant to the search queries, and contain no nasty stuff.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

anglete (782289) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177018)

They are in no way blocking you from searching for porn, they just aren't suggesting a completion for your query. You can still type it in and get many many results...

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

ecc962 (792707) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177030)

The filtering seems to be for US spelling only. There are no 'assholes' in Google Suggest but plenty of 'arseholes'.

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (3, Funny)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177337)

"grannies and fatties" came up just fine for me....

What kind of perverted obscure stuff are you looking for?

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

shish (588640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177441)

two points in one:

1) typing in "arses " autocompletes with "of fire" XD
2) It autocompletes whole phrases :0

Re:Weird thing about Google Suggest... (1)

shish (588640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177476)

Also, it doesn't block out incorrectly spelled rude words, eg "fuking" :)

Who searches for these things?? (3, Insightful)

stevejsmith (614145) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176696)

a: amazon
b: best buy
c: cnn

WHO THE FUCK SEARCHES FOR THOSE THINGS?? It amazes me how stupid people are - rather than type in amazon.com, bestbuy.com, or cnn.com, they actually search for them on Google.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

jardin (778043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176723)

d: google

Re:Who searches for these things?? (2, Informative)

daishin (753851) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176725)

Well, you can enter in "amazon" into the firefox (and probably other browsers) address bar, hit enter and it will do a "I'm Feeling Lucky" search on google for it, I do that a lot, I'm very lazy.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176833)

Well, you can enter in "amazon" into the firefox (and probably other browsers) address bar, hit enter and it will do a "I'm Feeling Lucky" search on google for it, I do that a lot, I'm very lazy.

If you were even lazier you would make a bookmark for it. Maybe you're not up to my supreme level of laziness yet :)

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

daishin (753851) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176957)

Teach me oh great one.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177418)

I will, just as soon as you wire me some money to help me pay off these Nigerian officials...

Re:Who searches for these things?? (3, Informative)

kentmartin (244833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176729)

One thing that may bump up the stats on these sorts of things is Firefox.

Oftentimes I just punch just enough into the address bar to hit what I want, knowing that Firefox wanders off to google and does an "I'm feeling lucky" if it cannot resolve my input. ie, ipw2200 will always take me to ipw2200.sourceforge.net.

Just a thought.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176759)

What amazes me is that newbies actually know Google's URL but not cnn.com, etc even though it appears in ads.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1, Interesting)

Xeo 024 (755161) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176812)

Here's a complete list (credit given to mrn121 [slashdot.org] ):

A - Amazon
B - Best Buy
C - CNN
D - Dictionary
E - eBay
F - FireFox
G - Games
H - Hotmail
I - Ikea
J - Jokes
K - Kazaa
L - Lyrics
M - Mapquest
N - News
O - Online Dictionary
P - Paris Hilton
Q - Quotes
R - Recipes
S - Spybot
T - Tara Reid
U - UPS
V - Verizon
W - Weather
X - XBox
Y - Yahoo
Z - Zip Codes

From this comment [slashdot.org] , again credit given to to mrn121 [slashdot.org] .

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

Servants (587312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176941)

Why is that stupid? A Google search can actually involve less typing, particularly if Google is your homepage.

1) click in address bar, type in "www.amazon.com", press Enter

2) type in "amazon", click "I'm feeling lucky"

Maybe #2 is lazy, but it's not dumb.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177650)

1) click in address bar, type in "www.amazon.com", press Enter

2) type in "amazon", click "I'm feeling lucky"

Maybe #2 is lazy, but it's not dumb.


Fastest way is typing amazon in the address bar and press [ctrl][enter], which automatically adds the given pre- and suffix. This works with FF and IE (don't know it for other browsers).

As a German, I sometimes wish that the default suffix would be .de, but at least the ccTLDs have only two letters.

If google is your start page, you still need to set the focus on the adress bar with the mouse (because the google form has the focus at startup and [tab] or [shift][tab] are not applicable). I really hate this behaviour.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176950)

Dear ignorant liberal,

Not everyone spends their life on useless geek activities and bash Microsoft. Some people have a life. Have you stepped out of your room recently?

24million searches were done for "google" on Yahoo! and other Overture search engines in November 2004 alone.

http://inventory.overture.com/d/searchinventory/ su ggestion/

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177013)

Try "www" and despair.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

Steamhead (714353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177082)

Everyone. My father is very smart, yet when he wants to go to the cbc, he googles it, because it is simply easier, remember those AOL keywords? Its the exact same thing. They will use it even if it takes more clicks (ie. using the search bar in safari instead of simply typing cbc.ca).

The point is google is easier, it seems my dad is not alone.

Nielson Usability (4, Informative)

lxt (724570) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177132)

If I remember correctly, I remember reading in one of Jacob Nielson's usability books about how a surprisingly large majority of users thought (this was back in the day before Google) that the Yahoo search field "was the internet". They typed everything into it, and payed no attention to the adress bar.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177636)

My roommate's home page was set to yahoo.com. She never entered URLs into the address toolbar--always into the Yahoo search field. The distinction was lost on her. It makes my teeth itch just thinking about it.

Re:Who searches for these things?? (1)

devaudio (596215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177706)

Even Better, Google is number 2 for G!!!

They forgot to filter something... (2)

daishin (753851) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176746)

It will show "penthouse", but not "playboy".

Re:They forgot to filter something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176774)

Energetic baseball players and pornographers are in luck: it shows Hustler, even though it won't show Playboy.

Mined Query Logs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11176783)

Contrary to what the author suggests, I suspect that the suggested searches are derived from query logs, not from the documents themselves.

As others have noted, the top suggestion for p is paris hilton with 6.7M results, but the number of results for the next 5 suggestions contain far more results -- more than 20M, in fact.

I doubt there is much of an attempt at precision. For example, the first suggestion for "new york" is "new york times"; the second is "new york."

Is This Really New? (1)

Captain Clueless (843259) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176844)


It sounds like an extended version of the "I'm Feeling Lucky" feature.

Firefox Extension? (1)

Matthew Bafford (43849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176946)

It would be sweet to have this as an extension to the search bar in firefox. Other than that, I don't think I'd ever use it - too likely to forget it exists in the future...

Re:Firefox Extension? (2, Insightful)

Bou (630753) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177049)

There already is: http://www.loconet.ca/ [loconet.ca] . Actually, it was released a day of Suggest was introduced!

What people seem to not be grasping... (1, Insightful)

Coyote65 (831666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176971)

Is that the internet is no longer *just* the geeks/nerds/calculator-watch crowd. There are increasing numbers of grandmothers and soccer-moms gaining access everyday. What was once a haven for the slide-rule crowd will soon become just like everything else, an asylum commercialized for the lowest common denominator - the general public. Once that milestone is reached, sites like /. will become fewer and fewer as we see more recipedot and howtogetmudoutofchildrensclothesdot popping up. It's not longer a possibility, it's an ever approaching event.
In other news, Merry Christmas!

google suggest is bad for the web (2, Insightful)

clovercase (707041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11176986)

in the early days of the internet, people were posting all sorts of websites on all sorts of topics. as the web became more commercialized, most geeks were (rightfully) worried that major commercial hubs would be created that would attract the majority of attention and dilute the importance of the more peripheral areas of the web. this trend is already underway, and tools such as google suggest will hasten the decline. users will be directed to the areas that most people are already going, thereby increasing the traffic to portals and decreasing traffic to niche or enthusiast sites. in my opinion, google suggest is ANTI-internet.

Re:google suggest is bad for the web (1)

Stop Error (823742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177066)

But if people cannot pull find data on the web in a organized manner it is all just noise. I remember how hard it was to find anything on the net. The webcrawler cam out and I thought it was a godsend. Now Google makes life much easier.

If data cannot be organized and indexed it quickly becomes usless. If there is a smaller site that has the data that is being looked for and enough people find it then would not Google suggest place that site at the top of the heap above the commercial sites?

Re:google suggest is bad for the web (1)

clovercase (707041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177124)

i am not arguing that google is bad for the web (on the contrary), but that google suggest is bad for the web. of course google allows users to find what they are looking for, but google suggest tends to direct them to the POPULAR destinations (which appear at the top of the results of popular searches) which may or may not be the most RELEVANT destinations. here's what i mean... suppose a group of three people were interested in some information on a widget, but when they search for it, they might search for slightly different variations, ie one would search for "widgets with ice" another would search for "widgets history" and another would search for just "widgets". each of these searches would turn up different results in google, and different websites would get traffic. with google suggest, as the user is typing away, google suggests the most POPULAR search queries, thereby directing all three users to the same set of results, and therefore the same websites. so the popular sites get more popular and the peripheral sites (that may have been more relavent) become less popular, and that is bad for the internet, IMO.

Re:google suggest is bad for the web (1)

Stop Error (823742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177229)

I think I see your point. I don't see the value of that style of service unless it is for "shopping" purposes. You could see what others found relevant. Sounds like Dogpile search. (Which I don't care for)

Isn't it obvious? (1)

robotpants (546744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177052)

To answer your questions about how the suggestions are generated - from looking through your enumeration lists, they are obviously compiled from words/phrases that people have actually searched for.

Re:Isn't it obvious? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11177149)

No, not entirely obvious when have suggestions like "privacy alert when was the last time you cleaned your pc
clean out your computer and make it run smoother along with protecting
your privacy today try it free with the test now option for secure
privacy clean your computer at least once a week i want to... gtgt...."

better address? (2, Insightful)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177254)

When will Google suggest get a better address than this one?
http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=1&hl=en

that long address wont help anyone.

Even if it is in beta.

Re:better address? (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177396)

Adding a link from the main page would help. That said, http://suggest.google.com/ would seem the logical choice for a post-beta URL.

Re:better address? (1)

aemain (678301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177587)

This is easier, if not much shorter... http://labs.google.com/suggest/ [google.com]

found one use (2, Informative)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11177794)

Today , finally found a use for google suggest. Lets say some weird news [ or rather a 'hushed' news ] has broken out.Then when you type only some word about it ,then you get to see, under which combination of words , maximum number of results have been obtained.

The suggested words by themselves may not be all that useful,but when combined with the number of results shown for each keyword ,I think it can be useful.

Google suggest may not be immediately be of use to everyone like Google.com,but will rather be when a particular situation arises for the user.

I think its a specific need based solution.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>