[john_other_john]

I felt that was his message, too.

I never see any exercises in deducing limits of APIs to understand means to break their literal limits. I think with cost of bandwidth and instances now, subsets of search might be attempted against a private crawl, to peer into invisible optimisations.

I recently have been thinking, how vertical markets and subject areas may be susceptible to challenge for search traffic supremacy, how if the big search and data slurpers may be toppled sooner rather than later by federations of sophisticated narrow search. What if, hypothetically of course, big companies used their own data to train search models, and the models could be traded, the cost regained by advertising arbitrage in industry portals, related industries aggregated and new search models developed at both higher and lower levels? After all, what does Google do, but an implicit quid pro quo, in particular with gmail accounts? Do we need such intimate personalization to ever be even possibility? It would be strange and maybe profound irony, if big companies' actions relieved us all of intrusions by way of enabling a new search competition.

Yep, Fravia would not have felt constrained - to overmuch anyway - by an API being deprecated. I'm sure he would immediately ponder why, and whether there was a reason important to the searcher.

I always thought it poor thinking, that the SEO game was self limited by the fact it set about to skew results, instead of first learning how accurate the non gamed indexes might be already gamed. I see the way Google seems to prefer decisions following user behaviour even over any lookup at all (follow the most followed links, assume audience is right, as opposed to worry that was best of poor set of results) was the natural outcome of a industry determined to rewrite the source material constantly, even to the point of creating new grammars. Of course, what SEOs affect is not all the web, but they have been too influential, to my taste anyhow. The most written language, I forget who pointed this out here not long ago, is actually transliterated speech, exclamatory or emotive not structured with dependant clauses for elimination of risk for misinterpretation is priority, information subordinate to emotional appreciation of message intent, and semantics choice over expression. Only the other week, a comment which expressed the received impression of a company's marketing stance as speech from their spokesperson, was warned that HN doers not accept such language, and the reprimanding moderator (?) went on in such a way I was uncertain they, as opposed to a supposed audience they meant to protect from such dangerous prose, understood the words they criticized.

My view is that more "formal and correct" search might go a long way to

edit: just continuing last sentence as pushed this too quickly...

might go a long way to averting many kinds of linguistic rot.

[sitkack]

When people really seek, not just jamming words into a search box, but really seek they become the mind of the person producing the wisdom. Any one search engine is a window onto a huge sea.

Search results are needles on an iceberg. The rest is up to the seeker.

[john_other_john]

I'm confused, because I understand your comment to mean, that if I set out to learn something, by commitment alone, I recreate within my mind the tutor's knowledge and vision.

I should dearly love that to be the case, the real possibility.

I don't think that was the subject of my comment, however.

My concern is that search engines are limiting information quality by nature of making most money when they provide the shallowest and most common presumptions for results.