DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
63% Positive
Analyzed from 2104 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#pagerank#page#web#https#algorithm#invented#pages#graph#google#com
Discussion (74 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Unimportantly, it's named after Larry Page, not after the fact that it ranks pages.
I've always taken it as a happy double play since it is named after Page, but also ranks pages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism
That's silly to say when it can be fruitfully applied in so many situations. Any time you have noisy and sparse pairwise comparisons, you can think of them as one of the sides of the pair vouching for the other side. If you then solve PageRank for the entire graph, you get a somewhat principled global ranking of all items.
I used it recently to construct a top list of books I read a year based only on sloppy pairwise comparisons between them. I've also used it to judge the quality of other relevance algorithms while keeping the human input to a minimum.
I don't know of many alternatives that work better than PageRank under those conditions. Thurstone-type models require dense comparisons, and Elo doesn't fare very well when the comparisons are too noisy.
It works as well as it ever did, i.e. in non-adversarial situations. It's not designed to be secure so it fails when people try to game it. Designing something like Page Rank that works in an adversarial environment is still an open problem.
I didn't really know what I was doing (I was 17), but it was an awesome unpaid summer internship. There were two parts of the search engine - a crawler and the search engine. Both were written in Perl.
Then we move on to upvotes, retweets, likes, listens, views, please-please-please-subscribe-to-my-channel, reviews etc. Thus the continuum of the "social" internet.
We tried really hard to make truth into a capitalist endeavor.
Yet, this is not even half the work. It like a third of the way.
Before you could have invented PageRank, you must think in graphs. That is possible in 1996, but not as widespread as today.
After you invented PageRank, you still need to deploy it. Again, possible but challenging as well. Is Python performant enough in 96? Can you afford more than 4MB RAM?
At least Lego will not sue you for using their bricks to build a server rack in 1996.
For anyone puzzling over what is the graph-based perspective, there's actually a very elegant and simple mathematical way to derive page rank.
Define the directed graph of web links / citations through its adjacency matrix: web pages as nodes and links as directed edges. Represent a web surfer as a random walker on this graph, and run forth (simulate) the probability distribution of where they might end up.
If you've studied linear algebra you would see an immediate analogy between the PageRank algorithm how the power method is used to find the dominant eigenvector (of the transition matrix, which is a normalized version of the adjacency matrix).
This process is basically equivalent to implementing the diffusion process generated by the discrete graph laplacian. And simulating the random walk to find the long term stationary probability dstribution over nodes is akin to finding the zero eigenvector of this graph laplacian -- because it must generate "zero change" on the fixed point state.
Could you elaborate? I'm a very graph-oriented thinker, and I was never aware this was some kind of declining skill (For context I was not alive in '96).
* [2020-06-17] Spanning Tree - "How Google's PageRank Algorithm Works" (5m16s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meonLcN7LD4
* [2022-05-23] Reducible - "PageRank: A Trillion Dollar Algorithm" (25m25s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGQe4kiPnrU
Tying relevancy to link frequency was definitely a novel idea at the time, even if it seems "obvious" or simple in retrospect.
[0] https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Linear_Algebra/Under...
Inverting the huge, sparse matrix of references for PageRank was expensive. Originally, Google did it about once a week. The big breakthrough was when someone (who?) figured out how to do it incrementally at scale.
Yes you could have invented PageRank, but could you also have invented MapReduce, BigFiles/Google File System (GFS), Google Web Server, Bigtable, Protobuf? Then spun up fault-tolerant clusters consisting of cheap commodity PC hardware in an era where AWS wasn't even an idea yet? Then invented the concept of Borg to manage this hardware globally?
Money you get by being a pair of connected Stanford grads living in the most tech connected place in the world, with Stanford alumni and venture capital connected people all around you.
The CS is part is medium-hard. The productionizing part is a hiring problem.
Getting the capital is a whole other aspect.
I knew lots of smart people in 1996 in the first .com wave. None of us made any money :-) I should have moved to San Francisco in 97 like I was originally planning. Oops. (And no, I could not have done what Jeff Dean & Sanjay did but I would have loved to have tried ;-) )
https://web.archive.org/web/20130728183938/williamcotton.com...
Citation index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_index
Shepard's Citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard's_Citations
No, Brin wasn’t a co-inventor of PageRank.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7058628B1/en
[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-PageRank-Citation-...
The system disincentifies adding "ghost" inventors since incorrect listing of the inventors can invalidate a patent.
So, yes, it's likely that the patent attorneys hired by Stanford advised that only Page should be listed as an inventor. Stanford gets its money via the assignment, not the inventor list.
Back in 1996, this could be done by hand
> It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-sorbon...
Also, WTF, it seems impossible to find a PDF of the original paper still on the web without a paywall.
I never thought of it.
I never thought of the Million Dollar Homepage, either.
It's still there! https://milliondollarhomepage.com/
I remember the first ever HTML CV (résumé) being published.
I am Slashdot user #6030. I used it for ages before I created a user account.
I was already paying for my own personal email address in 1991 when timbl revealed the WWW to the world. I thought it was a gimmick. It'd never catch on. We already had Gopher and Archie and Veronica.
deep sigh
A little nihilistic, but I find it charming.
Outbid is just sad. People pay money to get on a slop board?
What if I fricken want fricken "Hotels for Chickens", what about that, huh?
I mean, page rank was useful but it was also a step in the direction of "search give you what it think you, not what you asked for" and I think now we can how far and dubious progress in that direction has been.
One of my favorite things about HN is the way that you can find someone who has produced definitive proof of the non-existence of the public education system in an offhand comment.