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!

Search Results Based on Your Social Network

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the tangled-in-all-my-social-nets dept.

Social Networks 59

A new company, Delver, is offering a new take on web searching that plans to make your social network a part of the equation. "Liad Agmon, CEO of Delver, says that the site connects information about a user's social network with Web search results, "so you are searching the Web through the prism of your social graph." He explains that a person begins a search at Delver by typing in her name. Delver then crawls social-networking websites for widely available data about the user--such as a public LinkedIn profile--and builds a network of associated institutions and individuals based on that information. When the user enters a search query, results related to, produced by, or tagged by members of her social network are given priority. Lower down are results from people implicitly connected to the user, such as those relating to friends of friends, or people who attended the same college as the user. Finally, there may be some general results from the Web at the bottom."

cancel ×

59 comments

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

I don't know about you (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266674)

But my "social graph" doesn't begin to be represented by my name(s).

I think this will just bias search results towards your friends who have the most free time, not necessarily the most informed or informative. I'm sure we all have that friend who thinks David Icke is right about the reptilians. Do you want his tagged sites at the top of every search you make related [stuff]?

Re:I don't know about you (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266852)

I'm sure we all have that friend who thinks David Icke is right about the reptilians.

I don't. In fact, I suspect they might all have been usurped by the evil blood-drinking Draco-ians. ... ... ...

Wait, it's me isn't it?

Re:I don't know about you (2, Insightful)

davetd02 (212006) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266872)

This seems to take the concerns that people have about Google's aggregation of your data to a whole new level. Now they know not only what YOU like, but who your friends are and what THEY like too. It wouldn't be hard to make a map of the socialists, anarchists, anti-corporatists, etc, and then round them all up when there's a crime. I'm not saying that our society is anywhere near that level, but it seems to create a big risk of guilt-by-association.

Re:I don't know about you (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266900)

Who would want to use a search engine that put the answers from the experts at the bottom and the answers they could easily get by asking their mom or their roommate at the top?

Sounds pretty damned stupid if you ask me.

Re:I don't know about you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22267202)

For a lot of people, which do you think would be more useful to them:
The critics/reviews all hate this movie/item/type/etc, I won't go see/get/try it.
My friends/aquantances/coworkers all like/bought/ this movie/item/thing/etc, I should go see/get/try it.

Re:I don't know about you (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267366)

For a lot of people, which do you think would be more useful to them: The critics/reviews all hate this movie/item/type/etc, I won't go see/get/try it. My friends/aquantances/coworkers all like/bought/ this movie/item/thing/etc, I should go see/get/try it.

The advice of critics and strangers, of course. They do not need a search engine to find out what their friends think, they can just talk to them. This strikes me as a way to further estrange people from each other by allowing them to filter out any dissenting views before they should be forced to confront them. Beyond being a dumb idea, it's socially harmful.

Re:I don't know about you (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268414)

You miss the point. You are on Slashdot, so must have similar interests to me, even though we never meet. THAT is what they're trying to do. Your opinion is probably more relevant than the "raw" results from Google would ever be 75% of the time.

CMDRTaco should have been doing this with Slashdot years ago, he's far too conservative with the features. (hence the rift with Kevin over Digg.) An engine that simply searched Slashdot posts for quality links to sites would boost result quality 100 fold. It's almost back to the original idea of Yahoo! having hand entered results rather than random bots trolling... obviously, that got unweildly, but now Google has to BIG a view on the world... it's not relevant to me. There's an opening to tweak the results to what people on sites like Slashdot or Digg would comment on.. would think is important to meet in the middle.

The real key would be to glean the data from third party sources.. a.k.a. sites like Slashdot wiht a focus on connecting SITES and not people, instead of tracking users all over the web with spybots. It would be something to work toward though.

Re:I don't know about you (1, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268560)

You miss the point. You are on Slashdot, so must have similar interests to me, even though we never meet. THAT is what they're trying to do. Your opinion is probably more relevant than the "raw" results from Google would ever be 75% of the time.

You clearly didn't read the article. What you are describing, however interesting it might be, is not what this project is doing. What this project is doing is rating things associated with my sister highest, my cousin next, my friends next, my co-workers next, my old school chums next, and the rest of the web last.

From the article:

Delver then crawls social-networking websites for widely available data about the user--such as a public LinkedIn profile--and builds a network of associated institutions and individuals based on that information. When the user enters a search query, results related to, produced by, or tagged by members of her social network are given priority. Lower down are results from people implicitly connected to the user, such as those relating to friends of friends, or people who attended the same college as the user. Finally, there may be some general results from the Web at the bottom.

This is not intended to inform and give people knowledge that wasn't already at their disposal. It is intended to tempt people with things that they might buy on the assumption that their tastes are similar to their friends. It is not a good thing, unless you're looking to be amused or marketed to.

Re:I don't know about you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22269276)

It is still pointless. There is NO VALUE in this! Period! End of story! Get over it! Next hair-brain social network idea please...

This is just more pig-pile-on-the-latest-fad crap. There are literally thousands of people/groups/companies that have jumped on the social networking fad. Its been a couple of years now since soc nets really hit the mainstream media and this is the best people have to show for it all? WEAK!

History repeats itself. We have a handful of soc net winners today and that's it. PEOPLE PLEASE MOVE ON TO SOMETHING NEW!!!

Re:I don't know about you (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22328874)

but how will they get that info... they certainly aren't going to ASK for it and expect it to be "real". They'll partner with the current social sites and data mine... which is what I was describing. Remember, Yahoo and Gmail have all your mails, pictures, etc. it's pretty easy to figure out which people are "highly" influential (not necessarily family, exactly) and link your social networks up.

Re:I don't know about you (1)

epine (68316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22270086)

Speaking of Digg, the first phrase to enter by head when I saw "Delver" was "Dirk Diggler". I guess they couldn't call themselves Diggler due to a likely trade name dispute.

The second line to enter my head was a quip from Manhattan.

"Let's do it some strange way that you always wanted do but nobody would do it with you."

"I'm shocked. What kind of talk is that from a kid your age? Well, I'll get my scuba diving equipment..."

The third thing that entered my mind was "dowsing with doodlebugs".

I'm not sure "Delver" was a good name. How about "Delver!"? Stocks that end with a bang are trading at a premium lately.

Or, Delver could be cool and style themselves with codepoint U+00A1, which slashdot is apparently too tame to render. Slashdot won't render entity

¡
either.

Ooh, Delver could have been really cool and styled their name *entirely* out of symbols /. won't render, with pronunciations exclusively in

!Xũ
Oh wait, that would be too geeky, wouldn't it?

Re:I don't know about you (1)

inviolet (797804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22268746)

This strikes me as a way to further estrange people from each other by allowing them to filter out any dissenting views before they should be forced to confront them. Beyond being a dumb idea, it's socially harmful.

It will also be very popular. People dislike cognitive dissonance more than almost everything else.

That includes you and I. There is so much information out there, each of us has to make do with a miniscule slice of it. That means that even the most accurate and rational worldviews are still going to be full of errors, oversights, and conflicts with the rest of the world.

Re:I don't know about you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22267758)

Good point. When you take a step back this site has no purpose. I already know who I know. If I need a connect beyond that I already go to LinkedIn.com (or some other site) and I get what I need via my network.

What is the point to Delver?

I don't need to aggregate the people I already know, because I ALREADY KNOW THEM!

This is just YAGTTTHABP (Yet Another Group That Thinks They Have A Buyout Plan), and that Google, LinkedIn, or Yahoo will buy them and they will make billions. These stupid sites are a dime a dozen today.

Re:I don't know about you (1)

merreborn (853723) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268544)

I don't know about you but my "social graph" doesn't begin to be represented by my name(s).
Yeah, I'd imagine the John Smiths of the world will be largely unimpressed by this application...

Oh man (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266696)

God help the poor soul who happens to have the same name as a midget S&M porn star.

Re:Oh man (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266732)

My namesake prefers to be called a "little person," you insensitive clod!

Re:Oh man (3, Funny)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267576)

I prefer 'nano-American.'

Terrible idea (5, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266706)

This sort of searching will result in information from "opposing sides" of controversies or arguments being deprecated, resulting in skewed information being available--because people tend to associate themselves with other people of the same opinion.

E.G., all my friends are emacs people, so the first results will favor emacs, and any vi-related articles will be deprecated. Other nontrivial examples can be extrapolated.

This will merely serve to re-enforce any prejudice, bias, or slant that a person may have. Reading competing materials--seeing things that challenge one's own point of view--can only be healthy for one's point of view, rendering it much more cosmopolitan and much less insular than it would otherwise be.

In short: this new search engine will be wildly popular amongst the type of person who enjoys violent flamewars, and will be useless for any person who wishes to consider both sides of a situation before forming an opinion. ......so it's going to be an enormous success and if I had the cash I'd invest in it. :-/

Re:Terrible idea (2, Insightful)

Chysn (898420) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266792)

> this new search engine will be wildly popular amongst the type of person who
> enjoys violent flamewars

See, I think it would be wildly popular with people who avoid flamewars in favor of echo chambers.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266818)

Which is even worse, really, but results in an even bigger audience.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266802)

Just imagine the search results if your "social graph" is Digg or MySpace...

Re:Terrible idea (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266908)

. Reading competing materials--seeing things that challenge one's own point of view--can only be healthy for one's point of view
That's an over-general statement just waiting for a counter example...

That's the Corner Case, Not the Mode (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267018)

In principal, I agree with your reasoning, but in practice most humans will not give credibility to anything that falls outside of their range of beliefs. The result being vi-or-die content isn't considered by the emacs-rulez crowd anyway.

Most people do not go out an intentionally re-evaluate their fragile, contradictory belief systems.

In theory, the solution would return more relevant results than google because they agree with the person's views/opinions/etc. It would turn google into something of an "academic" search engine versus their more popular one.

Definitely worth watching if they can return valuable results.

Re:That's the Corner Case, Not the Mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22269844)

Most people do not go out an intentionally re-evaluate their fragile, contradictory belief systems.

I think this will tend to move people who otherwise might inhabit a darker shade of gray closer to black and a lighter shade of gray closer to white. Most people are on the fence about most things. Even people with supposed 'strong' beliefs are really just echoing someone else's beliefs. On any given spectrum those friends with (real or virtual) strong beliefs are going to skew the results in favor of those extremes, resulting in more extreme opinions where there otherwise might have been more shades of gray.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

martinQblank (1138267) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267142)

I have to agree. I use search engines to tap into knowledge/opinions that are outside my sphere of friends. If I want to know what one or more friends thinks about a given topic/product/whatever I'll ask them directly.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267516)

definitely, we already see enough of that already. the promise of the internet was that people's eyes would be opened up to new opinions and ideas, but instead it seems like it's a tool to let you reach out and connect to people that think exactly like you no matter how unusual your viewpoint is. too many blogs and online communities have become an echo chamber for people to reinforce and strengthen their opinions without competing viewpoints, so it's no surprise that when there are actual multi-viewpoint gatherings (around election time in particular) people aren't very good at interacting with people that disagree with them.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268194)

all my friends are emacs people

Funny, all my friends are vi pre-version 5.x people. I couldn't be friends with someone who uses vim 6.3, let alone vim 7.0! Death to the heretics!

My overly subtle point being, people don't actually tend that much to associate themselves with other people of the same opinion, because too rarely does an opinion about something matter to the point it would determine who you're going to befriend or not with. Except in the case of hippies and religious freaks.

Re:Terrible idea (1)

rabbitfood (586031) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268548)

Such negativity. What's not to like about a ghetto for the narrow-minded, where flame-warriors can disappear up their own MySpace?

The only downside is, if TFA is to be believed, this: "once a person builds a profile, he must log in to search, and that identity can no longer be used as a proxy."

If I've read that right, unless you want your employer, spouse, child and/or stalker investigating whatever interests and opinions you may once have had, you'll need to build yourself a profile. But, after that, you won't have to use it.

Things you don't want to know about your friends (2, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266798)

I'm thoroughly unlikely to use a system that ranks my search results based on the preferences of my friends. I know *I* never put anything but the most basic information about me online (name and website is all that's required by the Geneva Convention, right?). So anyone whose searches are based on *my* stated interests will find a bunch of Dixie Chicks stuff, and little else.

And what about my searches based on *their* interests? Do I even *want* to know what they're doing with their time online? Even if the results aren't personalized ("Jim would probably like this link"), I'd rather not do a search on sushi restaurants [cliffdwellermagazine.com] and learn to my dismay that one or more of my friends has interests that include tentacle porn. And I don't even want to *think* about what could happen on a search for a good plate of cabrito [texasmonthly.com] !

Brilliant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22266808)

This is going to be extremely useful if your name is John Smith.

In Soviet Russia.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22266810)

In Soviet Russia, your socialist network searches you!

Excuse my scepticism (2, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266814)

Seriously, can anyone see this being more pertinent than regular searches? I don't know about you people, but I don't necessarily have much in common with my few friends, so if a friend of mine is into Paris Hilton or international law that's not necessarily going to improve my search results in any good way.

Re:Excuse my scepticism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22266932)

I don't think it's supposed to be, and this is something that is not at all aimed at /. and is only here because it's vaguely technology related. It's like a victoria's secret catalog that spends ten pages with no pictures talking about the science behind their amazing new fabric

Re:Excuse my scepticism (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266954)

I think it would be easier for stalkers and pedophiles to gain enough information from searched to find a point of contact. Especially if it remotely references the point or perspective in th results, IE "you might be interested in X because fiend Mya, myspace, liked unicorns and OMG ponies and so on". It could leave a trail for someone to follow to get a clear idea of where you live, where you hang out, or how often your with certain people who you have found the other information from.

I dunno if this is a good idea or not, ot if I am over reacting.

Re:Excuse my scepticism (1)

vuffi_raa (1089583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22274010)

it is actually an incredible way to target ads and spam- instead of just sending spam and ads to a huge unrelated audience you would be able to get targeted interests by targeted individuals to related targeted individuals- this could easily increase the likelihood that your "p3n1S_b1gg3R_n0W!" e-mail get's opened by making it into a more targeted title like: "rumors about celebrityX"or would allow you to customize advertisements based on their spider of related interests.
yeah, as an enduser that really sucks, but if you are a skeevy spammer it rules.

New excuse to refuse friend requests on facebook (5, Funny)

merreborn (853723) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266864)

"Sorry, I can't friend you, you'll screw up my search results"

It's been done. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266890)

Somebody already tried this, as I discovered during a patent search.

Other weird search ideas included adjusting search preferences based on what other applications are running. If you seach for "gold", you get different responses depending on whether you're running Everquest or Excel.

What's more likely to work is ad personalization based on your social network. If your friends bought something, then promoting it to you is a promising idea. That's been proposed as PriceKut [denounce.com] .

Hysteresis of a Social Network (5, Insightful)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 5 years ago | (#22266960)

This kind of approach has the hidden danger that once you fall into a certain crowd, it's hard to dig your way out. It substantially increases the importance of choosing the right one because you might never climb out.

Consider how many people think they are Democrats or Republicans just because their parents are. (Parents are just an example, so don't be too quick to say that parents aren't the chosen network. There will be some chosen network and unless its attributes are freely advertised, you'll be signing up to have things done for you in ways that are subtle and related to others you think you know. It might just as well be "those drug fiends you kids run around with".)

Until the mid-1990's, I used to subscribe to paper magazines about technical topics. And I'd get a lot of junk mail from vendors offering me stuff. Increasingly, I found they talked about object-oriented programming and other topics I liked. At first, I thought all my topics were winning the hearts and minds of people. But after a while, I realized they had just pigeon-holed me as interested only in those topics. What started off as a benefit they were offering me was now a kind of Hell I had to live in... I'm sure there's some relevant Twilight Zone episode I should be referencing here, but you get my point.

Freedom comes with choice. One reason that a lot of people don't like political primaries is that it limits choice. If you can control the primary process (which has traditionally gotten very little oversight--though this year probably got more than average), you have a great deal of control of the election. People focus on the election as the thing that can be tampered with, and they make a polite fuss about who gets invited to this and that debate, about who takes this and that money, about the price of media, and so on. But it's those things, not a few hanging chads in the vote itself, that probably really sway the election. The damage is already done by time you reach the voting booth.

And what if everyone in the network is trusting everyone else, and no one is at the helm? Or what if someone deviates from the network--is that weighted low as anomalous or high as important that it wasn't statistically predicted and might signify something the group should peer at? I don't see leaving these questions to a search engine... I think people should retain this right and responsibility.

What if you're a hermit? (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267012)

See subject. I'm depressed. :(

Some better filtering mechanism is needed (1)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267088)

But this probably isn't it.

Google uses a basic citation index, but as far as I know doesn't consider references, multiple generations of citation, references or citations, citations of references, duplication of citations/references (mirrors should not weigh as much as originals), credibility of sources (not sure how you'd measure that one) or proximity to known good results (the user could flag good results, which could then be mined by a search engine to improve the search terms). This method, basically an adaptation of how academics look things up, is tried-and-tested but may still not be useful on the web where relationships between ideas can be tenuous or obscure.

Most search engines also (these days) spell-check terms, look up singular/plural forms and perform other trivial operations. Having it use a thesaurus for alternative meanings might be a good idea, too. This would produce more results, yes, but if you then applied stricter filtering on those results, and stricter weightings for sorting what's left, you should get about the same number of results in total with a higher percentage that are actually useful.

I can't help but remember a different, much older, search engine, though. CAS Online. This stored abstracts on chemistry papers. Virtually all of them that had ever been published. You performed not one search but many, where a search could be new or on the results from one or more previous searches, using set logic and a very primitive SQL-like query language. Because you could build on previous results, you always ended up with only a few results, almost all of which were highly relevent to what you wanted. However, as with attempts to use regular expressions in web searches, what is used (and useful) elsewhere may not be so useful or practical for Joe Average when searching the web.

Re:Some better filtering mechanism is needed (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267726)

Probably not good as a primary mechanism, but as an option or something with a little infuence it would be quite useful.

I know google has a whole host of algorithms merged to give its results, i can see this being useful as a lower level one, unfortunately i can never see this being CPU efficient, it means that instead of reading a database it has to personally search your web every time you search. I Would like to see it as an extra option tho!

Privacy? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22267112)

So Google doesn't invade your privacy enough?

I look forward to seeing what results it gives to "Jack Thompson -> animal porn" once it gets hacked/spammed, though.

Spelling? (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267306)

Did you mean delvr? Results 1-10 of 12,000.

Suggest new people! (3, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267414)

That would be cool if they used your friends and such to suggest you new people to become friends with, à la Last.fm [www.last.fm] , with people instead of music.

Well to LastNig.ht [lastnig.ht] . According to your Facebook profile, you recently "hooked up" with Sally, Michelle and Brandy. LastNig.ht BETA suggests you to try to hook up with the following people : Stacy. Pam. Jeff.

Re:Suggest new people! (2, Interesting)

merreborn (853723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22268718)

That would be cool if they used your friends and such to suggest you new people to become friends with, à la Last.fm [www.last.fm], with people instead of music.
We've been arguing about that concept here at the office lately. I'm of the opinion that I don't care *who* has similar interests (the last.fm model), I just want to know *what* people with similar interests like (the amazon.com model).

Similarly, I like to think that a lot more goes into the decision of who I'd want to friend than can be divined from raw data on my interests. I'm interested in friending people that make insightful, well reasoned comments, even if their interests are completely the opposite of mine, in some cases; accordingly, I have no interest in friending someone who shares my interests, but happens to be a blathering, infantile bigot.

inside the box (4, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267560)

That's exactly what most of the dumbasses who vote people like Bush into office need: A world-view tuned more to what and who they already know.

Thanks for making sure they'll never be confronted with the world outside their small box.

Re:inside the box (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267924)

That's exactly what most of the dumbasses who vote people like Bush into office need: A world-view tuned more to what and who they already know.


What, you mean unlike the same sort of small world you live in where it's justifiable to call people who disagree with you dumb asses?

I already see this narrow world-view with blogs. People blog about other blogs to the point that they seem to exist for no other reason than to justify their own beliefs.

I'm not saying I agree with people who support Bush. And I do agree that social network-based search results will only make narrow-minded and ignorance worse.

However, it's already bad now and it's just as bad amongst liberal sites as it is amongst the conservative ones. Like it or not, anyone who believes otherwise probably as a narrow-minded view of the world themselves.

I can't stand blogs for this reason. Few bloggers want actual discussion. There's a tendency for certain viewpoints to get modded down on Slashdot, but by and large I still get to see all sorts of viewpoints expressed.

Re:inside the box (1)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22292082)

What, you mean unlike the same sort of small world you live in where it's justifiable to call people who disagree with you dumb asses?
And people who use cheap rhetorical overgeneralisations in order to make a point that ignores the original content, yes. :-)

Like it or not, anyone who believes otherwise probably as a narrow-minded view of the world themselves.
Totally. In fact, it's difficult to get other views, because very few organisations or groups even allow them in. The problem with automation is that it hides the filtering.

gn4a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#22267644)

people already; I'm PART OF GNAA IF

Ugh (1)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 5 years ago | (#22267690)

I usually search the internet for things I don't already know. This seems like a really good way to keep me fenced into the stuff that I already know or that I've heard about from my friends.

I'd much rather have a search tool that eliminated all social network information from it's database. Never in my life have I wanted to search for "What did Mike do last night?"

Re:Ugh (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268634)

You miss the real power here. Just from the first page of your comments list there's probably 100 points that could be used to extrapolate what you like, give weight to other sites, the mod points given to each post as well as the ones you reply to would probably rate 200+ websites quite easily..

If you also had an account on say Digg (don't flame me) then even without your UID the general "shape" of your profile would pick out.. as well as a thousand others in the same direction... it becomes broad and focused at the same time, even without trying to figure out who "you" are in terms of privacy, there's better tools to pick that stuff up anyway.

Newspeak 2.0 - Newthink (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 5 years ago | (#22268660)

And by keeping you mentally fenced in, you will be unable to think about why {insert oppressive regime here} is so bad.

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible."

George Orwell 1984

That's sort of like ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22269458)

... looking for a date at a family reunion.

Hmm, cousins! (1)

harmonica (29841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22272676)

So? Here in Shelbyville, we like it that way, you insensitive clod!

negative uno (1)

ezwip (974076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22270254)

so you are searching the Web through the prism of your social graph when you are brought to a page displaying the following... i'm sorry your karma limits you to only one search a day

the idea is not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22272318)

hmmmm, i have a doubt if the guys have done some market research before run. there is a great product available that does the same- http://www.spock.com/ [spock.com] and it's also Google who wants to enter the game

The most influential man in the world (1)

Fael (939668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22274140)

will now be Tom from Myspace.

How to trust wisdom of the crowds (1)

insuggest (1232304) | more than 6 years ago | (#22281216)

It is really smart to do something about the search results, since the traditional search engines tends to be too hooked up on spam pages. Real people can provide real opinions - but are they reliable? Initially: maybe not, but over time: definitely! And of course you trust your friends better than others, so it is a smart move. My company is also in the recommendation engine business, so we are dealing with this matter every day. And from what we have seen, the positive force usually wins in the end... Looking forward to Delver's official opening.

Social network search (1)

tomwitkin (1181819) | more than 6 years ago | (#22285224)

Another piece of the search equation that we continue to think about within the enterprise and the collaboration software (http://icecore.com) used by its community.
Check for New 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>