

Why Google's Online Enyclopedia Will Never Be As Good As Wikipedia - tptacek
http://www.slate.com/id/2200401/

======
startingup
Knol is really just a Google rehash of Squidoo. It is subject to the same
problems as Squidoo: relentless spam. It is really Google's attempt to protect
its content based ad revenue by trying to lower Wikipedia's domination of
search results.

------
jacobscott
As I understand it knol gives authorship of articles on first-come first-serve
basis? This seems pretty braindead to me, does anyone know why they chose to
do it this way, or if there's any automated way to change article ownership?

~~~
litewulf
Yes. Anyone can create an article about anything. The hope is that over time
the better article about something will rise to the top and somehow become
_the_ article.

I swear sometimes Google is run by geeks who read Ayn Rand one day and thought
"gee the market economy can solve _any_ problem!"

~~~
13ren
"Rise to the top" implies a ranking; I'm guessing that Knol simply Pagerank
for ranking. I don't see any explicit ranking.

So, this is the old problem of _how to rank_... Maybe social news style
voting? But different from reddit/dig/HN, because it wouldn't be "news", so
newness shouldn't be a key factor.

~~~
litewulf
How about we pretend for a moment that Knol is actually publicly visible. Now
what are the ways that you would find a Knol article? I imagine you find pages
via searching on Google or on the site.

Searching on Google probably is just the regular searching, so it works the
same as any other site.

Searching on Knol seems to allow duplicates, so there is a rating system.

Wow, that thought experiment actually worked better than I thought it would!

~~~
13ren
yes, pagerank works for Knol.

But how is pagerank determined? In the usual way, of the aggregate pagerank of
incoming links (and other factors that google uses).

I was suggesting that there might be a better way to rank knol articles, than
only using Pagerank. This might not turn out to be the case; but that's what I
was suggesting.

~~~
litewulf
What I was saying is that for regular Google search I'm pretty sure they use
regular web search algorithms.

Also, I really think the fixation on Pagerank is quite a devious thing Google
has done, because it completely obscures all the other complexity of a search
engine. Be it stemming, synonyms, inferring search intent, etc, most of that
stuff doesn't really come out of Pagerank. There are "thousands of signals" or
whatever it is that the Keepers of the Search have, and they all play varying
roles in the actual ranking process. Could knol articles be more effectively
winnowed than by web search? Yes. Would it be appropriate do treat knol
articles specially in web search? Probably not (imagine user backlash).

Within Knol, they also have the advantage of ratings and other stuff though.
What really bothered me about your initial comment was the "maybe they use
some social news site style voting"... you could have actually looked and said
"oh! they have ratings", instead of just blindly pontificating.

~~~
13ren
I agree that they'd use regular Google search, and not game it (there already
was user backlash when knol ranking highly when it was announced). I was
thinking more for once you go to knol, and search for something there -- or,
better, when you arrive at a page, it has pointers on top to similar articles,
and their "knol-ratings".

I've heard that point of view of Pagerank before, as a marketing device. I
personally do _like_ the idea that an algorithm can make a difference, and I
absolutely believe it can. Whether it really did in this case, however, is a
question of fact.

What you say about search engine complexity is true; although many of those
techniques were known before pagerank (though I'm sure they're been developed
further and new ones added since then). The Pagerank patent itself goes to
some pains to mention other techniques being integrated. But I think the
significant thing about Pagerank is that it really was something new.

Google's overall success had many factors: fast results; an uncluttered
search-only webpage; no paid placements in search; and doing a good job on all
those factors you mention (though I think the specific ones you state are to
do with search, and not with ranking - at the time, there was no problem
finding the right result; it was ranking it near the top that seemed to be the
issue... at least, according to Google PR...).

To be honest, for me personally, I think the leanness of Google was most
appealing (fast, simple, honest), together with a sense of coolness, of it
being new, and by a couple of brilliant guys. It was also (virally) introduced
to me by someone cool in tech. The search results themselves were "good
enough". I remember doing some comparisons, and finding Google better - but it
really didn't _matter_ to me... it just confirmed the attitude I already had.

Now, regarding my "blind pontification" in your opinion: I did look for
ratings/ranking - on the front page, and I tried a search, but I didn't see
any ratings (That's why I said "I don't see any explicit ranking." It turns
out they don't appear on the front page, or for search results; you only see
them after you have selected an article. _EDIT_ actually, they _do_ appear in
search - but that take so long to load (for me) that they didn't appear (and
there's no placeholder), even when I was double-checking.

The "pontification" part bemuses me... I was suggesting/asking/wondering what
a good way would be to do it. That's the opposite of pontificating (in my
opinion, anyway). I like to wonder about things - it's a source of new
insights, and it works for me.

A request: if you think I'm saying something silly, could you
straightforwardly point it out to me? People (and I really think especially I)
do make mistakes; and I (at least) appreciate being set straight.

I must say, I've got used to straightforward discussions on HN, but it seems
to have shifted recently. I feel sad about that.

~~~
litewulf
Sorry, I think I came across too aggressively. I honestly read your comments
as "wouldn't it be nice if Knol did X", and when I went to look at the site it
already was doing X, so I had assumed that you were just throwing out comments
without actually having touched the site at all. The site loads pretty fast
for me, but I'm sitting a few miles away from Google HQ, so things may just be
different for me.

So in summary: I thought you were being silly but it turns out this was just a
big understanding. I hope this doesn't make you hate me or HN.

~~~
13ren
Thanks, that's OK.

I'm in Australia. The text loads instantly; but the ratings take 7 seconds
(I'm sure it was longer last time), but with no indication that something is
missing...

In this type of situation, when you think I'm being silly, my request is for
you to say: "Knol does X". Or "Knol does X and you're silly" is fine too. As
it was, I had no idea where you were coming from.

And I could spend more than 7 seconds on a site before commenting. =)

