Comments on: Natural Language Search Not a Priority for Google

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:11:04 +0000

You cannot get the right results if you take the position that the queries work better one way than another.

Maybe a few further comments from Mr. Norvig himself will help clarify the matter.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:08:10 +0000

I don’t think he meant it wasn’t important either. Rather, he said it was LESS important, which implies that there is something else more important and pressing than being able to type in a full sentence to conduct a search.

By: Matt Cutts

Matt Cutts — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:42:48 +0000

I didn’t take Peter’s quote as “we don’t think that natural language is important” but rather “the part of natural language that’s the biggest impact right now is understanding the senses of words and how they interact, because that’s useful for the backend processing as well as processing the user’s query.”

Maybe I’m projecting though. :)

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:10:21 +0000

I have to agree with Google’s stance on this. IMO, “Natural” search feels more un-natural than using specific keywords to find your information.

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:14:40 +0000

Rick: “You have to find the article that addresses the question amongst the search results…”

Michael: RIGHT. if you cannot understand the question, your answer isn’t worth much.

It’s a fairly straightforward concept.

By: Local SEO Specialist - Terry Reeves

Local SEO Specialist - Terry Reeves — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:20:44 +0000

Maybe so Basher, but I bet Google will know soon enough should the public start searching in that manner. They will have plenty of time to change their mind on the subject considering they field the vast majority of search queries.

By: Bashar

Bashar — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:06:26 +0000

Even though what Google say is correct, it surprises me to be coming from them. Google who are always looking for ways to make search better and easier. The fact is, I think no matter what you do, there will be people sending human like questions. Stuff like, “I want to buy a new nokia phone”, or “2 bedroom 3 star hotel in nivada”, and they will get disappointed if they don’t find the result, and could leave.

If another search engine gives them what they want, they would say “Great… this is what a search engine should be” and at that time, it could be too late for Google to catch up. At least for that sort of users.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:58:22 +0000

I think Michael has a problem with analytical thought. You have to find the article that addresses the question amongst the search results, and then determine the reliability of the information…. duh!

By: Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:33:35 +0000

If a search engine cannot understand the question, then why should we trust the answer?

Norvig and company are off base on this one.