←back to thread

279 points freediver | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
marginalia_nu ◴[] No.45952174[source]
The idea behind search itself is very simple, and it's a fun problem domain that I encourage anyone to explore[1].

The difficulties in search are almost entirely dealing with the large amounts of data, both logistically and in handling underspecified queries.

A DBMS-backed approach breaks down surprisingly fast. Probably perfectly fine if you're indexing your own website, but will likely choke on something the size of English wikipedia.

[1] The SeIRP e-book is a good (free) starting point https://ciir.cs.umass.edu/irbook/

replies(7): >>45952237 #>>45952734 #>>45952769 #>>45952991 #>>45953075 #>>45953286 #>>45954345 #
zipy124 ◴[] No.45954345[source]
I think in today's world the harder problem is evading SEO spam. A search engine is in constant war with adverserarial players, who need you to see their content for revenue, rather than the actual answer.

This neccessitates a constant game of cat and mouse, where you adjust your quality metric so SEO shops can't figure it out and capitalise on it.

replies(3): >>45954581 #>>45954763 #>>45955477 #
HEmanZ ◴[] No.45955477[source]
There are more kinds of search engines than just internet search engines. At this point I’m is almost certain that the non-internet search engines of the world are much larger than internet search engines.

Edit: And I’m getting downvoted for this. If it’s because I am tangential to the original comment then that’s fair. If it’s because you think I’m wrong, I have worked on the two largest internet search engines in the world and one non-internet search engine that dwarfed both in size (although different in complexity).

replies(2): >>45956098 #>>45960053 #
1. ◴[] No.45956098[source]