The thing is, that every search you make, is going to be appended to the GLT. I said so, that each Google query can be just added to the table. But not only your Google query, if you choose so—but every GLT query as well.
But even without this option, your “register s” example would work better on GLT then on Google.
With this option on, so much easier.
I think you are underestimating what a tremendous pain in the ass it will be to manually filter through the massive number of associations with a particular string.
Millions of filters would be inside GLT, already. Yours may be added. It is a main advantage over Google. Quite obvious to me.
What I want is to input any blob of data and output should be all possible relations this blob of data has with any other blob of data.
…
If I input a picture, all pictures of the same object(s) is the natural answer this GLT should return.
And how is this functionality
Millions of filters would be inside GLT, already. Yours may be added. It is a main advantage over Google.
any different from Google in the first place? Are you implying they aren’t already mining information regarding each user’s search-revision and link-clicking habits to improve their filters as whole?
Google is enough and will be enough? They already doing this and that and everything?
Had Brin and Page thought like that, we would be on AltaVista. But there would be no AltaVista as well. Not even an iron ax.
Some people have no imagination, whatsoever. Most of them. Including very many on this site.
This is a crazy idea thread, remember? Someone may pick one of those ideas and put it into life. That’s all that it is. I will not go into technical details, for sure.
I am interested in your idea but based on your description, I am legitimately uncertain as to how it is measurably different from what Google already does.
I am certainly not saying that Google is and always will be the best.
Currently Google does not give you all the available pictures of an object, from a photo you have.
This “horizontal” knowledge isn’t present in Google’s databases.
Additionally, page ranking, whichever it is currently, does not permit you to sort the answers by yourself. You may want that. Or implement a function like “the shortest”. And many more complex functions.
Sites are just one type of object. You can’t Google for most other objects.
There are some cameras in Africa, showing you water ponds. I want to know, if there is a waterhole, where a lion came into the picture less than 100 seconds ago. Or a warthog. Or both.
And so on.
Above mentioned GLT would give you such answers, Google doesn’t.
The thing is, that every search you make, is going to be appended to the GLT. I said so, that each Google query can be just added to the table. But not only your Google query, if you choose so—but every GLT query as well.
But even without this option, your “register s” example would work better on GLT then on Google.
With this option on, so much easier.
Millions of filters would be inside GLT, already. Yours may be added. It is a main advantage over Google. Quite obvious to me.
That conveys a much different impression than
And how is this functionality
any different from Google in the first place? Are you implying they aren’t already mining information regarding each user’s search-revision and link-clicking habits to improve their filters as whole?
Google is enough and will be enough? They already doing this and that and everything?
Had Brin and Page thought like that, we would be on AltaVista. But there would be no AltaVista as well. Not even an iron ax.
Some people have no imagination, whatsoever. Most of them. Including very many on this site.
This is a crazy idea thread, remember? Someone may pick one of those ideas and put it into life. That’s all that it is. I will not go into technical details, for sure.
shrug
I am interested in your idea but based on your description, I am legitimately uncertain as to how it is measurably different from what Google already does.
I am certainly not saying that Google is and always will be the best.
Currently Google does not give you all the available pictures of an object, from a photo you have.
This “horizontal” knowledge isn’t present in Google’s databases.
Additionally, page ranking, whichever it is currently, does not permit you to sort the answers by yourself. You may want that. Or implement a function like “the shortest”. And many more complex functions.
Sites are just one type of object. You can’t Google for most other objects.
There are some cameras in Africa, showing you water ponds. I want to know, if there is a waterhole, where a lion came into the picture less than 100 seconds ago. Or a warthog. Or both.
And so on.
Above mentioned GLT would give you such answers, Google doesn’t.