Comments on: The John Henry fight of man v. algorithm http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/ by Jeff Jarvis Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:40:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: yalova veteriner http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-413273 yalova veteriner Sat, 01 May 2010 12:18:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-413273 [...] einem Beitrag von buzzmachine.com kann man lesen, dass Google-News ca. 1.000.000.000 (1 Milliarde) Klicks pro Monat verzeichnen. Auf [...] [...] einem Beitrag von buzzmachine.com kann man lesen, dass Google-News ca. 1.000.000.000 (1 Milliarde) Klicks pro Monat verzeichnen. Auf [...]

]]> By: lida http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-412971 lida Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:21:21 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-412971 Jay Levitt wrote: “It’s hard to think of a company whose DNA involves algorithms with significant human input.” Well, that’s how Yahoo! got started. Originally, they had large numbers of “ontologists” classifying and categorizing sites for their directory of web sites. They then augmented the human “meatware” with software algorithms. Over time the meatware proved to be much too expensive for Yahoo! and the several other sites that attempted to copy their approa Jay Levitt wrote: “It’s hard to think of a company whose DNA involves algorithms with significant human input.”
Well, that’s how Yahoo! got started. Originally, they had large numbers of “ontologists” classifying and categorizing sites for their directory of web sites. They then augmented the human “meatware” with software algorithms. Over time the meatware proved to be much too expensive for Yahoo! and the several other sites that attempted to copy their approa

]]> By: lida http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-412968 lida Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:15:53 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-412968 Google won’t do *anything* unless there’s an algorithm; they have no support desk, no human editors, no content authors. (Street View is the one exception, and I’d love to know why.) Google won’t do *anything* unless there’s an algorithm; they have no support desk, no human editors, no content authors. (Street View is the one exception, and I’d love to know why.)

]]> By: Now Playing! « Theater Website Exp. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-403379 Now Playing! « Theater Website Exp. Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:41:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-403379 [...] Links of Interest Three Rivers John Henry Site The Story of John Henry MP3 and text NPR Resource on John Henry American Folklore and John Henry Three Rivers John Henry Site Steam Drill A John Henry Site John Henry Music Musing on Man and Machine [...] [...] Links of Interest Three Rivers John Henry Site The Story of John Henry MP3 and text NPR Resource on John Henry American Folklore and John Henry Three Rivers John Henry Site Steam Drill A John Henry Site John Henry Music Musing on Man and Machine [...]

]]> By: Bob P. http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-398904 Bob P. Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:40:55 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-398904 That's an interesting list -- or it's interesting in that it's not at all interesting. Yes, talk about the old guard. Of course, this is two years old. I'd like to see if there's been much change. Well, I see right off there's been at least one change. Coming in at No. 23 was a rather small -- compared to most of the rest -- but very good news organization: The Seattle P-I. Of course, the P-I was shut down earlier this year (I know it still exists online, and I have to say I haven't kept up. Maybe someone could comment on the quality of its journalism since.) Herein lies the dilemma of our current situation, of course. The 23rd most important -- if that's the right term to use -- source on the Google News homepage had to be shut down because it was bleeding money. That’s an interesting list — or it’s interesting in that it’s not at all interesting. Yes, talk about the old guard. Of course, this is two years old. I’d like to see if there’s been much change.

Well, I see right off there’s been at least one change. Coming in at No. 23 was a rather small — compared to most of the rest — but very good news organization: The Seattle P-I. Of course, the P-I was shut down earlier this year (I know it still exists online, and I have to say I haven’t kept up. Maybe someone could comment on the quality of its journalism since.)

Herein lies the dilemma of our current situation, of course. The 23rd most important — if that’s the right term to use — source on the Google News homepage had to be shut down because it was bleeding money.

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-398898 Bob Wyman Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:34:27 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-398898 Jay Levitt wrote: "It's hard to think of a company whose DNA involves algorithms with significant human input." Well, that's how Yahoo! got started. Originally, they had large numbers of "ontologists" classifying and categorizing sites for their directory of web sites. They then augmented the human "meatware" with software algorithms. Over time the meatware proved to be much too expensive for Yahoo! and the several other sites that attempted to copy their approach. Large scale meatware driven classification moved from commercial space to the non-profit Open Directory Project (http://www.dmoz.org/) which relies on a large (but declining) number of volunteer editors. The DMOZ data is consumed by most of the large search engine providers and, in many cases, is used to help train software machine learning systems that do further classifications. Given this use of DMOZ data, you should actually consider the combination of "human input" and complex algorithms to be fairly common. You benefit from it regularly. bob wyman Jay Levitt wrote: “It’s hard to think of a company whose DNA involves algorithms with significant human input.”
Well, that’s how Yahoo! got started. Originally, they had large numbers of “ontologists” classifying and categorizing sites for their directory of web sites. They then augmented the human “meatware” with software algorithms. Over time the meatware proved to be much too expensive for Yahoo! and the several other sites that attempted to copy their approach.

Large scale meatware driven classification moved from commercial space to the non-profit Open Directory Project (http://www.dmoz.org/) which relies on a large (but declining) number of volunteer editors. The DMOZ data is consumed by most of the large search engine providers and, in many cases, is used to help train software machine learning systems that do further classifications. Given this use of DMOZ data, you should actually consider the combination of “human input” and complex algorithms to be fairly common. You benefit from it regularly.

bob wyman

]]> By: Jay Levitt http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-398897 Jay Levitt Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:10:42 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-398897 Has anyone actually brought the two together, though? Google won't do *anything* unless there's an algorithm; they have no support desk, no human editors, no content authors. (Street View is the one exception, and I'd love to know why.) Twitter, Wikipedia, Facebook, Digg, etc. are all about crowdsourcing with intentionally simple technologies. No algorithms. It's hard to think of a company whose DNA involves complex algorithms with significant human input. Amazon, maybe, if you consider their merchants' product listings to be the human input. But it's not a common business pattern. Is that because it's hard to be good at both? Or just because it's a rare management team that wants to? Has anyone actually brought the two together, though?

Google won’t do *anything* unless there’s an algorithm; they have no support desk, no human editors, no content authors. (Street View is the one exception, and I’d love to know why.)

Twitter, Wikipedia, Facebook, Digg, etc. are all about crowdsourcing with intentionally simple technologies. No algorithms.

It’s hard to think of a company whose DNA involves complex algorithms with significant human input. Amazon, maybe, if you consider their merchants’ product listings to be the human input. But it’s not a common business pattern.

Is that because it’s hard to be good at both? Or just because it’s a rare management team that wants to?

]]> By: » bit.ly: Ein neuer Riese im Geschäft mit der Suche? 140signs.com http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-398879 » bit.ly: Ein neuer Riese im Geschäft mit der Suche? 140signs.com Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:37:56 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-398879 [...] einem Beitrag von buzzmachine.com kann man lesen, dass Google-News ca. 1.000.000.000 (1 Milliarde) Klicks pro Monat verzeichnen. Auf [...] [...] einem Beitrag von buzzmachine.com kann man lesen, dass Google-News ca. 1.000.000.000 (1 Milliarde) Klicks pro Monat verzeichnen. Auf [...]

]]> By: Conrad http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/01/the-john-henry-fight-of-man-v-algorithm/#comment-398865 Conrad Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:18:07 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=5100#comment-398865 Some musings: is that a billion clicks a month? Equally divided by the 4500 individual sources Google claims that News has, that's only 222,000 pageviews/month per source. Now, lets say that the top 25 sources of Google News get 50% of this traffic (possible, since 77% of sources in 2007 hadn't had a single front page story). That means it's sending a median of 25 million page views/month to each of the sources listed here: http://searchengineland.com/revealing-the-sources-of-google-news-11353 A not insignificant amount of traffic (although considering that some blogs get hundreds of millions of page views/month from Google, it's not exactly something you want to scream about from the rooftops either). Some musings: is that a billion clicks a month? Equally divided by the 4500 individual sources Google claims that News has, that’s only 222,000 pageviews/month per source.

Now, lets say that the top 25 sources of Google News get 50% of this traffic (possible, since 77% of sources in 2007 hadn’t had a single front page story). That means it’s sending a median of 25 million page views/month to each of the sources listed here: http://searchengineland.com/revealing-the-sources-of-google-news-11353

A not insignificant amount of traffic (although considering that some blogs get hundreds of millions of page views/month from Google, it’s not exactly something you want to scream about from the rooftops either).

]]>