Ask HN: Access to the Corpus - What Would You Do?
What if you had programmatic access to the entirety of the dataset of Google, Bing or Yahoo; every page they have crawled (including all meta data), all the searches performed and ads for display. If you had programmatic access to that dataset, what business would you create?
One of my friends posed this question to me on Friday and my brain seized up. Creating another search engine made no sense, but the massive size of the data set and potential possibilities actually made my brain shut down.
What would HN folks do?
30 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 78.9 ms ] threadOvernight, I began to wonder if you could build a tool much like Farecaster, where you could help ad buyers understand the movement of pricing for keywords, and make predictions about when they will move up and down.
You're that guy now :-)
I have started learning about complex event processing (CEP) and am wondering if you could do anything with that as a model tied to suggesting related links/sites.
1) Create a map of the web (what links where and how), enabling an enhanced "browsing" experience (no more perusing a site for links to other interesting places)
2) The contents of those pages contain a large volume of technical documentation as well as a large number of opinions of the technologies that rose from the documentation. With both, and a large enough history of the creation of pages, the release of the documentation and the opinions presented, a model can be built to predict the success rate of any particular technology.
3) Given sufficient time, there is a large enough set of text that can be rendered to audio through speech synthesis (higher quality the better) in order to train a speech recognition system to a previously unseen level of accuracy.
4) Given a proper algorithm, sites with security vulnerabilities can be discovered just from what is crawlable and most likely should not be accessed. From that list, and given the total number of unique websites contained in the database, you can calculate the ratio of harmful to potentially non-harmful websites and provide a risk threshold of any given link on any given page.
5) Provide a search engine that uses regular expressions on different sets of the data (metadata, tags, text, text in a specific tag, etc.) to present a search engine with a previously unseen level of accuracy (accuracy of the results is dependent on the individual doing the searching, not the systems ability to guess that by std::list, I didn't mean "Sexually Transmitted Diseases STD List" (seriously, http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8... has that as the second result).
Edit: I failed at formatting
Food places near X will give you a good indication where they live and their income Find what they are searching during normal work hours. Often this will give you where they work. Searches of themselves.
Then just use this information to hunt them down or expose them.
It comes up in criminal cases all the time -- when you're googling "age of consent laws" or "how to dispose of a dead body" it's pretty easy to establish premeditation, though that doesn't help with 'pre-crime'.
The GP may have been focused on finding known fugitives on the run.
And that's it.
They have access to "the world's combined knowledge" and a zillion PhDs, and that's all they can do?! It's shocking. But it's not, really, because the data are basically useless without annotations.
So let's go to Disneyland and pretend we have a genius NLP engine or an annotated web. Then,
1) 360 on a company/product. In particular: who are all the stakeholders, and how do they feel? I'd sell this to e.g. analysts. Same thing on people's online identities.
2) Memetracing. I'd sell this to advertisers. (So, we follow historical product releases and see exactly what memes spread about them and how, and through who. Related to (3) on ismarc's post)
3) Rumors (this would require your feed to be real-time). I'd also probably sell this to stock traders (the idea here is to monitor e.g. forums frequented by GE employees to guess scoop)
OK, so those are basic. More interesting:
4) Organization-tracing. If you can label social graph edges with influence levels / information intakes, you can start playing with predicting organizational decision-making (behavioral economics / game theory ..There's a TED talk about this).
5) Games: procedural content generation that looks really real, i.e. worlds full of people whose identities are plausible, whose interactions with others are plausible, etc.
Those all require some analytical / NLP firepower on a scale which I don't think is really doable at the moment. The problem is that bags of words are meaningless without a social context - the data are pretty worthless unless your computer can figure out who it's important for and why.
There's actually a lot more that's done with it. Google Flu Trends. Google Zeitgeist. Google Squared. Google Suggest. Refinements. Spelling suggestions. Sitelinks. Wonder Wheel. Everything on Labs.
The limiting factor is more the ability to present the data to users without making them confused. It's pretty easy to run an analysis and get some data, but pretty difficult to figure "Okay, what problem does this solve?" and get that data in front of users in a way that actually solves the problem.
Peter Norvig does a better job explaining some of it than I ever could. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8DcBF-qo4
He says it when he says "... but the computer doesn't understand physics." Why not? The internet knows a hell of a lot more physics than I do.
The statistical stuff is cool, but all you can do with it is fancy accounting. You can never really pull out meaning .. and doing real analogical / inductive reasoning on statistical data sets is hard.
You'll notice that suggestion (4) can only be considered doable because the internet has easily accessible APIs to determine who is real and what organizations they belong to.
While suggestion (5) is not feasible at all at the moment.