Tom,
Google's a cut above all the rest, for sure. I was reading up on their technology and they do something very smart: They rank relevance according to the number of links on other pages that point to a page. So they take advantage of the human judgment embodied in the action of making the link to deduce how important the information is to humans. I like that a lot.
I wonder how a similar concept could be adapted to a BBS? Maybe the number of responses to a root post would be an analogous measure of relevance? The weakness, though, is that often people post informational messages, like Dan's StratFor articles or Jeff Fuka's press releases or Alex's abstracts, that don't always generate discussion but are still very relevant. Don't know the answer right now, but Google's given me some ideas to chew on.
I also like the way they do business:
Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search. Too many of the other engines prostitute themselves by selling placements and undermine their own value. What else do they have to sell besides trustworthy information? I don't get it.
--Robert
Off Topic » in reply to Re: search conventions
Goggling at Google