alp on Nostr: Good topic, we should discuss this. The best approach, although not perfect, was that ...
Good topic, we should discuss this.
The best approach, although not perfect, was that of the DMOZ directory, which had volunteer gatekeepers for a topic/category. For example, 2-3 SEO experts oversaw the "SEO" category and determined which websites would be included in that category. Not all websites made it; only those with the best content were accepted. You had to apply for it.
I believe later Google bought this directory and initially used it for its own classification of good websites. But then it killed it shortly after, because apparently other criteria— and I suspect they were the same criteria that led to Google's degeneration— became more relevant.
The disadvantage of this approach was, of course, that human moderation also allowed for the possibility of corruption. But it was still better than using AI for that.
In any case, it cannot be done without human expert evaluation. A good search engine is not just a technical issue, but also a social one.
We all know #Google seach engine has gone down hill big time.
We need a #search engine that only finds altruistic #web sites, with no adverts or predatory #cookies first.
How to finance ?
Maybe the searcher could pay a few volentary Sats ⚡for the search. Or the website could pay to be on the first page.
I have no idea how to do this but sure its posible with a good #dev #developer
Published at
2024-10-06 08:46:54Event JSON
{
"id": "ae33f6851bc20f3a6bf7d4546b5e5b214a9d85ca48b6885d07145bc6ca1e059c",
"pubkey": "f527cf970ce260e74261214bf612e8f75a59db1835ed7e4053326c3f65e232ee",
"created_at": 1728204414,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8403ee3ed0bc721ee39f00e007d378f923da226fd458c9ba13aed0ef2e8a11d5",
"wss://junxingwang.org",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "Good topic, we should discuss this.\n\nThe best approach, although not perfect, was that of the DMOZ directory, which had volunteer gatekeepers for a topic/category. For example, 2-3 SEO experts oversaw the \"SEO\" category and determined which websites would be included in that category. Not all websites made it; only those with the best content were accepted. You had to apply for it.\n\nI believe later Google bought this directory and initially used it for its own classification of good websites. But then it killed it shortly after, because apparently other criteria— and I suspect they were the same criteria that led to Google's degeneration— became more relevant.\n\nThe disadvantage of this approach was, of course, that human moderation also allowed for the possibility of corruption. But it was still better than using AI for that.\n\nIn any case, it cannot be done without human expert evaluation. A good search engine is not just a technical issue, but also a social one.\n\nnostr:note1ssp7u0ksh3epaculqrsq05mcly3a5gn063vvnwsn4mgw7t52z82sggekhw ",
"sig": "586e969ed773f9e530731d50d9ebaba686758d45718b23364f293b6a8cb5474a0d939ff72f12b290b7a1e0e9a7afbca3630fa8b76ce40eee696d84b25ae6c83f"
}
