We're back in 1994 (or so), at the Computer Sciences Department of Stanford University, California. Two friends, let's call them Laurel and Sargi, have just engaged an amene conversation:
L: Hey Sargi, look here.
S: What?
L: Consider an internet page. I know where it links to ... but ... I don’t know where it’s linked from.
S: Why should I care?
L: Ok, remember our professor’s papers? And the citations they contain to their peers?
S: What about?
L: Well, citations to peers in a paper are pretty much like links to other pages in a webpage. You know who the paper cites to, but you don’t know whom the paper is cited from.
S: Boorriiiinnnng! ....
L: Wait, but the thing IS what determines the relevance of a paper is the number of citations it gets from its peers.
S: So?
L: So, It’s a pain in the butt to actually calculate it. Editors spend a lot of their effort in counting how many citations a paper gets. That way scholarly colleagues may rank the relevance of their papers.
S: Sheesh, you really have weird interests.
L: Maybe, BUT if we could tell how many links a page gets, then we could rank it!
S: Well Laurel, that must be the most pointless idea I've ever heard in my whole life!
L: Yeah! And I convinced my teacher to endorse it as my final project. Wanna help me?
S:Ok, sure! Let's do it.
Add a comment