Tag Archives: Artificial Intelligence

The Data-Product-Scientist-Manager

What’s the difference between Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning and Data Science? The huge buzz around these concepts in recent years makes it seem as if they could be used interchangeably.

Several months ago, I gave a meetup talk, going through a history of machine-learning algorithms through the prism of learning algorithms for game playing (video, in Hebrew). As the talk did not require prior knowledge, I began with a quick intro to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) –

  • AI is the science of building machines that mimic what we humans perceive as intelligent behavior
  • ML is a branch within AI, concerned with algorithms that learn their “intelligence” from data (rather than explicit coding)
  • Deep Learning is a very particular method within ML, which uses artificial neural networks and huge volumes of data

At the time of building the talk, I was struggling with making a reference to data science (DS) as well, to help my audience make sense of all the current hype terms.

But is DS a discipline within AI? Within ML? Is it not simply a fancy name for Statistics? I ended up leaving it out.

A few days ago, I stumbled upon an episode of the excellent ML podcast Talking Machines, where Neil Lawrence made an observation that put it all into place for me. Lawrence posited that DS arises from the new streams of data we collect in this era, which are generated in huge volumes out of sensors and interactions, and its mission is to extract value from these. In other words – “Here, we have all of this data, what can we do with it?”

This may seem like a petty technicality, but it makes all the difference. In classic experimentation, scientists would make a hypothesis, collect data to validate or invalidate it, and then run the needed statistical analysis.

With DS, there is no such prior hypotheses. So the core of DS becomes coming up with these hypotheses, and then validating them right there and then in the data we already have. But whose job is it to come up with hypotheses?

There are several relevant roles out there to consider:

  • Data (and business) analysts have a strong understanding of how to wrangle data and query it, and will run analysis (either on-demand or on their own) against clear business objectives. But their role and state of mind is not to find new such objectives or disruptive new ways to reach them
  • Data and ML engineers build the technology and libraries on which the data is collected and crunched. They love to see their systems used to generate powerful insights and capabilities, but see themselves as the infrastructure for generating and validating these hypotheses, rather than as the users
  • Data scientists apply their strong statistics and ML skills to the above data infrastructure to build models, enabling new capabilities and user-value out of validated hypotheses. But a model is not built in a vacuum: they need a clear mission, derived from a validated hypothesis (or even a yet-to-be-validated one)
  • Product managers are the classic hypothesis-creator types. They analyze the market, meet with customers, dive into analytics and business data, and then create product hypotheses, collected into roadmaps. But they hardly use the above “big” data infrastructure for generating hypotheses, mostly due to tech know-how gaps

What we need for data to be fully leveraged is a new role, a hybrid of the latter two. The data science product manager is a data scientist with the instincts and user-centric thinking of the product manager, or a product manager with the data exploration intuitions of a data scientist. Which skills will this require?

  • Strong data instincts, the ability and desire to explore data both assisted and unassisted, applying intuition to identify ad-hoc patterns and trends
  • User-centric thinking, seeing the users and real-life scenarios behind the data, almost like Neo in “The Matrix”
  • Technical acumen, though not necessarily coding. Today’s DS and ML tools are becoming more and more commoditized, and require less and less writing from scratch
  • Very strong prioritization capabilities – creating hypotheses from data may be easy, almost too easy. Hence the need to further explore only the most promising ones, turning them into a potential roadmap.
  • Ability to work closely with the data team and “speak their language” to quickly validate, understand the productization cost, and estimate ROI for a large list of such hypotheses

While this role could still be fulfilled by a strong partnership between two individuals working in tandem (PM and data scientist), it is clear that a single individual possessing all of these skills will achieve results far more efficiently. Indeed, as a quick search on LinkedIn shows, the combined role is emerging and exploding in demand.

Feeling Lucky Is the Future of Search

If you visit the Google homepage on your desktop, you’ll see a rare, prehistoric specimen – one that most Google users don’t see the point of: the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button.

Google has already removed it from most of its interfaces, and even here it only serves as a teaser for various Google nitwit projects. And yet the way things are going, the “Feeling Lucky” ghost may just come back to life – and with a vengeance.


In the early years, the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button was Google’s way of boldly stating “Our results are so great, you can just skip the result lists and head straight to destination #1”. It was a nice, humorous touch, but one that never really caught on as users’ needs grew more complex and less obvious. In fact, it lost Google quite a lot of money, since skipping the result list also meant users saw fewer and fewer sponsored results – Google’s main income source. But usability testing showed that users really liked seeing the button, so Google kept it there for a while.

But there’s another interface rising up that prides itself on returning the first search result without showing you the list. Did you already guess what it is?


Almost every demo of a new personal assistant product will include questions being answered by the bot tapping into a search engine. The demos will make sure to use simple single-answer cases, like “Who is the governor of California?” That’s extremely neat, and was regarded as science fiction not so many decades ago. Amazing work on query parsing and entity extraction from search results has led to great results on this type of query, and the quality of the query understanding, and resulting answers, is usually outstanding.


However, these are just some of the possible searches we want our bots to run. As we get more and more comfortable with this new interface, we will not want to limit ourselves to one type of query. If you want to be able to get an answer for “Give me a good recipe for sweet potato pie” or “Which Chinese restaurants are open in the area now?”, you need a lot more than a single answer. You need verbosity, you need to be able to refine – which stretches the limits of how we perceive conversational interfaces today.

Part of the problem is that it’s difficult for users to understand the limits of conversational interfaces, especially when bot creators pretend that there are no such limits. Another problem lies in the fact that a natural language interface may simply be a lousy choice for some interaction types, and imposing it on them will only frustrate users.

There is a whole new paradigm of user interaction waiting to be invented, to support non-trivial search and refine through conversation – for all of those many cases where a short exchange and single result will probably not do. We will need to find a way to flip between vocal and visual, manage a seamless thread between devices and screen-based apps, and make digital assistants keep context on a much higher level.

Until then, I guess we’ll continue hoping that we’re feeling lucky.



Learning to Play

Ever since I took my first course in Artificial Intelligence, I have been fascinated by the idea of AI in its classical meaning – teaching machines to perform tasks deemed by us humans as requiring intelligence.

Recently, I gave a talk at my company on some of the intriguing instances of one of these tasks – learning to play (and win!) games. I often found the human stories behind the scenes even more fascinating than the algorithms themselves, and that was my focus in this talk. It was really fun both to assemble as well as deliver, so I wanted to capture these stories in this blog post, to accompany the embedded slides below.


So let’s get started!

a humble start

Game playing is a fantastic AI task, one that researchers were always excited about. Just like a toddler being taught to swing a baseball bat by an excited parent, the algorithm gets clear rules, a measurable goal and training input. But above all, testing the result involves the fun act of playing against the opponent you yourself have created, just like a proud parent. What a great way to do AI research!

As we go way back in the AI time machine, the first known implementation of an AI game was in 1950. Josef Kates was a young Jewish Austrian engineer, whose family fled the Nazis’ rise to power and ended up in Canada. Kates worked on radar and vacuum tubes design at a company named Rogers Majestic, and later developed his own patented tube, which he called the Additron. While waiting for the patent to be registered, he wanted to demonstrate the power of his invention in a local technology fair, so he built a machine that could play Tic-Tac-Toe, calling it “Bertie the Brain”.

Comedian Danny Kay pleased after "beating" Bertie the Brain during the fair

Comedian Danny Kaye pleased after “beating” Bertie the Brain during the fair

“Bertie the Brain” was a huge success at the fair. Kates made sure to adjust its level of difficulty to allow players to occasionally beat it, and visitors lined up to play. Nevertheless, at the end of the fair it was dismantled and forgotten. Unfortunately for Kates, the Additron took a very long time to go through patenting, and by the time it was approved technology had already moved on toward transistors.

minimaxThe algorithms pioneered and used in those early days were based on the Minimax method – constructing a tree of all possible moves by the player and opponent, and evaluating the proximity to a winning position. In each move, the algorithm would assume best play with the computer playing the move with MAXimal value and the opponent playing its own maximum, which is the computer’s MINimal value. Thus, the algorithm could calculate into the future as much as time allowed.

With only 765 unique board positions in Tic-Tac-Toe, the game was small enough that all positions and moves could be calculated in advance, making Bertie unbeatable. AI researchers call this situation a “Solved” game. In fact, perfect game play will always end in a draw, and if you watched the 1983 movie “War-Games” with Matthew Broderick, you’ll recall how this fact saved the world from nuclear annihilation…

advance to world-class wins

So if Tic-Tac-Toe is too simple, how about a more complex game such as checkers?

Checkers has, well, slightly more board positions: at 5 x 1020 board positions, it was a much more challenging AI task. The best-known checkers program, even if not the first, was the one written by Arthur Samuel at IBM. Samuel’s checkers was considered a real classic, and for several decades it was considered the best that can be achieved. It still used Minimax, but expanded its repository of board positions from actual games played, often against itself, thus becoming a true learning algorithm. However, it never got to the level of beating master human players.


In 1989, a group of researchers – led by Jonathan Schaeffer from the University of Alberta – set out to use advances in computing and break that glass ceiling with a new program called Chinook. I had the privilege of attending a fascinating talk by Schaeffer at the Technion 10 years ago, and the blog post I wrote subsequently summarizes the full story. That story has fascinating twists and touching human tributes in it, but it ends with machines being the clear winners – and with AI researchers declaring the game of checkers as solved as well.

The obvious next challenge in our journey would be what’s considered the ultimate game of intelligence – chess. Using the same board as checkers, but with more complex moves, chess has approximately 10120 board positions – that’s about the number of checkers positions, squared. A famous chess-playing machine was The Turk, designed and constructed in Austria by Wolfgang von Kempelen as early as 1770. The Turk was a wonder of its age, beating experienced chess players and even Napoleon Bonaparte. It was a hoax, of course, cleverly hiding a human sitting inside it, but the huge interest it created was a symbol of the great intelligence attributed to playing the game.

kasparovThe huge search space in which Minimax had to be applied for chess made early programs extremely weak against humans. Even with the introduction of minimax tree-pruning methods such as Alpha-Beta pruning, it seemed like no algorithmic tuning would produce a breakthrough. As the decades passed, though, more powerful computers enabled faster computations and larger space to hold billions of possible board positions. This culminated in the famous 1996 duel between IBM’s Deep Blue chess-playing computer – already capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second – and the world champion at the time, Garry Kasparov. Despite losing two games to the supercomputer, Kasparov won the tournament easily, 4-2. IBM went on to further improve Deep Blue and invited Kasparov to a re-match the following year. Kasparov won the first game easily, and was so confident as a result that he lost the next game, a loss he blamed on cheating by IBM. The match ended 3.5-2.5 to Deep Blue, a sensational first win for a machine over a presiding world champion.

from brute force to TRUE learning

The shared practice that connected all the work we saw so far – from Bertie the Brain to Deep Blue – was to feed huge amounts of knowledge to the software, so that it could out-do the human player by sheer computing power and board positions stored in its vast memory. This enabled algorithms such as Minimax to process enormous numbers of positions, apply the human-defined heuristics to them and find the winning moves.

Let’s recall the toddler from the start of our journey. Is this how humans learn? Would we truly consider this artificial intelligence?

If we want to emulate true intelligence, what we’d really like to build are algorithms that learn by themselves. They will watch examples and learn from them; they will build their own heuristics; they will infer the domain knowledge rather than have it fed into them.

In 2014, a small London start up named DeepMind Technologies, founded less than three years earlier, was acquired by Google for the staggering sum of $600 million before it had released even one product to the market. In fact, reporters struggled to explain what DeepMind was doing at all.

deepmind-logoThe hints at what attracted Google to DeepMind lie in a paper its team published in December 2013. The paper, presented in NIPS 2013, was titled “Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning“. It was about playing games, but unlike ever before. This was about a generic system, learning to play games without being given any knowledge, nothing but a screen and the score-keeping part in it. You could equate it to a human who had never played Pac-Man, taking the controls and just hitting them in all directions, watching the score and gradually figuring out how to play it like a pro and then doing the same for many other games, all using the same method. Sounds human? This was the technology Google was after.

Watching DeepMind play Atari Breakout (seen in this video) is like magic. The algorithm starts out moving randomly, barely hitting the ball once every many misses. After an hour of training, it starts playing at an impressive pro level. Then it even learns the classic trick that any Breakout player eventually masters – tunneling the ball to the top so that it hits bricks off with little effort. The beauty of it all was that the exact same system mastered several other games with no custom optimizations – only the screen raw input and an indication of where the score is, nothing else. This was no Minimax running, no feeding of grandmaster moves books or human-crafted heuristic functions. It was generic deep-learning neural networks, using reinforcement learning that would look at a series of moves and their score outcome, and uncover the winning patterns all by itself. Pure magic.

AI Building games

For the last part of the talk, I deviated to a related topic. For this part, I was walking through a wonderful series of blog posts I stumbled upon called “Machine Learning is Fun!”, where the author, Adam Geitgey, walks through basic concepts in Machine Learning. In part two, he describes how Recurrent Neural Networks can be trained to learn and generate patterns. The simplest example we all know and appreciate (or sometimes not…) is the predictive text feature of mobile keyboards, where the system attempts to predict what word we are trying to type – the cause of so many great texting gaffes.

Moving to more elaborate examples, Geitgey fed an RNN implementation with a Hemingway book (“The Sun Also Rises”), and trained it recurrently on the book’s text, then having it spit out texts of its own that would match the book. It starts out with incomprehensible strings of text, but gradually takes the form of words and sentences, to the point that the sentences almost make sense and retain Hemingway’s typically curt dialogue style.

Geitgey then takes this system and applies it to none other than the Super Mario Maker. This is a version of Super Mario that allows players to build levels of their own. He transforms game levels into text streams and feeds these into the learning system. Again here, at first the system spits out nonsense. But then it gradually learns the basic rules and eventually generates actual playable levels. I’m no expert on Super Mario so I couldn’t tell, but I showed it to my son and he said it’s a great level that he would be happy to play. That’s intelligent enough for me!



Mining Wikipedia, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Statistical Algorithms

I took my first AI course during my first degree, in the early 90’s. Back then it was all about expert systems, genetic algorithms, search/planning (A* anyone?). It all seemed clear, smart, intuitive, intelligent…

Then, by the time I got to my second degree in the late 00’s, the AI world has changed by a lot. Statistical approaches took over by a storm, and massive amounts of data seemed to trump intuition and smart heuristics anytime.

It took me a while to adjust, I admit, but by the time I completed my thesis I came to appreciate the power of big data. I now can better see this as an evolution, with heuristics and inutions driving how we choose to analyze and process the data, even if afterwards it’s all “just” number-crunching.

So on this note, I gave a talk today at work on the topic of extracting semantic knowledge from Wikipedia, relating also to our work on ESA and to this being an illustration of the above. Enjoy!


The (Filtered) Web is Your Feed

A few months ago I was complaining here about my rss overload. A commenter suggested that I take a look at my6sense, a browser extension (now also iPhone app) that acts as a smart RSS reader, emphasizing the entries you should be reading. I wanted to give my6sense a go then, but the technical experience was lousy, and moreover – I was expected to migrate my rss reading to it. Too much of a hassle, I gave it up.

In the past few weeks I’ve been test-driving a new player – Genieo, which takes the basic my6sense idea a few steps further. Genieo installs an actual application, not just extension, that plugs into your browser. It tracks your rss feeds automatically, simply by looking for rss feeds in the pages you’re browsing, and learns your feeds without any setup work.

Genieo then goes further to discover feeds on pages you visit even if you’re not subscribed to them, turning your entire browsing history into one big rss feed.  It finally filters this massive pool of content using a semantic profile it builds for your interests, based on analyzing the text you’ve read so far.

For IR people this may sound a lot like Watson, Jay Budzik’s academic project turned contextual search turned an advertising technology acquisition. Watson approached this problem as a search problem: how would I formulate search queries that would run in the background, fetching me the most relevant documents that match the user’s current context? problem is, users are not constantly searching, and would get quickly annoyed by showing general search results when not asked for.

The good thing about an rss feed is that it explicitly says “this is a list of content items to be consumed from this source“, and its temporal nature provides a natural preference ranking (prefer recent items), so a heuristic of “users would be interested in recent and relevant items from feeds in pages they visited” works around the general search difficulty pretty well. Genieo circumvents the expected privacy outcry by running the entire logic on the client side, nothing of the analyzed data leaves your PC (privacy warriors would probably run sniffers to validate that).

In my personal experience, the quality of most results is excellent, and they are almost always posts that would interest me. Genieo quickly picked up my feed subscriptions from clicks I made in my reader to the full article in a browser window (from which it extracted the rss feed), and after a while I could see it gradually picking up on my favorite memes (search, social and others). I did not give up my rss reader for Genieo yet, and I also still have many little annoyances with it, but overall for an initial version, it works surprisingly well.

However, the target audience that is even more suited for Genieo is the not rss-savvy users like me, but the masses out there who don’t know and don’t care about reading feeds. They just want interesting news, and they don’t mind missing on the full list (a-la Dave Winer’s “River of News” concept). Such users will find tools like Genieo as useful as a personal news valet can be.

Friendly advice from your “Social Trust Graph”

While scanning for worthy Information Retrieval papers in the recent SIGIR 2009, I came across a paper titled “Learning to Recommend with Social Trust Ensemble“, by a team from the University of Hong Kong. This one is about recommender systems, but putting the social element into text analytics tasks is always interesting (me).

The premise is an interesting one – using your network of trust to improve classic (Collaborative Filtering) recommendations. The authors begin by observing that users’ decisions are the balance between their own tastes, and those of their trusted friends’ recommendations.

Figure 1 from "Learning to Recommend with Social Trust Ensemble" by Ma et al.

Then, they proceed to propose a model that blends analysis of classic user-item matrix where ratings of items by users are stored (the common tool of CF), with analysis of a “social trust graph” that links the user to other users, and through them to their opinions on the items.

This follows the intuition that when trying to draw a recommendation from behavior of other users (which basically is what CF does), some users’ opinions may be more important than others’, and the fact that classic CF ignores that, and treats all users as having identical importance.

The authors show results that out-perform classic CF on a dataset extracted from Epinions. That’s encouraging for any researcher interested in the contribution of the social signal into AI tasks.

free advice at renegade craft fair - CC Flickr/arimoore

However, some issues bother me with this research:

  1. Didn’t the netflix prize winning team approach (see previous post) “prove” that statistical analysis of the user-item matrix beats any external signal other teams tried to use? the answer here may be related to the sparseness of the Epinions data, which makes life very difficult for classic CF. Movie recommendations have much higher density than retail (Epinions’ domain).
  2. To evaluate, the authors sampled 80% or 90% of the ratings as training and the remaining as testing. But if you choose as training the data before the user started following someone, then test it after the user is following that someone, don’t you get a bit mixed up with cause and effect? I mean, if I follow someone and discover a product through his recommendation, there’s a high chance my opinion will also be influenced by his. So there’s no true independence between the training and test data…
  3. Eventually, the paper shows that combining two good methods (social trust graph and classic CF) outperforms each of the methods alone. The general idea of fusion or ensemble of methods is pretty much common knowledge for any Machine Learning researcher. The question should be (but it wasn’t) – does this specific ensemble of methods outperform any other ensemble? and does it fare better than the state of the art result for the same dataset?
own taste and his/her trusted friends’ favors.

The last point is of specific interest to me, having combined keyword-based retrieval with concept-based retrieval in my M.Sc. work. I could easily show that the resulting system outperformed each of the separate elements, but to counter the above questions, I further tested combining other similarly high performing methods to show performance gained there was much lower, and also showed that the combination could take a state of the art result and further improve on it.

Nevertheless, the idea of using opinions from people you know and trust (rather than authorities) in ranking recommendations is surely one that will gain more popularity, as social players start pushing ways to monetize the graphs they worked so hard to build…

Bart Simpson working at Google??

“Phone call for Al…Al Coholic…is there an Al Coholic here?”
“Wait a minute… Listen, you little yellow-bellied rat jackass, if I ever find out who you are, I’m gonna kill you!”

Sweet little Bart Simpson must have hacked his way into the training data the guys at Google Scholar are using. I was running a simple Google query for user manuals that Googlebot indexed at sears.com, and got these goodies in the results:

Google Scholar Bart SimpsonFor the perplexed readers, the image on the right is what the Google Scholar parser saw for the DVD result (click to enlarge), then assumed it’s an academic paper and desperately tried to find an author name. As Google freely admits, “…Automated extraction of information from articles in diverse fields can be tricky”. Yep.


It gets even better: since there are many such “academic papers” with the same author name, Google clusters them together, even when the manuals are for different products. Try one of those “All xxx versions” links, e.g. this one, all by our good friend O. Instructions. Interested students are encouraged to proceed and find out the etymology of other fascinating author names such as R. Parts and NO. Model.

And what about our old friend Al Coholic, you ask? well, Google Scholar tells us he did actually publish something! but wait – 1877? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences? young Simpson, have you no shame boy!?

Semantic Search using Wikipedia

Today I gave my master’s thesis talk in the Technion as part of my master’s duties. Actually, the non-buzzword title is “Concept-Based Information Retrieval using Explicit Semantic Analysis”, but that’s not a very click-worthy post title :-)…

The whole thing went far better than I expected – the room was packed, the slides flew smoothly (and quickly too, luckily Shaul convinced me to add some spare slides just in case), and I ended up with over 10 minutes of Q&A (an excellent sign for a talk that went well…)

Click to view on Slideshare

BTW – anybody has an idea how to embed slideshare into a hosted blog? doesn’t seem to work…

The Opportunity in RSS Overload

Dare Obasanjo has an interesting post, with a good comments thread, on overflowing feed readers. He’s quoting from a post by Farhad Manjoo on Slate:

You know that sinking feeling you get when you open your e-mail and discover hundreds of messages you need to respond to…

Well, actually Dare’s post is from two weeks ago. The reason I got to read it only now is exactly that…

Yes, I know I don’t really need to ‘respond’ to subscriptions, and the answer should be – unsubscribe, or go on a feeds (or ‘follow’ edges) social diet. But these binary decisions are not always optimal, as I have plenty of feeds I subscribed to after hitting one or two posts I really liked, but that were not on that author’s main subject (if such exists at all). Thus I have to skim through many un-interesting (for me!) posts, many of them somehow always end up discussing twitter. In fact, that’s how most of my feeds look like (including the twitter part).

We need shades of grey between subscribed and unsubscribed. It would be great to have a feed reader that learns from how you use it. It should be quite clear which posts interest me – ones I took time to read, scroll through, press a link etc. – and which did not. Now train a classifier on that data, preferably per-feed (in addition to a general one), and get some sense of what I’m really looking for.
Mark All As Read Day - flickr/sidereal

Now, I don’t need this smart reader to delete the uninteresting ones, let’s not assume too much on its classification accuracy. Just find the right UI to mark the predicted-to-be-interesting items (or even assign them into a special virtual folder). Then I can read these first, and only if/when have time – read the rest.

I assign this to be my pet project in case I win the lottery next week and go into early retirement. Alternatively, if someone saw this implemented anywhere – let me know!

Update: a related follow-up post on a new filtering product I started using.

Why Search Innovation is Dead

We like to think of web search as quite a polished tool. I still find myself amazed at the ease with which difficult questions can be answered just by googling them. Is there really much to go from here?

"Hasn't Google solved search?" by asmythie/Flickr

Brynn Evans has a great post on why social search won’t topple Google anytime soon. In it, she shares some yet to be published results on difficulty in forming the query being a major cause for failed searches. That resonated well with some citations I’m collecting right now for my thesis (on concept-based information retrieval). It also reminded me of a post Marissa Mayer of Google wrote some months ago, titled “The Future of Search“.  One of the main items on that future of hers was natural language search, or as she put it:

This notion brings up yet another way that “modes” of search will change – voice and natural language search. You should be able to talk to a search engine in your voice. You should also be able to ask questions verbally or by typing them in as natural language expressions. You shouldn’t have to break everything down into keywords.

Mayer gives some examples to questions that were difficult to query or formulate by keywords. But clearly she has the question in her head, so why not just type it in? after all, Google does attempt to answer questions. Mayer (and Brynn too) mentions the lack of context as one reason. Some questions, if phrased naively, refer to the user’s location, activities or other context. It’s a reasonable, though somewhat exaggerated point.  Users aren’t really that naive or lazy, if instead of using search they’d call up a friend, they wouldn’t ask “can you tell me the name of that bird flying out there?”. The same info they would provide verbally, they can also provide to a natural-language search engine, if properly guided.

The more significant reason in my eyes revolves around habits. Search is usually a means, rather than a goal. So we don’t want to think where and how to search, we just want to type something quickly into that good old search box and fire it away. It’s no wonder that the search engine most bent on sending you away asap, has most loyal users coming back for more. That same engine even has a button, that hardly anyone uses, and supposedly costs them over 100M$ a year in revenues, that sends users away even faster.  So changing this habit is a tough task for any newcomers.

But these habits go deeper than that. Academic researchers have long studied natural-language search and concept-based search. A combination of effective keyword-based search, together with a more elaborate approach that kicks in when the query is a tough one, could have gained momentum, and some attempts were made for commercial products (most notable Ask, Vivisimo and Powerset). They all failed. Users are so used to the “exact keyword match” paradigm, the total control it provides them with, and its logic (together with its shortcomings) that a switch is nearly impossible, unless Google will drive such a change.

Until that happens, we’ll have to continue limiting innovations to small tweaks over the authorities…