Google hires thousands of humans to rank search results manually

By Rick ยท 8 replies
Nov 27, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. Anyone who thinks Google's results are solely the product of fancy-pants algorithms and clever engineering -- think again. The Register has taken a look into Google's 160-page guidebook which is essentially a reference manual for human "raters" -- yep, that's...

    Read more
  2. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

    Just another reason why Google's search results are better than Bing's.
  3. Google results in last three years 2010-2012 went to totally irrelevant.
  4. lawfer

    lawfer TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,270   +91

    hammer2085 likes this.
  5. mccartercar

    mccartercar TS Booster Posts: 140   +26

    Have a few buddies that work for leapforce and lionbridge. They make killer money around the holidays as bonuses to contracts are really high.
  6. Scshadow

    Scshadow TS Evangelist Posts: 511   +152

    Sadly, I'd prefer algorithms. I don't trust human beings.
  7. How about rating new or outdated info? it is a lot of old / junk on the web.
  8. I actually was a quality evaluator/rater for Google through Workforce Logic, and did this a couple years back when I was in College. So it's nothing new
  9. Nothing new. They need human judges to produce relevance assessments to evaluate their retrieval models. this is a customary practise done since the early 1960s. whenever a change to an algorithm is recommended you need to assess it in terms of effectiveness performance. relevance judgements are what facilitate these evaluations. being a large company such as google, you can afford to refresh your training collections by outsourcing relevance assessments on an occasional basis. humans are not actually sitting behind the scenes rating your results

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...