dcdan

Couldn't you just move the iFrame and not need to have access to its elements?

It's not a terrible argument. To put it differently, the value to the end user is not a direct function of the degree of openness, but the utility of the degree of openness.

The narrative of Sophie measures this utility.

I have a similar side project.

How do you guys respond to seeing something similar launched? Assure yourself that you have better execution?

I've thought it made some sense to weight domain keywords considering the number of people I observe using the google search box as an address bar.

Numbers of committers sampled per language might be helpful in identifying potential bias.

It is against the terms.

http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/static.py?hl=en&...

"...advertisers cannot use destination URLs that automatically redirect to another website or that act as a bridge page."

This is ending up on marketwatch.com only after a JS redirect from the ad landing page.

http://www.goldfellow.com/currentmarketwatchlink/

This algorithm change could come across as more editorial and less empirical. It's publicized as highly targeted ("slightly over 2% of queries"), responding to small tech discussion (Atwood, SO, HN, quality launch meeting), and seemingly rolled out in a short period of time. The media could easily boil this down to "a small number people felt sites they liked were under-ranked, so Google moved them up a week later."

I mention this because Google often talks publicly about being entirely algorithmic, and elements of this narrative feel human.

At what point does Google cross over from "ranked by algorithm" to "ranked by algorithm selection as editorialized by Googlers and bloggers?"

Publicly discussing algorithms changes like this seems like a potential PR problem.

It also pains me to see how the web has forced us back a decade in terms of what's an impressive UI feat.

When your hands are tied, undoing a knot becomes notable.

What is the technical difference between Google being able to accurately measure the volume of spam, and Google removing the spam?

But the idea that it’s doing something better, new or innovative is largely PR and faffery.

Facebook is incredibly innovative at growing its user base. No other social network has concentrated on and succeeded at this like Facebook.

This feels like mostly a PR piece to me. And reports seem conflicting.

Google doesn't seem to say what they did beyond that they "developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience."

Danny Sullivan claims they are "Using Online Merchant Reviews As Ranking Signal" (http://searchengineland.com/google-now-using-online-merchant...).

Techcrunch claims Google "compiled a list of hundreds of merchants (including DecorMyEyes) that provided “bad user experience” and algorithmically forced them lower" (http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/01/googl/).

edit: typo

What if my ideas are smaller parts of different things (i.e. a cycle, which can not be in a tree)?

Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way.

I've been working on a similar project, but I've been moving away from the tree structure lately because I found it too rigid.

I don't think all my ideas fit into a tree.

I can confirm that there were foxit references in pre-beta source code

edit: i think this was the reference i was thinking of, is it for this feature, or is it unrelated?

http://www.google.com/codesearch/p#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/third_par...