Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Bible Books (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bible Books (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=bible+books [google.com] Who knew Esther was a babe?
Uh, the thing that stuck out at me from that list was that the book of Revelations is apparently published by Ubisoft and is preceded by the book of Devastation. How did it determine that? Why, Wikipedia's list of Xbox games, of course! I don't recall that book of the Bible from the Catholic Masses I attended as a child but it sounds pretty bitching.
:/
If someone made games out of the books of the Bible, I'd definitely hit up Revelations (and not that Left Behind crap) but I'd assume books like Psalms and Job would be a grind
Parent
Re:Bible Books (Score:5, Informative)
Well, she was a concubine of Xerxes (of 300 fame) and later his wife chosen because of her extraordinary beauty (and intelligence, but whatever).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Xerxes (of 300 fame)
I think Herodotos has prior art on that.
Re:Bible Books (Score:5, Insightful)
Esther 2:7
Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This girl, who was also known as Esther, was lovely in form and features, and Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.
Esther 2:17
Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti.
Parent
How it works (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little confused why you would say there is no semantic analysis - perhaps it depends on the hits/searches.
I typed in "chrome"
And the result was:
Item Name: Google Chrome Image: [browser screenshot] Size: A A A (WTF?) Preview Release: No value found License: Freeware
That doesn't seem like additional search terms to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You can add "OS" as another column, then it will tell you it runs on Windows 2000 and XP.
Try the same for Konqueror, and it tells you it runs on "No", whatever that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I tried:
firefox, safari, internet explorer
And it returned "Opera"
Just firefox, safari failed oddly
I discovered after some experimenting that adding the terms *after* the grid was created seemed to work better.
For example first typing "firefox"
Then google chrome
Using their suggestion list seemed to help too.
Anyway, my eventual grid gave, for Operating System (using their autosuggest for OS):
Mozilla Firefox: Mac Google Chrome: [no value] Microsoft Internet Explorer: [no value] Safari: [no value] Konqu
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point somewhat. Try entering the search term "web browsers".
Not that I'm claiming it works perfectly or anything. Apart from Firefox (developed by the Mozilla Corporation), there appears to be another web browser named Mozilla, developed by a company called "website".
Re: (Score:2)
http://google.com/squared/search?q=pandas%2Cbears [google.com]
seems to have determined that they are of the family ursidae and class mammalia w/ reasonable consensus.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the column 'types' were known a priori then this wouldn't be that neat, however if its classifying on the fly what columns are to be used then that's pretty cool. Looks like a really nice large scale application of 'wrapper induction'.
How the columns are determined is the impressi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, do you work in NLP?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, now this is interesting. Compare a regular google search of "black cat" to the Google squared one. The Google squared one pulled a whole slew of Manga results, which is not the dominant search in regular Google. That tells me that Google pulls the first X pages and tries to find pages with some sort of commonality. "Black cat" fireworks was a uni
E=MC^2 (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't take an Einstein to find out that this is good for researching things. It certainly beats going through all of the connecting websites to get to the juicy details.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad about its accuracy though. The data is not verified or curated like in Wolfram Alpha, so it's pretty much useless for any purpose other than leisure IMHO. It can also not do anything with the data, unlike WA. It can't even sort it. All it has going for it is that it has a lot of data. But quantity above quality for sure.
Re:E=MC^2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad about its accuracy though.
Yup. I tested it out with a search on operating systems [google.com], and there are a number of hilarious misses within the results.
For Windows, it's apparently under a free license, and it's date of birth looks like Google scraped the drop boxes for a sign-up form rather than getting the actual creation date of Windows.
For Linux, it was a bit off course and grabbed a description of Ubuntu, instead. It lists the current version as 2.1 which doesn't make sense for either Ubuntu (9.04) or the Linux kernel (2.6.29.4 or 2.6.30-rc8). I suspect it grabbed the version of a random Linux app.
Darwin resulted in the biggest miss, as one might suspect. It grabbed the biography and birthday of Charles Darwin.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have a long way to go then as it seems to provide some awfully terrible results. Like check this one out for Roller coasters [google.com].
Apparently there's a roller coaster named GhostRider, it has a length of 4,533 ft, height of 118 ft, and it travels past the speed of sound at 1038 mph!!
I think I'll just stick to the basic Google search using quotes, +'s, -'s, AND's and OR's.
First thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wolfram Alpha does state its sources involved in generating its answer.
Useful for brainstorming (Score:2)
Re:Useful for brainstorming (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's not quite there for random brainstorming. It's geared toward easy fact generation. The "human" factor is almost completely removed, image linking to entries in the table is inaccurate at best (search "Planets" and you'll find Pluto the dog), and so on.
I can see that this is a useful tool for people like say... engineers, who need to know a material's composition and properties (facts, again), but this tool is limited by the supporting databases.
Take, for example, the fact that I can search for a consumer product, but I can't get much more than generic information.
Links are difficult to follow, it takes more effort than needed to go somewhere. Brainstorming is easier with the vanilla Google.
Yes, this is a useful tool, but it doesn't compare very well to Wolfram Alpha; this is a spreadsheet data generation tool, where Alpha is an analysis tool.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Already better that Alpha (Score:5, Interesting)
In fifteen seconds of playing around with it, I already feel like I'm able to get better data and have better control than I do with Wolfram Alpha.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The major downside being that this can only do the equivalent of "vs" searches in Wolfram Alpha; i.e. it can't calculate with the information at all. That and the sources often being dubios at best.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think it is a competitor to Alpha. I don't know that I'd say it's better, though.
Alpha operates only on "curated" data, which means that there's a lot more that can be done with the data, since Alpha understands its structure much better. Also, Alpha can do math on it, create graphs, etc.. But with Alpha, you can only use the data that's been made available.
Google squared can't do as much with the data, but it can use the whole web, so it's data source is much richer.
Of course, alpha can add data
Re:Already better that Alpha (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I typed in geniuses [google.com] and it completely failed to mention the wisest human alive, Steven Wolfram. So I think it's pretty darned incomplete, especially compared to such an unprecedented knowledge-processing breakthrough as Wolfram Alpha.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't solving the same problem.
Re:Already better that Alpha (Score:5, Interesting)
No data analysis! GS and WA are completely different beasts.
In Google Squared:
Try getting a square with the five largest countries by area. (In Wolfram|Alpha search for five largest countries by area [wolframalpha.com])
Try to mathematically manipulate results like, say, dividing power usage of the united states by its population. (In Wolfram|Alpha search for united states electric production / population [wolframalpha.com]
Try to get GS to do anything like growth charts, ISS location calculations, morse code translation, puzzle solving, food calorie counting, differential equations.
Also the data is much less complete. Check out Google Squared's results for the escape velocities of the moons of Mars [google.com]. Now check Wolfram|Alpha's [wolframalpha.com]. Yeah, there's a reason that WA is citable as a primary source.
Parent
Wolfram Alpha (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I know, Wolfram takes info from reduced and trusted sources while Google does not. But the semantic database that they are building have the same structure.
Just goofing around (Score:5, Funny)
Yahoo URL: "No value found"
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=search+engines [google.com]
Random fun:
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=large+noses [google.com]
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=lolcat+pictures [google.com]
Reply if you find other amusing queries!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/squared/table/agyxom8lIUS0Ibf2RurpmKnA [google.com]
Comparison of hot vehicles in squared!
You gotta love the MPG value on the Saleen... and the Prelude stats are so dead-on!
Re: (Score:2)
Mixed results (Score:5, Interesting)
The default result sets are more than useless - are laughable.
I searched for europe demographics [google.com] and it automatically created a set of rows that was made of Gibraltar, Isle of Man and Faroe Islands; for columns it created Image, Description, Language, Capital and Currency. The same search on Wolfram Alpha [wolframalpha.com] produced clear, concise results.
Eventually, I could get good results on Squared too by starting with an empty square and adding rows and columns myself. Took about 10 minutes; I could have made a simple search to get the same results.
I realize Google-bashing is dangerous around here, but they definitely have to improve Squared if they want it to be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember what Google is good at? Collective knowledge. Over time they will understand more about how people use Squared and what columns people find relevant for certain types of search, and can use that to optimize the engine. It's like the gmail spam filter which performs so well because of collective knowledge.
Not so impressed (Score:2)
I get better information from a normal search. This query set is very limited (for now at least). You can only give it a broad set topic and it will only give you back more specific subsets. Nothing related, similar or tangential. Do a search for "javascript" and you get 2 results - the international standard and a link to Mozilla. Nothing about any of the popular libraries, help sites, documentation, blogs, books or history...
Do a search on Dog breeds however and you get a nice list of those as they are a
Re: (Score:2)
SO tried again with "javascript library" and got results... but still, requiring 2 keywords to get results is hardly going improve search.
A stop gap solution would be to suggest queries that do have a lot of results when someone is typing in the query or after a low result set is returned. Yes fewer results seems like it would be better but not for a general query... still needs work (hence why it's in Labs I suppose).
I squared Microsoft (Score:2)
So I squared Microsoft and lol'd ... :)
http://www.svenarduwie.be/Microsoft%20Google%20Squared.png [svenarduwie.be]
License: GPL, Free
Spider Man = Monkey (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=monkeys [google.com]
I never knew!
Re: (Score:2)
And in new news, apparently Africa is a rare animal.
Wow. Pretty cool. (Score:5, Informative)
But when I asked for http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=supermodels [google.com] I couldn't help but notice it was missing a few key columns.
HOLY CRAP! This post started out as a joke but then I then typed 'measurements' into the 'Add columns' box and it effing worked! Then click in the 'Add items' in the lower left, add the 5 suggestions, do that a few more times, and BAM, you've got a good amount of data. Holy crap, this is neat. There goes the rest of my day. I could see using this for actual work, like bridge lengths and building heights and such.
And it's FUN! Data appears instantly, as if by magic, complete with pictures. I've never said this in my 10+ years on Slashdot, but everyone, GO RTFA! Actually, skip TFA, just go visit the site!
Useless searches without context ... (Score:2)
So I search on "space physics virtual observatory" ... and it prompts me to give 5 examples so I do (VSO, VMO, VHO, ViTMO, ViRBO) ... and well, it populated a grid with the top result for "VSO" which is "VSO Software" not "The Virtual Solar Observatory" (in all fairness, the Virtual Solar Observatory doesn't show up under the search, "Space Physics Virtual Observatory VSO", but it does show up under "Virtual Observatory VSO" ... so I start with the search "Virtual Observatory" (which brings up astronomy VO
Not usable at all... (Score:3, Informative)
Example 1: Dutch provinces. Wolfram accurately lists 12 and has the right names. Google lists dozens results, including Belgium rivers, shows the picture of a soccer player (with the same name as a
Example 2: Dutch prime ministers. Wolfram shows the current one correctly and some older ones. All the info Wolfram shows is correct. Google lists many. Mostly the names are correct, but there is a picture and description of a car salesman with the same name, among others.
Example 3: Countries in the EU. Wolfram shows 27 correct names. Google shows lots and lots of names. On the first pages it is ok, but on page threee, Sports is listed as an country (with the capital listed as $9500 ??) as well as Switzerland (not a EU-member) and English.
So the tables are completely useless, it also sources Wikipedia almost all the time.
Ergo: do not use it. Not yet in any case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously that's because you're searching for the wrong things. It simply can't be bothered to gather good information for such trivial matters. If you search for something worthwhile, the superiority of Google Squared quickly becomes apparent.
Search for "list of pokemon" on Wolfram Alpha, and you get this pathetic sight [imageshack.us]. On the other hand, if you put the same query into Google Squared, add a couple of suggested columns, and maybe a Pokemon or two you want specific information on, and it gives you something [imageshack.us]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's Google Squared, not plain Google. If you search for something the results of which cannot be reasonably be put into a table of things and facts about them, you're not likely to get good results. A lot of people don't seem to be catching onto this. For example, in TFA, the guy searches for "atomic weights of elements", gets results which are half elements and half things like "Melting point", which have nonsense columns that are empty in most cases, and then has to add an "atomic weight" column anyway (
Re: (Score:2)
Ordering algorithm for rows? (Score:3, Interesting)
#1 is Spock (the Zachary Quinto version, but OK good)
Kirk however is #6 after Riker, Troi, Picard, and Neelix.
Neelix? c'mon google, that's a fail.