Re: Oracle chief architect says there ought to be one Linux

From: joel garry <>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

On May 12, 1:20 pm, (Malcolm Dew-Jones) wrote:
> joel garry ( wrote:
> : On May 8, 4:38=A0pm, (Malcolm Dew-Jones): wrote:
> : > joel garry ( wrote:
> : >
> : > : I think google (...snip...)
> : > : ... And two identical searches _still_ may not give consistent
> : > : results.
> : >
> : > Since when is google supposed to give consistent results?
> : >
> : > That would be a _bad_ thing.
> : >
> : > Any algorithm that can tries to reduce terabytes of data into one useful
> : > page of information must be making a lot of assumptions. =A0If a result pa=
> : ge
> : > doesn't change pretty frequently then that would be the sign of a terrible=
> : > algorithm.
> : Well, I'm a db geek, and for me an algorithm that doesn't reduce to
> : correct results when given enough specificity is a bad, bad algorithm.
> There are no "correct results" in a heuristic search where they're trying
> to guess what some anonymous user really wants.  If you make the same
> query twice, does that mean you found the first search useful and want to
> see the results again, or does it mean the first set of results was
> useless and you're hoping they'll find something else to tell you about?  
> (Just like repeating the same question to a person when they don't answer
> it correctly the first time.)
> : But even worse is an actual commercial transaction that doesn't follow
> : the basic rules of transactions.  Been there, done that, got the
> : credit card bill, got the fraud investigation going.
> I don't see that the search part of a google search is in anyway a
> "commercial transaction".

Did I say it was?

> : Face it, google's entire business model is based on advertising.  They
> : have no accountability at all for it.  Great for them, evil
> : incarnate.  And it does crack me up when they serve me up Arabic or
> : Chinese ads, I have no idea why they think I can read either.
> That may all be true, but there is still no reason why a search from a
> user would always show the same advertising.  After all, if you followed
> the ad-link then you don't need to see it again, and if you didn't follow
> the ad-link then "obviously" you aren't interested in that ad.  Either way
> it implies that the same ads should _not_ be consistently shown.

I don't care about the advertising (except when it displays workinappropriate  stuff at work, makes monitored browsing logs look like I'm surfing somewhere I'm not, or is otherwise entertaining). I almost never follow those links, normally ignoring them completely.

> Whether you can audit when your ads are shown for billing purposes is a
> very valid concern, but it has no relation to whether the search results,
> including the ads, should be shown consistently or not.

Yes, that is extremely valid for people who advertise and pay money. I don't say ads should be consistent. I do say search results on narrow criteria should be consistent. And I will consistently maintain that someone who is not an advertising customer or any other kind of customer of google besides plain browsing and google groups SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR CREDIT CARD BILLED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER DAY BY GOOGLE!!! Can I make it any more plain?


-- is bogus.
"If we in some way offend you, insult you or your people, screw your
mom, beat up your dad, or poop on your porch... we're sorry... we were
probably really drunk... Oh and dont steal our content bitches! Don't
give us a reason to pee in your open car window this summer... " -
coolrunnings BBS.
Received on Tue May 13 2008 - 11:25:43 CDT

Original text of this message