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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

DARPA Seeks the Holy Grail of Search Engines

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the find-it-now dept.

The Military 78

coondoggie writes "The scientists at DARPA say the current methods of searching the Internet for all manner of information just won't cut it in the future. Today the agency announced a program that would aim to totally revamp Internet search and 'revolutionize the discovery, organization and presentation of search results.' Specifically, the goal of DARPA's Memex program is to develop software that will enable domain-specific indexing of public web content and domain-specific search capabilities. According to the agency the technologies developed in the program will also provide the mechanisms for content discovery, information extraction, information retrieval, user collaboration, and other areas needed to address distributed aggregation, analysis, and presentation of web content."

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

Join the slashdot farewell: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211079)

The Individual Midnight Thread - Farewell [slashdot.org]

I'm moving with all the great community of smart people and old-timers to http://www.soylentnews.org
Submissions for new names will be accepted whole week. Then we will have a two-stage voting.

See you all great guys there!

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211133)

Gee, I can't wait to participate in an echo chamber made up exclusively of nerds that got pissed to high hell when a UI redesign was _proposed_ on a site thats totally fucking free to them and will still work the same way in the future with regards to content (gripes about content aside)... What a joy it will be:
[dream twinkles]

"The scientists at DARPA say the current methods of searching the Internet for all manner of information just won't cut it in the future" What the fuck are they thinking? If they can't just use GREP to find what they need they must be some serious federal fuckups! Get Ron Paul down here to stop this!!!!!!!!!11

[/dream twinkles]

Ah what a lovely place, indeed.

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (2, Insightful)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | about 9 months ago | (#46211211)

You have put a name to my pain, sir/madam.

I realized that the "Beta sucks!" chorus was bothering me, not just because it was a huge overreaction to, as you pointed out, a _proposed_ change to a _free_ site.

The thing that bothers me the most is that there seems to be almost a competition to show who can be the most obnoxious in registering their objections... from people who went through "gamer shaming" in high school, insults about nerdiness through college, and what not. It seems that these are people who have wanted to strike back at a handy target.

Like the French Bourbon dynasty when they were restored to power after Napoleon's defeat, they seem to have remembered everything, forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211475)

You're a fucking idiot. Slashdot isn't about the articles and it isn't about the fucking pathetic summaries. Slashdot is about the user-generated content. Slashdot is the comments.

Now, you think all that time spent by knowledgable members posting all that good stuff comes free? People invested their time, care and attention here. Slashdot isn't a fucking TV. Slashdot is a community.

The reason the response was negative and loud is because the beta makes it harder to follow threads. It makes it harder to follow discussion context. It makes it harder to comment within the discussion context.The beta redesign ruins the community experience. Dice is trying to turn Slashdot into another Digg or Reddit. Soon, you'll be flooded with ads you can't turn off, looking for the useful, informative and interesting comments that used to be posted here. Fuck that shit.

TL;DR: FUCK BETA!

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 9 months ago | (#46211577)

Beta Rocks you hoser. eh?

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (2)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | about 9 months ago | (#46211623)

You're a fucking idiot. Slashdot isn't about the articles and it isn't about the fucking pathetic summaries. Slashdot is about the user-generated content. Slashdot is the comments.

Now, you think all that time spent by knowledgable members posting all that good stuff comes free? People invested their time, care and attention here. Slashdot isn't a fucking TV. Slashdot is a community.

The reason the response was negative and loud is because the beta makes it harder to follow threads. It makes it harder to follow discussion context. It makes it harder to comment within the discussion context.The beta redesign ruins the community experience. Dice is trying to turn Slashdot into another Digg or Reddit. Soon, you'll be flooded with ads you can't turn off, looking for the useful, informative and interesting comments that used to be posted here. Fuck that shit.

TL;DR: FUCK BETA!

Now, at least some reasoned, if seemingly over-wrought, debate.

You argue that the content, being user-provided, will go away if people are unable to see the content organized in a sensible fashion. Okay, I can buy that. I also hadn't considered that since the content is provided by users, they might have a reason to be a bit more passionate about how their thoughts are presented.

What I don't get is the need for insult to anybody who disagrees, or the call to leave Slashdot in droves even after they acknowledged that the beta was not working out and removed it.

And, again, I submit that you have validated my other point. Bitter vituperation towards the failed beta, even after it's gone, may do as much to drive away readership as the beta

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212181)

Now, at least some reasoned, if seemingly over-wrought, debate.

You argue that the content, being user-provided, will go away if people are unable to see the content organized in a sensible fashion. Okay, I can buy that. I also hadn't considered that since the content is provided by users, they might have a reason to be a bit more passionate about how their thoughts are presented.

What I don't get is the need for insult to anybody who disagrees, or the call to leave Slashdot in droves even after they acknowledged that the beta was not working out and removed it.

And, again, I submit that you have validated my other point. Bitter vituperation towards the failed beta, even after it's gone, may do as much to drive away readership as the beta

The layouts in Beta are evolving to look more and more like the classic site, with every passing thread that gets bombarded by classicists. So every frustration the gripers have are disappearing, except perhaps from the current lack of an "anonymous coward" checkbox to make trolling easier. For that you have to find your way all the way to the bottom of the page, click the classic link, and post anon like usual. Sounds fucking rough, doesn't it.

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

Roger Wilcox (776904) | about 9 months ago | (#46212835)

Bitter vituperation towards the failed beta, even after it's gone, may do as much to drive away readership as the beta

2 things:

A First, on the bitter vituperation, as one who quite unabashedly shared my thoughts about how and why the new design was/is bad: much of the speech was strongly voiced, but it was simply the truth. If Dice kills the site layout and function, I will stop coming here. That's not a threat so much as a fact that I feel dice should be privy to. I don't want them to kill the site, and I'm sure they don't want me to leave. Bluntly pointing out the lose-lose seemed to me the most direct way to communicate my feelings and affect change.

As an addendum to the above point, there is something in the culture here (and not just here) where humor and bravado is acceptable and even expected. Perhaps you have not been properly acculturated to Slashdot geek, subspecies of Internet geek. By your very presence here you should know what to expect in this regard.

B Second, Dice failed hard on this gambit. They didn't even bother to try at "reading the wind" so to speak. Hopefully they have learned from this and will at least make an attempt to understand the community before making fools of themselves in the future.

You can say that the community reaction harms the site's image, and that might even be true. On the whole though, the community doesn't care about Slashdot's image. We have this space, and it is ours, and it is good. Only Dice is concerned with image because they are trying to figure out how to grow us and monetize us. This is the ugly truth behind the whole situation, and I posit this is where where much of the "bitter" response really came from. It's creepy and sad to see a culture that you love slowly destroyed by a soulless entity that doesn't care about you or your community so much as it cares about using you and shaping you into something profitable.

In this instance, by failing to read the wind, Dice bared this truth to all of us; reminded us that this community isn't really ours so much as it is theirs. Absolutely that was a hurt to the community.

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | about 9 months ago | (#46213229)

In this instance, by failing to read the wind, Dice bared this truth to all of us; reminded us that this community isn't really ours so much as it is theirs. Absolutely that was a hurt to the community.

Now that's something that I can take to the bank.

You see, I lost that aspect of it when I was seeing people posting line after line of "Fuck Beta", often anonymously, and often seeming to offer insults to anybody who felt differently.

You, on the other hand, have answered my questions without questioning my intelligence, or heaping scorn and abuse on my head for daring to have a different opinion, or generally resorting to name-calling, so I don't think you qualify for "bitter vituperation". <grin> Rather, you qualify as someone who helped me decide that this site is worth staying on. Thanks!

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#46212847)

What I don't get is the need for insult to anybody who disagrees

You take the good [wikipedia.org] with the bad. [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 9 months ago | (#46212201)

Slashdot is the comments.

Not anymore...

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 9 months ago | (#46211911)

It's only a "free" site if you consider that the time and effort that the participants put into it is valueless. And "Beta" is not a term generally used to mean "trial balloon". It usually means, Next Week In Production (unless you're Google, in which case "Next Week" can be removed).

The advertisers pay for the hosting services and infrastructure, but without content, the product is nothing. So users have a definite interest in keeping the site usable and comfortable.

I haven't actually seen the Beta yet, but if it's truly keeping with recent trends in other products towards removal of commonly-used features and insertion of empty glitz, as some anti-Beta whingers have asserted, I can see why there is cause for a major uproar.

We have a lot of self-professed Libertarians here, they chant the mantra claiming that if you don't like service pick a competitor. Consider Digg. That's basically the route that Digg went down, its users fled and Digg dug its own grave. There aren't so many competitors for Slashdot that its users want it too to be ruined, so they're trying to ensure that it doesn't go that route.

I don't often counsel this in the IT world, but if it ain't broke...

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 9 months ago | (#46212231)

It's only a "free" site if you consider that the time and effort that the participants put into it is valueless. And "Beta" is not a term generally used to mean "trial balloon". It usually means, Next Week In Production (unless you're Google, in which case "Next Week" can be removed).

The advertisers pay for the hosting services and infrastructure, but without content, the product is nothing. So users have a definite interest in keeping the site usable and comfortable.

I haven't actually seen the Beta yet, but if it's truly keeping with recent trends in other products towards removal of commonly-used features and insertion of empty glitz, as some anti-Beta whingers have asserted, I can see why there is cause for a major uproar.

We have a lot of self-professed Libertarians here, they chant the mantra claiming that if you don't like service pick a competitor. Consider Digg. That's basically the route that Digg went down, its users fled and Digg dug its own grave. There aren't so many competitors for Slashdot that its users want it too to be ruined, so they're trying to ensure that it doesn't go that route.

I don't often counsel this in the IT world, but if it ain't broke...

If it ain't broke, it must run at least as well as Friendster.... Right? Or maybe it runs as well as Altavista? Geocities? Need some more examples of services that failed to change at the right time? No one said "f--- this beta friendster s---, I'm going to facebook because I dont like this any more", did they? Nope, they said "well hell, 10 of my friends just joined facebook, what am I doing on friendster?" and the rest is history.

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 9 months ago | (#46214007)

It's only a "free" site if you consider that the time and effort that the participants put into it is valueless. And "Beta" is not a term generally used to mean "trial balloon". It usually means, Next Week In Production (unless you're Google, in which case "Next Week" can be removed).

The advertisers pay for the hosting services and infrastructure, but without content, the product is nothing. So users have a definite interest in keeping the site usable and comfortable.

I haven't actually seen the Beta yet, but if it's truly keeping with recent trends in other products towards removal of commonly-used features and insertion of empty glitz, as some anti-Beta whingers have asserted, I can see why there is cause for a major uproar.

We have a lot of self-professed Libertarians here, they chant the mantra claiming that if you don't like service pick a competitor. Consider Digg. That's basically the route that Digg went down, its users fled and Digg dug its own grave. There aren't so many competitors for Slashdot that its users want it too to be ruined, so they're trying to ensure that it doesn't go that route.

I don't often counsel this in the IT world, but if it ain't broke...

If it ain't broke, it must run at least as well as Friendster.... Right? Or maybe it runs as well as Altavista? Geocities? Need some more examples of services that failed to change at the right time? No one said "f--- this beta friendster s---, I'm going to facebook because I dont like this any more", did they? Nope, they said "well hell, 10 of my friends just joined facebook, what am I doing on friendster?" and the rest is history.

There's one critical difference, though. One group lost membership by failing to adapt when competitors started sucking their members away. The other group, however, chased members away. Slashdot seems to be falling into that second category.

Re:Join the slashdot farewell: (1)

koan (80826) | about 9 months ago | (#46214561)

Unicorns... you forgot the Unicorns.

slashdot is gay but, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212473)

but that site is even gayer, holy shit, I didn't think something could beat out slashdot in gayness, but congrats sir , you've really outdone the gay this time, fagot

Re: slashdot is gay but, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46215977)

What could be gay about mostly men spending hours discussing primarily male interests?

Memex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211093)

Like what Vannevar Bush talked about in the 1940s? That's odd: I've been assured that only space exploration can develop computers and technologies as a "spinoff". How is it possible these ideas predate Sputnik? I think it's a conspiracy.

Re:Memex? (2)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 9 months ago | (#46211323)

Don't be silly. They just want to add blackjack and hookers is all.

Re:Memex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211923)

Great. We skip past all the anti-Beta boilerplate, and what do we find? Fark.com reject Quantum Apostrophe, threadshitting wherever he can, in a desparate search for someone who'll believe that Space Dooms Everything.

Why invest so much money in this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211095)

When they can just google it?

Re:Why invest so much money in this... (2)

aliquis (678370) | about 9 months ago | (#46211159)

They aren't spying and censoring the information.

They are just making a search engine and present the information which fit your profile.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211183)

Have you tried Google lately for a complex search? Or a search for a specific topic which uses words that are common to other, more popular topics?

It's a disgrace, and getting worse every year.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#46211337)

Have you tried Google lately for a complex search?

I believe that the presence of the words "information extraction" and "information retrieval" in the summary means that the search engine should be able to answer questions of the type "which kings were assassinated less then two years after their coronation?" by going through the facts available on the web, extracting them, and figuring stuff out. For any given random question, it's unlikely that someone already has it answered on the web, but the facts are all there anyway.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (1)

mattie_p (2512046) | about 9 months ago | (#46211541)

Sounds like they need to hire Watson, then.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#46213623)

Sort of. But Watson is probably too small (or primitive) a system to be efficient at a large scale (as in, serving a Google-sized audience). I have no idea how DARPA wants to tackle that. But hey, that's why they call it research! ;-)

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211963)

I couldn't agree more.

My biggest beef with Google anymore, well, it's a few things, but in a nutshell if I search for a specific phrase in quotes, I expect to find that exact phrase on the page. I do not want "similar" phrases, I want the *exact* phrase.

Often times they do contextually-similar (but wrong) searches, or "oh we think you meant this, but if you wanted what you typed you can click here" (yes 99% of the time I want what I typed!!!!!!) and sometimes the page they return does not contain the phrase I searched for, so those results are garbage.

I don't care how good predictive algorithms get, they will *never* be able to consistently predict what I am looking for.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (1)

able1234au (995975) | about 9 months ago | (#46215477)

Agree with that. The other concern i have is that i want results only after 2011, for example chasing up statistics/surveys and looking for relevant ones, I constant find results from, say 2005. But because the site it is on refreshes the container for the content, it looks like new content. Note an easy thing to solve but perhaps google can hash the content, excluding the framework, and work out the true age of the content.

This issue was not a problem when everything googled was new, but after ten years we are getting the old and new mixed in together. Give it another ten years and the problem will be much worse.

Refining searches, as you detail above, is something that not everyone needs but when you DO need it, it is frustrating not to be able to be exact.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212397)

And it's still better than the competition.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (1)

TheResilientFarter (3216187) | about 9 months ago | (#46213429)

I have found most people regurgitating this phrase haven't actually *used* the competition. Try using Bing for every search for a month, and you may find what I've found: Bing is better for obscure information, which is likely due to the fact that it's actually superior technology but doesn't have the advantage of a billion people combing through the results to find the best ones. It also seems to be better at juggling results. Searching on a technical issue that may be similar to another issue in the same software in 2005 in Google will give results from 2005, where Bing will give results based on the current year. Seems a simple thing to throw into an algorithm, but Google just doesn't want to let go of those obsolete results.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (1)

biodata (1981610) | about 9 months ago | (#46217067)

yes, many times most days and i usually find what i want

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (1)

Keybounce (226364) | about 9 months ago | (#46220161)

Google is not the answer.

Want proof? Try these two searches:

"Thor"
"atm"

How is Google supposed to know what to do with that? Do you want norse mythology, a comic book, or something else? Do you want packet switching information, bank information, or "Acrylic Tank Manufacturing" -- that's a new one.

About a decade ago, "Cow9" -- that was the name of the alta vista search engine -- had a wonderful solution to this, that required loading a java applet into your browser as part of the search. I loved it, and was disappointed when it was killed off.

Google is far from the answer. Even google itself admits that this is a deep and hard question.

why? because NSA (2)

swschrad (312009) | about 9 months ago | (#46211277)

FBI M-O-U-S-E. next best thing to surfing along looking over your shoulder, taking notes, texting the US Marshals Service what they need to subpoena before driving over and clapping on the leg irons.

Re:Why invest so much money in this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211437)

Google really is an exceptionally good search engine if it wasn't for a career known as "Internet Marketing". Scam and ad sites are the #1 reason why it's so damn hard to find relevant pages in a search. I should not have to construct a search query that spans the entire width of a 1680 monitor just to filter out all the criminally insane "Internet Marketing" guys grab for cash.

Re:Why invest so much money in this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212085)

Actually there is more truth in this answer than most people would think. With wolfram alpha and knowledge graphs Google did recently included features that actually do waht DARPA has in mind: make sense of crawled data, draw conclusions and display accordingly.

The difference with Google is: They do introduce the changes step by step. But it is defininately out there: I just recently noticed that the first search results are more and more spread around different possible meanings of my search terms, when in the past a dominant usage with 1000 hits would have pushed the other ones out of the results into nirvana.

Re: Why invest so much money in this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46214467)

When they can just google it?

Because most search engines don't really work very well. I want a search engine that actually displays what I'm searching for. That means:

* No advertising sites disguised as articles.
* If I'm searching for information on Ford cars, I actually want to see articles about Ford cars, not pages that simply have the word Ford on them somewhere.
* I don't want to see multiple links to the same page that is hosted on different sites, displaying the same page once is enough.
* I don't want to see multiple links to the same page that is hosted on the same site, displaying a site once is enough.
* If I'm searching for specific information, such as "Ford F150 repair manual", I want to see that, not pages that simply have the work repair on them somewhere. I want to be able to use logical operations for searching, some search engines support AND, but not very well. And those to do are not consistent in the way it is entered
* I want to see articles that are on topic, not some random porn site that uses a huge keyword list to trick search engines to serve them up as valid. I might be at work, I don't want to see huge breasts on my screen unless I'm actually searching for those.
* I don't want a search engine that censor's content. BING used to not display sites that were negative toward Microsoft or Windows. I don't know if it still does or not.
* I don't want to see sites are are not relevant, but have paid the search engine to be ranked higher.
* I don't want to see sub-standard or scam sites that are rated higher because they have "gamed the system" that the search engine uses to rank sites.
* NO MALWARE!

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head. Isn't "YOUR" time worth more than blindly trying to separate the wheat from the chaff? That's what search engines are supposed to help us do.

Re: Re: Why invest so much money in this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46214519)

Because most search engines don't really work very well. I want a search engine that actually displays what I'm searching for.

Oops, I forgot one.
* If links have been censored (RIAA, MPAA, ICE, Government black list or filter, court order, etc.) there should be a notice at the bottom or the page that "More sites exist, but have been censored by" followed by a list of the censoring organizations.

Beta Search (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211097)

Interesting, but does it run Beta?
 
Nevermind, forgot, BETA doesn't even run!

Join the slashdot farewell (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211111)

The Individual Midnight Thread - Farewell [slashdot.org]
 
  SoylentNews [soylentnews.org]

Re:Join the slashdot farewell (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211329)

The sooner you leave, the better. I'm fucking tired of these goddamn bitchfests about the Beta UI.

LONG LIVE CLASSIC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211115)

QUICK DEATH TO BETA

Re:LONG LIVE CLASSIC (0)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 9 months ago | (#46211589)

Long live Beta! Beta Rocks

Free Beta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46213527)

Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!

Sorry, what with all the negativity around here lately, I couldn't resist.

i wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211129)

who is really commissioning and funding this little project? anyone care to guess which three letters are involved?

Still can be improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212361)

Still can be improved. Take the following 'search' which is more computational than search-y and something nothing today gets close to being able to provide an answer:

- How often has it rained on Jan 15th, in Seattle WA, over the past 50 years.

The answer being something like 40 out of 50 times it has rained on that day etc. Unless someone has literally written that phrase, or close to it, you will be stuck computing that data yourself. We have computers for this right :)

ORLY (0)

Dak_Peoples (591544) | about 9 months ago | (#46211135)

"Disable Advertising As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising." ORLY? As an audience member, I have not contributed in a long time.

site:darpa.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211147)

this capability exists?

citizens (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 9 months ago | (#46211195)

....needed to address distributed aggregation, analysis, and presentation of citizens' content."
FTFY

RESIST BETA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211219)

Beta is soulless destruction of a great internet forum as well as Slashdot as a historical landmark during bleak times of cultish walled gardens and MBA's coding HTML and CSS.

Join ##altslashdot

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##altslashdot.org [freenode.net]

Re:RESIST BETA (1)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about 9 months ago | (#46211603)

I love Beta. It's the best thing that has happened to slashdot since you left.

I guess they decided... (2)

hAckz0r (989977) | about 9 months ago | (#46211245)

... that Snowden didn't have good enough tools available.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211247)

This probably has g00GLe scrambling, running around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming, "We are the holy grail of search engines. We are IT." HaHaHa!!

They might want to be careful. (4, Interesting)

mmell (832646) | about 9 months ago | (#46211263)

First, remember that this is essentially where the world wide web of internetworked computers began. The words 'unintended consequences' come screaming to mind . . . (although I have to admit - I love those wicked pipes!)

Second - we (common netizens) may welcome the sort of information availability DARPA is seeking - sort of like the scifi future where you just ask the nearest terminal whatever you want to know and magically get the answer you need - but there are lots of bad people still running around on this planet (scamsters, governments, jilted ex-lovers, religious extremists, etc.). The problem isn't the technology, the problem is our ability to handle it.

I very much suspect DARPA may be onto something. I wonder if it will be as beneficial as the WWW has been.

Re:They might want to be careful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212495)

Didn't I hear about hackers working on something like this a few months ago? Ahh yes.. here it is. [slashdot.org] I wonder if the government is trying to get ahead of the hackers now.

I'm cynical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46213551)

Maybe I'm wrong but... I'll bet DARPA's winning technology will be the one that redirects all search queries to the NSA. So they can tell us what to think.

Re:They might want to be careful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46214045)

Exactly this.

The net has become polluted because, mostly, of business and it's desire to be on top, of searches...with ads.

TL;DR
DARPA is not about ads here.

Beta is like cancer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211311)

Slashdot needs to see specialist, radio therapy may work on beta.slashdot but if it fails my recommendation would be to nuke the damn think all together, just to be sure it is not spreading to others.

Alien

TFS reads like marketing babble (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about 9 months ago | (#46211489)

Just how many buzzwords can we fit in here, anyhow?

Damage control team? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211493)

Did you guys notice how often new being posted on ./ after fuck beta comments appear on almost all the post?

It's nice to see that someone implementing damage control team.

So are Dice is giving up on the beta>?

Domain-specific huh? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 9 months ago | (#46211515)

Google already does domain-specific indexing, certain sites get indexed faster or deeper than others based on a number of secret rules.

For site specific search prefix your query with "site:foo.com"

Re:Domain-specific huh? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 9 months ago | (#46211537)

Addendum: It just hit me that they might've meant *topic* specific.

Google has something like this as well but it can be hard to notice. I remember one time I was searching for something automotive-related and my query had a word in it that meant something in the fashion world. It took hell to get out of "fashion mode" and get automotive results, IIRC I had to completely rephrase the question.

Re:Domain-specific huh? (1)

show me altoids (1183399) | about 9 months ago | (#46212041)

A clutch, perhaps?

Re:Domain-specific huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46213249)

Tranny?

Darpa fights back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211517)

That should probably be Darpa's response to Google buying Boston Dynamics.

holy grail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46211523)

answer: google. now, where's my grant money?

DARPA Seeks the Holy Grail of Search Engines (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#46211757)

So do I... One that is robust and can't be censored by anybody, ever.

Use Google to search the Internet for it.. (1)

TangoCharlie (113383) | about 9 months ago | (#46212155)

Just search in Google for "holy grail of search engines". Job done.

Reads like one of those RFPs... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46212729)

Sometimes, as you read the RFP document you can tell it's been written with a specific proposer in mind, and everybody else gets a short window to come up with an idea + jump through endless list of government hoops.

Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46213539)

There is nothing wrong with the they way searching is done today.

This is merely a attempt to constrict the web. If you start indexing search results by TLDs, you effectively create a filter that can be handed over to the powers that be to easily channel all the "bad" hush hush content to /dev/null

The world wide web and its freedom depends on chaos.

one of the smartest guys I know uses... (1)

gemtech (645045) | about 9 months ago | (#46213545)

http://www.dogpile.com/ [dogpile.com]
metasearch

*yawn* (1)

koan (80826) | about 9 months ago | (#46214547)

Google, Deepmind, etc.

The Shannon Limit is the Big Bottleneck Problem (1)

gmaney (265569) | about 9 months ago | (#46214779)

Today unstructured information search findability is limited by the Shannon Limit, this is a fundamental physical limit since all pattern search engines are statistical decoders. Google does a little better than the Shannon limit by looking at which search results are selected, this a communal intelligence technique based on how we "vote" for the right result. Unfortunately this only works well for high volume searches, that's why Google work's best if you know exactly what you're looking for or you're looking for what everyone else is looking for. In commercial search Google is losing out to companies like Amazon that are investing in editorial findability enhancements using lots of work by folks on Mechanical Turk.

EBay is actually doing some of the most interesting work in findability research, that's because they have the 'everything' search problem, this is harder than the popular search problem the Google is mostly concerned with now. Google seems to have given up on technical, scientific, commercial, practical, professional, industrial, and other sorts of specialized search. This sort of information usually has a very low Shannon Limit, that's why professional search usually uses extensive manual indexing such as that provided by Westlaw.

The holy grail of machine translation is automatically extracting the exposition structure (rigor, rationale, rhetoric) from texts, but nearly no progress has been made so far despite decades of research, and here again the problem is the Shannon Limit. Presumably this is the problem that MEMEX must solve in order to succeed, but this can't be solved by machine intelligence alone,
that's a physical impossibility, so even fashionable techniques such as deep learning are out the window.

In the publishing world there are techniques that turn exposition structures into texts, this is authoring automation. This could be used to generate sample texts for some target search, and machine intelligence can be used to score matches between generated samples and search texts. In this way it might be possible to automate educated guessing of the exposition structure, and it partially gets around the Shannon limit with systematic editorial augmentation.

No Holy Grail, Buuuuuuuuttttt... (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 9 months ago | (#46214955)

If they can't find the Holy Grail of search engines, I can direct them to this alternative that is just a Grail Shaped Beacon of a search tool instead...

OWL and RDF (1)

Mr. Summanen (1939464) | about 9 months ago | (#46217903)

This sounds like progmatically generated RDF(http://www.w3.org/RDF/), and could be handled via OWL(http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/)... Current search engines and metadata focus on content (which makes sense), but leave out context. W3C have been supporting research on Ontological networks, where semantics are collected and linked. The W3C concept is self-assigning meaning to the content. DARPA's Memex sounds like they are assigning meaning via a 3rd party. Less privacy, more meaning.

One easy improvement... (1)

whitroth (9367) | about 9 months ago | (#46219599)

Have one without "sponsored ads".

Google has produce less useful hits over the last five years, as its advertising income skyrocketed. Search for something, and add -"photo", and you'll still get photographer. Try mens riding boots -women -womens -women's, and you'll probably get a "sponsored ad" for women's boots, with the letters "men" bolded.

This isn't even counting Target, which will claim it has anything you're looking for, but if you follow the link, oh, no, sorry... but we have !!!!!

Add the way librarians used to search, not just with AND and OR, but also "within so many words", so that men's leather boots, and men's riding boots and men's fashiondesigner wonderful boots all are returned, if you tell it men's within 3 words of boots.

A lot of the tech is already there... but ad revenue is, I mean, what we really want, right, rather than the service you're purportedly offering?

                    mark

Re:One easy improvement... (1)

mike.mondy (524326) | about 9 months ago | (#46257963)

... not just with AND and OR, but also "within so many words"...

Try Google's firstterm AROUND(3) secondterm.

That's it...I'm out'a here - farewell to Slashdot (1)

jojemi (945950) | about 9 months ago | (#46219881)

My screen just came up in beta, slow to load & impossible to read comments. Tried clicking on "classic" at the bottom, it's been trashed also. I logged in today for the first time in ten years just to say Beta Sucks and I will be finding another site to read every morning with my coffee. I will be canceling my subscription...so sad but this "new" look with its intention run by greed and ego is NOT why I signed up for slashdot many years ago.

annet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46225469)

And then, let it find luckiest person [romantical...lyptic.com] in the world.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?