Thank you for excellent reporting of the trial. Do not know the full testimony, though it should be noted that if Virginia Tech computer science professor Edward Fox "did not study what accounts for the remaining 97% of the quality gap" then for all practical purposes the "study" must be considered *results manufacturing* and not a *study* as the only informative thing it offered was that the "study" was extremely narrowly defined to prove what Google wanted to hear. Therefore we should all applaud Judge Mehta's question, "if user data is of such limited value to Google, then why does Google pay to store so much of it?", as it elegantly points out the true intent of the "study"
Notice that this trial is not about the consumer, it’s about giant companies bickering about who should make more money.
Search engines advertise about QUANTITY and TIME to the consumer. Personally, I don’t want a big haystack to find what I want; I am looking for quality. Quality can be defined very easily and without political considerations.
If you look at the search process, quality is absent; if you get a return on a query with 4,500 results in less than 2 seconds... there is no quality only filler surrounding what I want.
Eliminating the filler and put more responsibility on the user to provide more accurate information about their needs would go a long ways towards improving any search results.
Search engines should behave more like an “opt in” approach instead of an “opt out” strategy meaning if someone wants 4,500 results in 2 seconds make that an option instead of a requirement.
I don't quite know what to say about using Google Drive to host the exhibits.
Absurd!
It’s like we can’t live with them and we can’t live without them...
Thank you for excellent reporting of the trial. Do not know the full testimony, though it should be noted that if Virginia Tech computer science professor Edward Fox "did not study what accounts for the remaining 97% of the quality gap" then for all practical purposes the "study" must be considered *results manufacturing* and not a *study* as the only informative thing it offered was that the "study" was extremely narrowly defined to prove what Google wanted to hear. Therefore we should all applaud Judge Mehta's question, "if user data is of such limited value to Google, then why does Google pay to store so much of it?", as it elegantly points out the true intent of the "study"
Whose gonna be hurt by this court case?
Google or Apple or both?
I lost respect for Sundar when I learned a year or so ago that he worked at McKinsey.
https://rb.gy/6jjap
I thought he had a technical background. I guess not.
Thank you for the amazing reporting.
Notice that this trial is not about the consumer, it’s about giant companies bickering about who should make more money.
Search engines advertise about QUANTITY and TIME to the consumer. Personally, I don’t want a big haystack to find what I want; I am looking for quality. Quality can be defined very easily and without political considerations.
If you look at the search process, quality is absent; if you get a return on a query with 4,500 results in less than 2 seconds... there is no quality only filler surrounding what I want.
Eliminating the filler and put more responsibility on the user to provide more accurate information about their needs would go a long ways towards improving any search results.
Search engines should behave more like an “opt in” approach instead of an “opt out” strategy meaning if someone wants 4,500 results in 2 seconds make that an option instead of a requirement.
It might be worth taking a look at Gregg shorthand and DocumentCloud.
Omg, Fox, another phd lackey for sale. Hired gun
In the 10/31 update the link " https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-10/417451_0.pdf) " is inop. I tried to search the DOJ website to no avail.