Comments on: Twitter search ain’t that bad http://livewebir.com/blog/2009/03/twitter-search-aint-that-bad/ by Paul Ogilvie Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:14:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Brendan O'Connor http://livewebir.com/blog/2009/03/twitter-search-aint-that-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-9288 Brendan O'Connor Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:39:06 +0000 http://livewebir.com/blog/?p=78#comment-9288 I agree that search.twitter.com is reasonable. Ranking by relevance doesn't make sense because you often want messages ordered by time. But relevance ranking is the massively prevalent IR paradigm. In a user interface, if you have a big list of things with attributes, the two things you can do with an attribute are either ranking or filtering. So that leaves relevance filtering for binary relevance information. Faceted search makes a lot of sense. ok so all i did there was re-explain reasoning behind tweetmotif.com :) I agree that search.twitter.com is reasonable.

Ranking by relevance doesn’t make sense because you often want messages ordered by time. But relevance ranking is the massively prevalent IR paradigm.

In a user interface, if you have a big list of things with attributes, the two things you can do with an attribute are either ranking or filtering. So that leaves relevance filtering for binary relevance information. Faceted search makes a lot of sense.

ok so all i did there was re-explain reasoning behind tweetmotif.com :)

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://livewebir.com/blog/2009/03/twitter-search-aint-that-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-1052 Daniel Tunkelang Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:18:00 +0000 http://livewebir.com/blog/?p=78#comment-1052 Indeed, I know they have Abdur Chowdhury on board (they acquired him via Summize), so they surely have access to search expertise. But no one gets graded on potential, except perhaps in the blogosphere. Indeed, I know they have Abdur Chowdhury on board (they acquired him via Summize), so they surely have access to search expertise. But no one gets graded on potential, except perhaps in the blogosphere.

]]> By: pogil http://livewebir.com/blog/2009/03/twitter-search-aint-that-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-1049 pogil Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:47:00 +0000 http://livewebir.com/blog/?p=78#comment-1049 Yes, I agree that Twitter isn't a search engine. I also agree with you that Twitter's search engine is not directly comparable to Google. However, the guys at Twitter search do know search engines. I think the choices they've made so far are reasonable, which I argued above. I think we'll see more interesting things from them in the future. Yes, I agree that Twitter isn’t a search engine. I also agree with you that Twitter’s search engine is not directly comparable to Google.

However, the guys at Twitter search do know search engines. I think the choices they’ve made so far are reasonable, which I argued above. I think we’ll see more interesting things from them in the future.

]]> By: Daniel Tunkelang http://livewebir.com/blog/2009/03/twitter-search-aint-that-bad/comment-page-1/#comment-1048 Daniel Tunkelang Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:27:39 +0000 http://livewebir.com/blog/?p=78#comment-1048 I agree that Twitter is useful and I apologize if I didn't make that clear. I thought that was evident from how much effort I've invested in using it and even in trying to improve it. I further concede that Twitter can help meet some information needs, and I just added a note to that effect in my post. But...does that make Twitter a search engine? Would you agree that, it's not a search engine but rather a corpus to which one might apply a search engine--and ideally a more sophisticated one than search.twitter.com? Yes, recency matters (it matters for web search too), but what matters even more for Twitter is the ability to summarize the extreme redundancy of the echo chamber. In any case, what galls me is the hype comparing Twitter to Google as if the two were comparable and the former a threat to the latter. I think I'm on safe ground asserting that I'm not a Google fan boy. Still, I know Google, and Twitter is no Google. I agree that Twitter is useful and I apologize if I didn’t make that clear. I thought that was evident from how much effort I’ve invested in using it and even in trying to improve it. I further concede that Twitter can help meet some information needs, and I just added a note to that effect in my post.

But…does that make Twitter a search engine? Would you agree that, it’s not a search engine but rather a corpus to which one might apply a search engine–and ideally a more sophisticated one than search.twitter.com? Yes, recency matters (it matters for web search too), but what matters even more for Twitter is the ability to summarize the extreme redundancy of the echo chamber.

In any case, what galls me is the hype comparing Twitter to Google as if the two were comparable and the former a threat to the latter. I think I’m on safe ground asserting that I’m not a Google fan boy. Still, I know Google, and Twitter is no Google.

]]>