<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can Jimmy Wales Crack the Google Puzzle?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/12/23/can-jimmy-wales-solve-crack-the-google-puzzle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/12/23/can-jimmy-wales-solve-crack-the-google-puzzle/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Startups, Entrepreneurs and the Web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:25:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.markevanstech.com/2006/12/23/can-jimmy-wales-solve-crack-the-google-puzzle/comment-page-1/#comment-2239</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://markevanstech.com/?p=1992#comment-2239</guid>
		<description>Well, it sounds like a good idea... however, it would take a tremendous amount of man power to keep the results relevant, concise, and free from spam. Something like search results in on a scale way bigger than even the 1.4 million or so English Wikipedia articles.

Not to mention it would open tons of avenues of point gaming of results to get listed as more relevant than others. At least with an algorithm you can get some what non biased evaluation. People are flawed when it comes to determining wealth for the rest... we really should let the computers do this part.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, it sounds like a good idea&#8230; however, it would take a tremendous amount of man power to keep the results relevant, concise, and free from spam. Something like search results in on a scale way bigger than even the 1.4 million or so English Wikipedia articles.</p>
<p>Not to mention it would open tons of avenues of point gaming of results to get listed as more relevant than others. At least with an algorithm you can get some what non biased evaluation. People are flawed when it comes to determining wealth for the rest&#8230; we really should let the computers do this part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

