Comments on: Query Elaboration as a Dialogue http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/ Wed, 16 May 2012 21:42:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: A Hack Addressing a Flaw - Transparent Recommendations - Things On Top http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-2276 A Hack Addressing a Flaw - Transparent Recommendations - Things On Top Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:05:22 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-2276 [...] also ties it in with query elaboration as a dialogue: The answer is that the system needs to help the user elaborate the query. Specifically, the [...] [...] also ties it in with query elaboration as a dialogue: The answer is that the system needs to help the user elaborate the query. Specifically, the [...]

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-241 Daniel Tunkelang Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:17:00 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-241 I see the problem not as the paucity of input options as the lack of transparency in how that input is processed. Perhaps we are saying the same things. I think that transparency is a prerequisite for meaningful query expressiveness. I see the problem not as the paucity of input options as the lack of transparency in how that input is processed. Perhaps we are saying the same things. I think that transparency is a prerequisite for meaningful query expressiveness.

]]> By: jeremy http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-235 jeremy Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:55:00 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-235 I still think that there is a difference between determining relevance for you, and allowing you enough input options so that you can tell them what you want, so that they can still determine relevance for you. <br/><br/>I have no problem with them applying as much algorithmic intelligence as possible to find patterns (and relevance) in the data that you likely would not have found on your own. What I object to is the paucity of options for specifying my own input to that algorithmic intelligence. <br/><br/>But maybe I'm saying the same thing you are, in a different way? I still think that there is a difference between determining relevance for you, and allowing you enough input options so that you can tell them what you want, so that they can still determine relevance for you.

I have no problem with them applying as much algorithmic intelligence as possible to find patterns (and relevance) in the data that you likely would not have found on your own. What I object to is the paucity of options for specifying my own input to that algorithmic intelligence.

But maybe I’m saying the same thing you are, in a different way?

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Daniel Tunkelang Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:46:00 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-234 You're preaching to the converted. But I think it's not so much an unwillingness to experiment as a mindset: Google--and most search engine companies--see their primary directive as determining relevance for you. Relative to this mindset, allowing users to negotiate relevance isn't so much an enhancement as an abdication of responsibility. I violently disagree with this mindset, but I can appreciate it on its own terms. You’re preaching to the converted. But I think it’s not so much an unwillingness to experiment as a mindset: Google–and most search engine companies–see their primary directive as determining relevance for you. Relative to this mindset, allowing users to negotiate relevance isn’t so much an enhancement as an abdication of responsibility. I violently disagree with this mindset, but I can appreciate it on its own terms.

]]> By: jeremy http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-233 jeremy Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:14:00 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-233 Well, if they can't give that power to every user, there should at least be a switch, cookie, commandline option, or something that "turns on" the more powerful relevance iteration/feedback/HCI interface. It's one thing to solve it for all the grandmothers.. a hard problem. It's another thing to conclude that just because grandmothers don't get it, you won't make *anything* available to *any* user. <br/><br/>Yet they've still decided to take the "all or nothing" approach.. which is frankly surprising considering they have an attitude of "get it out there and then iterate". If they'd just get something out there, and working for 5% of the users, then they could iterate until they figured out how to make it work for the grandmothers, too. Well, if they can’t give that power to every user, there should at least be a switch, cookie, commandline option, or something that “turns on” the more powerful relevance iteration/feedback/HCI interface. It’s one thing to solve it for all the grandmothers.. a hard problem. It’s another thing to conclude that just because grandmothers don’t get it, you won’t make *anything* available to *any* user.

Yet they’ve still decided to take the “all or nothing” approach.. which is frankly surprising considering they have an attitude of “get it out there and then iterate”. If they’d just get something out there, and working for 5% of the users, then they could iterate until they figured out how to make it work for the grandmothers, too.

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-229 Daniel Tunkelang Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:14:00 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-229 As I <a HREF="http://thenoisychannel.blogspot.com/2008/04/q-with-amit-singhal.html" REL="nofollow">argued with Amit Singhal</a> a few months ago, I do think relevance ultimately needs to be in the hands of users, not search engines acting as paternalistic gatekeepers. But I do concede it's a challenge to give users this power in a form that does not require unreasonable effort or expertise. As I argued with Amit Singhal a few months ago, I do think relevance ultimately needs to be in the hands of users, not search engines acting as paternalistic gatekeepers. But I do concede it’s a challenge to give users this power in a form that does not require unreasonable effort or expertise.

]]> By: jeremy http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/09/03/query-elaboration-as-a-dialogue/comment-page-1/#comment-224 jeremy Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:47:00 +0000 http://thenoisychannel.com/?p=80#comment-224 I completely agree with you about both things: (1) the need for query as a dialogue, and (2) the need for transparency in the algorithm itself, so as to make the dialogue possible.<br/><br/>And this makes a lot of sense when searching enterprise data.<br/><br/>But do you think we'll ever see something like this take off for the web as a whole? Maybe not from the big players, because they have too much money to make by keeping things closed. But there are efforts for open search for the web as a whole. Do you think those will ever take off? <br/><br/>Or will "open" not succeed in a web environment, because of gaming/manipulation/spam issues?<br/><br/>That's my question really: What happens when "open" meets "spam"? <br/><br/>Personally, I've always thought that a truly open, dialgogue system will be able to allow the user to easily filter for spam. It might take a little bit of extra work.. a 3% "effort tax" if you will. But what is your take on this issue? I completely agree with you about both things: (1) the need for query as a dialogue, and (2) the need for transparency in the algorithm itself, so as to make the dialogue possible.

And this makes a lot of sense when searching enterprise data.

But do you think we’ll ever see something like this take off for the web as a whole? Maybe not from the big players, because they have too much money to make by keeping things closed. But there are efforts for open search for the web as a whole. Do you think those will ever take off?

Or will “open” not succeed in a web environment, because of gaming/manipulation/spam issues?

That’s my question really: What happens when “open” meets “spam”?

Personally, I’ve always thought that a truly open, dialgogue system will be able to allow the user to easily filter for spam. It might take a little bit of extra work.. a 3% “effort tax” if you will. But what is your take on this issue?

]]>