Ideas for SAFE Search?

The questions we ask are the most powerful determinants of personal and societal development.

We need open, honest, intelligent search. Something that we’ve never seen before.

We cannot continue to have bribery (sponsor) based search. Money can’t cut in line, it can’t be allowed to have censor or veto power. It can’t be allowed to buy mindshare. What is worthy of your mindshare must be worthy of your attention as determined by you through your own process of inquiry. We lose reasonable self determination with anything less.

You’re the only one that will answer your questions ultimately but search should not be skewing or undermining your process.

3 Likes

One of the issues that I see in search results is the way they are ordered sequentially on search engine webpages : would it be based on true relevance, or on bribery, results are shown as an ordered list. Incidentally, some results are harder to access than others, because they are buried in deep pages, or very low on an infinite scroll, which raises the incentive for bribery.

I remember the age of non numeric libraries. When I was a kid, if we wanted to find a book at the library, we had to browse an index of authors names in a wooden box, small sheets of cardboard in alphabetical order. You could see the whole box in front of you : each sheet had an equal chance to be found, the same ease of access.
This is also true for entries in a paper dictionnary, chapters in a book, phone numbers in a directory.

One of the the differences between a real world paper library and a network such as internet , or potentially Safenet, is that the first is finite, while the other is not.

An interface design difficulty arises, because you can’t possibly show the whole “wood box”, or the whole entries, so you need to present a selection, which , ultimately, led to bribery based systems.

One solution would be categorizing:
In the paper library there were several wood boxes, one for novels, one for science, one for poetry, etc …
This permitted simplifying the search by raising relevancy without cutting equality of access.

An ideal search engine could be organised the same way : you would for instance browse for : litterature -> novels -> 19th century -> german … or sports -> biking -> gear -> online shop -> uk -> accepts safecoins …

I think we should dig that way for a search system that offers both high relevancy and equality of access.
Maybe take inspiration from gopher’s arborecence ( not defunct yet :wink: )

One of the challenges will be finding an UI design that prevents any incentive for bribing.
Categories and non linear display can be paths of research.

On another aspect, I think it would be fundamental to have some sort of proof of search algorythm integrity :
When you browse results , a checksum or similar non trickable flag should tell the user that the results displayed were processed by code that is known and verifiable. A bit like self authentication : in Safe if you can read the contents in clear, it mathematically means you are the one with the correct credentials.
A decent Safe search engine app should provide such a level of certainty : if you can read the results, then you mathematically know how they were processed.

Just my thoughts, design ideas. I am not in position for coding such a complex system, but would love to see it happen.
Maybe @Shane ? do you copy ?

6 Likes

Agreed with @nice, it is not possible to show all possible results, as such a search engine would no longer be useful - there is too much information and it changes far more rapidly than in other media.

Think of Wikipedia - it is an encyclopedia in which not only are new editions are constantly released, but pages are individually updated by millions of different people. This is nothing to be lamented, nor is it particularly new. The Encylopaedia Britannica was updated, until the 15th edition published in 2010, which consisted of 32 volumes. Wikipedia, if it were printed would take up 2644 volumes - and that is without any images.

Yes a positive example in wikipedoa but a lot of controversy on gaming it.