Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would bet that sorting isn’t so simple, at least if you want it to be any good. If you did a naive chronological sort, I imagine you would end up with a whole lot of irrelevant results at the top. There is just too much stuff out there.

To be useful, your “sort” would really just need to be another parameter to the existing relevancy model. And if you did that, then people would probably complain that “it’s not a real sort” and we’re back to square one.

Edit: You know what, this probably is simple for Google, because they’re freakin Google. To your point, I guess they probably don’t do this because money.



> I guess they probably don’t do this because money.

Exactly this. There are many controls they could have given us to trivially improve search for end users without needing this AI, but they would have made search less good for their customers, the advertisers.


It's really hard to design something like that that anyone would get value out of using because matching the query isn't a binary notion.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: