Digging Holes in Google 644
Kurt LoVerde writes "Though google has become synonymous with searching, the folks over at MSN have written up an interesting article on our favorite search engine's pitfalls. Included among these are a tendency to skew results toward shopping, a lack of diversity for searches containing synonyms and its impact on research."
MSN hates shopping (Score:5, Funny)
Real links on the www.msn.com home page today:
And they show their socialist bent away from shopping with their hardhitting piece:
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:4, Interesting)
And by the way, Steven Johnson who writes the Slate column was right most of the time when he was criticising George W. Bush and the war in Iraq, so cut him some slack, he deserves it big time.
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you're either a troll or Just Plain Dumb. I'll assume the latter and get all didactic on your ass.
Google is a research tool: it isn't google's fault that it can't read your mind, you need to learn how to use the tool appropriately. So if you Just search on "Asus A7N8X-X" [google.com] you might get mostly shopping links (although as a previous poster pointed out, you get this potentially helpful link from Asus [asus.com] as number two on your list), however if you search on "Asus A7N8X-X specs" [google.com], "Asus A7N8X-X review" [google.com], or similar, you might get information closer to what you are looking for.
Asus A7N8X-X (Score:3)
"Foobar TWF-69: BUY NOW! 0 reviews posted, add your review"
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:3, Interesting)
#1: E-mail
#2: Shopping
Is it wrong that google's results would reflect this?
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the key is to understand the nature of the tool you're using, including its drawbacks. If you know what you're doing, you can manipulate the keywords you search on to reduce the number of shopping and weblog links you get. And hey, if the drawbacks are too severe for you, nobody's forcing you to use google, so use something else!
.Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:3, Informative)
My parent is absolutely correct. A search engine is a tool. If you know how to use it, you'll find it if it's indexed. It's not meant to be a tool to "give you what you want", as that would require a psychic.
When I search for cheapest shopping, I include "+prices", so "-prices" is probable a good start. That's the way to handle search-engines
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely correct. I do volunteer work at a computer lab, and I am amazed at the number of people that type in some vague query and expect razor sharp, relevant results. Anyway, though Google isn't perfect, this article does kind of exaggerate its flaws.
Googlehole No. 2: Skewed Synonyms. Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer--and it's a page promoting a public TV show called Newton's Apple.
Obviously you would come up with stuff about Apple Computer if you typed in "apple." The vast, vast majority of people with the query "apple" would be searching for Apple Computers as opposed to Granny Smiths. Again, if the search engine is used correctly, you can find relevant results just fine. Try "apple fruit -macintosh -mac"
Better yet... (Score:4, Informative)
I skimmed the first 5 pages and there was no mention of Apple computer.
Or Re:Better yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better yet... (Score:3)
Screw the "average joe". If they can't figure it out, or are too lazy to learn, they deserve the crap results they get.
I am SO tired of the dumbing down of America.
Search enginges with clustering (Score:3, Informative)
Vivisimo [vivisimo.com] is a meta search engine that does clustering.
When you search for apple, the first clusters are mostly computer-sp
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... how about searching "woodcut squid". Second link. Now, try finding a woodcut illustration of a squid WITHOUT google. I'll accept either URL's or your word that you found one (that you didn't already know about) somewhere in the real world.
Certainly, Google isn't magic. You may need to dig a bit to find your answer. Nonetheless, searches for obscure information are frequently simpler on Google then they are anywhere else, includi
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in the example they used, they did a search for "flowers" and complained they got florist shops. However, if you're really doing research, and do a more specific search (say on "tulips") you don't get that same bias. Rule 1, be specific.
Their complaint about skewing is somewhat valid, but it helps to understand the nature of the web. It lives and breathes computers. So if you search "apple fruit" you get much better results, even better than "apple -computer". Rule 2, disambiguate.
Their complain about books is also valid, but this is an artifact of publishing and IP law. One that may be starting to crumble, given Amazon's recent announcement [nwsource.com] about offering book search. Rule 3, when there's a real market hole, look for the opportunity for profit.
Re:MSN hates shopping (Score:3, Informative)
www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q='+escape
in my personal toolbar link and added:
+'+-shop+-deal+-value'
I've had much better results since then.
If you are looking for apples... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, nevermind.
Bias? (Score:5, Funny)
Um, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, right (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pointed out everytime a negative (from most of Slashdot readers' viewpoint) article is written at MSN (as if we didn't know already). However, there have been plenty of seemingly unbiased articles written and "printed" at MSN as well. Even this one recognizes Google as the superior search engine and doensn't mention MSN's alternative at all.
Re:Um, right (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Google has an even better idea of what needs to be improved/fixed
2) Google just got free publicity from a potential rival
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!
Knee jerk reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Off Topic - you've been warned (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't an accident. In the early days on the USA, the dollar was pegged to the value of a Spanish gold coin. That Spanish coin could be broken into eight pieces to make smaller amounts - hence the term "pieces of eight". Each of the pieces was refered to as a "bit".
Eight bits made up a full coin, or a dollar. This wasn't lost of the people that coined the terminology of bit/byte.
Re:Knee jerk reaction (Score:5, Informative)
Out of curiosity I tried this same stuff they tried with google on http://search.msn.com. The "apple" search brought up only a few actual hits for apple with #1 being office depot, and #11 being apple.com, the "tulips" search brought up the first 5 links are to proflowers.com and 1800flowers etc... with the bottom half of the page being encyclopedias yadda yadda, the "dvdr880" search brought up every link to every tech store in the known universe, with only 2 that I could tell that had reviews of the model, one of them was ironically linked to this page http://www.google.dealtime.co.uk/xPC-Philips_DVDR
print "$insertThisWholeArticleIsATroll\n";
Convenient Timing (Score:5, Insightful)
How nice on an impartial journalistic source to pick holes in google which are almost certainly specific areas which microsoft has chosen to optimise.
Re:Convenient Timing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Convenient Timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because Overture, in the process of being bought by Yahoo and Google are finally showing that you can make money with online ads after all with content-targeting. This is a technique by which if you search for "axes" you'll find "sponsored-links," a
Digging Holes in Google (Score:2, Funny)
Research? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Just because it's not found on the Internet, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
2. Just because it's found on the Internet, does not necessarily make it true.
Re:Research? (Score:4, Insightful)
Something those that don't believe anything on the internet should keep in mind.
Uh, uh... (Score:2)
Google cache (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i
What is wrong with this picture... (Score:4, Insightful)
I won't say it. It's too obvious...
Re:What is wrong with this picture... (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote from the article sums it up perfectly... the article author is complaining because he can't formulate a search properly. Obviously, Apple Computers IS the most relevant "apple" on the internet. If you want apple the fruit, you search for "apple fruit". If you want Fiona Apple, you search for "fiona apple". The only way I can see getting around this would be for Google to add "Did you mean 'apple' as a _fruit_, _computer company_, or _fiona apple_?" to the top of the listings, to drill down more specifically.
MSN Bias (Score:3, Insightful)
Google does an excellent job with their primary searches, their news siphoning, and their froogle.google.com service. I've found more useful results through Google than I have through all of the other search engines that I've used over the years combined. Sometime I'll have to try out their newsgroup tool.
amazon may compensate (Score:2, Insightful)
Stifling Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
MSN Search will be different how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Shopping (Score:2, Insightful)
What sort of BS is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, how about using more than one keyword?
"apple computer" brings www.apple.com as the FIRST link.
I imagine if I look in msn.com for "battery" I won't find detailed schematics of NiMH batteries either. Holy shit, are they paying these people to write this shit?
Heck, even in grade school when we had to use CD encyclopedia's we were taught to use more than one keyword.
Tom
Re:What sort of BS is this (Score:5, Funny)
That settles it. I'm officially old.
*sniff*
Re:What sort of BS is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me give you an example. If I have a print encyclopedia and I search for "Athens", I'm not going to be able to turn directly to the page. I'll have to flip through it, maybe coming across articles on "agriculture", "apples", and the first "alphabets". Sure, this takes time out of
Re:What sort of BS is this (Score:5, Insightful)
"Learn all about apples, growing and using them, and where to pick your own apples at the Apples and More website developed by University of Illinois..."
The second is a link to the Washington State Apple Commission. Hmmm, perhaps their example was chosen because it gave the result they wanted.
Re:What sort of BS is this (Score:3)
The key with Google is to type in exactly what you are looking for, not something vague. Also, if you're looking for information on apples the fruit, type in "apples" rather than "apple." Voila!
Google can do no wrong (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, I can't even remember what the story text was or what the linked article said.
Is it interesting how two nouns, Slashdot and Google, have become verbs [google.com]?
Pretty weak (Score:5, Interesting)
The jist of the article is that if you give google a one (common) word search term, that the results may not be as precise as you want. For instance, if you want the nutritional content of an apple, and you put "apple" into Google, you're going to get a bunch of hits for things that don't have what you're looking for.
I'm sure a lot of you are saying "duh" right now.
Re:Pretty weak (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pretty weak (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the article is weak. It begins by assuming that Google should be something it isn't (a search engine that reads your mind) and then criticizes it for failing. Other posts mention that the author's examples use one search term, while google allows up to 10. This could be similar to complaining that the dictionary is skewed towards "aardvarks" if you are trying to look up "application" using only the first letter, instead of the first ten.
I thought that the last section of the article was the most clueless, though. The author complains that "we may find ourselves in a world where, if you want to get an idea into circulation, you're better off publishing a PDF file on the Web than landing a book deal." No kidding. First, it isn't clear that his assertion is true, and second, even if it were true, it would be good, not bad, since the barrier to entry for ideas would be lower. He also complains that google doesn't search the NYT, and so it doesn't find the most relevant material. He acts like this is somehow a failing of google, when a rational person would consider it to be a failing of the NYT. How can any single search engine find material on the web if it is hidden behind subscriptions?
My paranoia says the author has another agenda (see posts re: MSN = evil). Common sense says he just needed to get something out by deadline. The easy way to do this "hackneyed demagogue," according to Adam Thrasher.
Better search criteria (Score:2, Insightful)
Write doesn't know how to search (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe try searching with "flower gardening" next time.
Re:Write doesn't know how to search (Score:4, Interesting)
Before you publish the report bashing your competition, at least try to see how your own product compares.
--
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
I think we will see this go the way of MS Bob, "Trusted Computing", MSN as a popular ISP, etc.
You ever notice that with the exception of hardware, most people only use Microsoft products as they are forced to?
The only reason people in the outside world use it is because even they feel like they HAVE to use Word, Windows, Excel, etc. When it comes to options in other parts of life, most people recognize that MS sucks donkey balls.
(Interesting side note: I used to work for Blue Cross of California. This was back in the NT 4.0 days. BCC has a support contract with MS.
A co-worker of mine took an NT server, set it up professionally to interface with the network as a real server, then installed MS Bob on it.
He promptly called Microsoft for tech support, and used the "Bob" terminology: "Yes, I'm having trouble getting the IP stack up. I keep telling the dog inside the living room to connect to the outside world, but he just keeps barking at me and asking if I want to make a document." My friend played dumb, only referring to MS Bob jargon as if it were the operating system
Needless to say, the call lasted many hours while the MS tech tried to trouble-shoot the problem using as much of the MS Bob terminology as possible.)
JoeLinux
Re:Wow... (Score:3)
The only reason people in the outside world use it is because even they feel like they HAVE to use Word, Windows, Excel, etc. When it comes to options in other parts of life, most people recognize that MS sucks donkey balls.
For starters, I think most people use MS products are because they are unaware of any alternatives. Whenever I mention Linux to my friends who just use computers, but
Oh please . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
A stupid article (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, of course it doesn't! A search for apples [google.com], however, is much more useful.
This is just a case of user error, nothing more.
Re:A stupid article (Score:3, Funny)
Google already has this covered! [google.com]
Remember the Bad Old Days (Score:5, Insightful)
Try better search terms maybe? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as shopping results, that's the character of the web today. Lots of commercial interests. It takes money to maintain a web presence, no matter what Geocities tells you. Google is just presenting you with what it's got, really.
Finally, a lot more papers are published than books. It's not surprising that you don't get a lot more hits on book-printed resources.
This is more interesting as a statement on what the Internet has become, rather than what Google might be showing you while filtering other things out.
Flowers!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flowers!? (Score:3, Informative)
Some people (the article author?) also seem that Google Directory links from search results usually give excellent results, since it's a nicely organized database of major w
Re:Flowers!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Could it be that most people, when searching for 'apple' are looking for the computer? Could it be that computer topics are more prominent than other topics?
Just for fun, search for 'apple' at search.msn.com and marvel at the diversity of their search.
Apple search? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple
... Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations. 1-800-MY-APPLE Find Job Opportunities
at Apple. Visit other Apple sites around the world: Choose... ...
Description: Apple's main homepage.
Category: Computers>Systems>Apple>Macintosh
www.apple.com/ - 18k - Jul 20, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages - Stock quotes: AAPL
Lame premise: the web == the real world (Score:4, Insightful)
Try searching for font info (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Try searching for font info (Score:4, Informative)
Font Arial -"Font=Arial" -"Face=Arial"
How hard was that? Refining a search too much trouble ? Gah, "apple" results in Apple Computer! Somebody sue! I can't possible be bothered to enter a second or third keyword, READ MY FREAKING MIND!
Bah, I'm in a grumpy karma burning "ask a librarian for 'apple' and see what they ask you back" mood I guess.
That's a load of bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
The same goes for the dvd player. Add 'review' to your search query.
And the same goes for the pdf thing. Just include 'book' in your search term.
I think the msn people didn't quite figure out how a sea
The author is a moron...Or a 2 year old (Score:2, Interesting)
Point2: Apple. Answer: Instead of typing "apple" which is a very common word and product and name, try typing what you actually want, "Apple Computer."
Point 3: If you're looking for a book. Try a library. That is where people put books. That is how people make money on books.
Now, given that your points are complete stupid, I feel as if your article was meant towards a
If only they'd paid attention in high school... (Score:2, Insightful)
If this Salon author were a student of mine (not that I'm a teacher) I'd have slapped an F on his research methods paper.
What foolishness
"Problems" with google? Not major. (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many commercial sites - True, and I wouldn't be surprised if google didn't allow an option soon to limit sales sites. It's feasible, and they often rise to this sort of challenge (like they did with the blog horde).
Synonym problems - This is certainly not something MSN will help with. This is also easy to get around my a little massaging of the search engine - you just think of a word that would come up in the stuff you want to see and not the other. For the retarded, perhaps Google could dynamically suggest categories after searching (kind of how they suggest misspellings).
No books for scholarly research - this is such a small use (though I am admittedly among them). Furthermore, it's not that great a problem if journals come up preferentially - if your research cites mostly books, that's a problem anyway, as it probably means your research is not current. But again, this is a problem for such a slight proportion of the population.
Bottom line is that google will fix any big problems - just think of how many things might have been on that list 3 years ago that they've already fixed. Put it this way - I have more faith in google to deliver a great search engine than I do MS any day.
flaw with the author (Score:5, Insightful)
also, when i need to find something on--damn i hate to say it--MSDN for work, i usually use google with the site:msdn.microsoft.com as the MS search engine is crap.
These are not "HOLES" (Score:3, Insightful)
"apple computers"
"apple records"
"apple trees"
If you want to do research on apples, then you better be doing more than typing 'apple' into google.
Depends on search scheme (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet their claim is weakened by the fact that if I enter "flower research," suddenly I see very, very little related to shopping, but instead to the research I'm seeking.
It all depends on the search scheme. If the claim that Google is so heavily weighted towards marketing and shopping were true, then "flower research" would have led me to buy flowers.
I would also note that "flowers" on MSN.com returns:
Not a flaw, but a feature (Score:5, Insightful)
Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer
In my mind this is not a flaw, but a feature. In fact I rely on this every day. Type in "Axis" and I go to the Apache site, not a page about WWII or math. Type in "Python" and I do no go to a page about snakes or comedy troupes.
Granted, the article does state that technophiles have skewed Google's results in my favor, but I am fully aware of this. If I did want to know about apples, for instance, I would use a search term of, say, "apple growing" (5th link down). If I want to know about the Axis powers in WWII, I would first enter "axis powers" (third link down).
It's not broken. Users must be aware of the Web's zeitgeist.
If you research... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, I have a lot of respect for Google (it's my IE home), but it's pretty obvious that it only can access certain types of information. I think the MSN folks were just looking to poke holes in their rival with that comment about it skewing research. If you are doing a serious research project, you go where researchers from time immemorial have gone--the library.
(Google!=Oracle) == Trinity (Score:5, Funny)
Ofcourse Google is not the Oracle. Anybody who's seen the Matrix Reloaded knows that the Oracle was actually an evil program in cahoots with the machines.
Google is not like that. Google is more like...um...Trinity: smart, beautiful, intelligent and always there for you when you need it.
It isn't that dire (Score:3, Informative)
For example, when I search for a specific model of DVD player, I may search for "dvd A7049-34 review" - I was looking for a review so I put it in my search. Even better, add -shop to the end of my search. Now pages with the word shop in them will get filtered out.
Want to find info on apple farms? search for 'apple -"apple computer" -macintosh' and you'll eliminate a lot of mac webpages from the search.
Sometimes, typing a question into google will get you where you want... "how does thing X work?" More often than not you'll find the answer on the first page, because people post to newsgroups, web forums, and the like with questions and you are (usually) not the first person to ask that question.
The key here is to remember that you can tell Google what you want to find AND what you DON'T want to find (just put a minus in front of the word.)
lousy examples (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that's a flaw it just makes good sense for their example, most of the people searching for flowers are looking for emergency flowers to send to their GF or mother. If someone wants to research flowers they should probably search for Botany [google.com]?
Googlehole No. 2: Skewed Synonyms. Search for "apple" on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer--and it's a page promoting a public TV show called Newton's Apple. After that it's all Mac-related links until Fiona Apple's home page.
Again, I think this more a result of what people tend to be looking for when searching for Apple, I would imagine that most people querying google using the single keyword "Apple" would be looking for the company. The average user wouldn't have a reason to search google for fruit. Using a one keyword query is not good enough if you want to criticize a search engine, search for Apple and Fruit [google.com] will get you everything you need to known about the non-computer apples. If you want to by fresh Apples perhaps you should search for Fruit Store [slashdot.org]?
So, when you're doing research online, Google is implicitly pushing you toward information stored in articles and away from information stored in books.
Hasn't the web been doing that for years? Is this somehow google's fault? If publishers want to have the full text of their books available on the web for free, I'm sure the folks at Google would be happy to spider them.
Advertising for MSN? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think MSN is wrong in listing those things as "shortfalls" of google. Many of those shortfalls are what many people think are good features of google. I like the fact that more pdfs show up in google, and I can view them directly without having to go to those websites.
When I search for something on google, what I expect to come up, comes up. If I expect shopping sites, they come up. If I expect game review sites, they come up. If I expect wacky news sites, they come up.
I'll never use MSN, mostly because of popups, they're microsoft, and also they try to sell their internet service almost as forcefully as AOL does. And they have the wrong idea of what people want from their search engines.
Google isn't perfect. It has drawbacks and it has built-in problems. But, it works. What more can you ask for from a search engine?
Also, I can never appreciate a company that uses multicolored butterflies as their logo, especially when said butterflies appear as men dressed in tights rollerskating around. I've had enough trauma in my life without being exposed to men in tights trying to sell me MSN and other Microsoft products. Ugh.
How about neither? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bogus Article (Score:5, Insightful)
I got this far in the article and couldn't take it anymore. The guy that wrote this article obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Obvious
/Obvious
Type in what you're looking for! Want info on growing apples? Search for - *gasp* 'growing apples'!!! Want apple computers? Search for 'apple computers'. If this doesn't get you what you want, refine your search.
No search engine is the end all /competion is good (Score:3, Interesting)
He found it with a different search engine. (teoma.com?/ about.com?). He uses more than one engine depending on what he's doing (He does use google too)
What I'm getting at is competetion is good. It forces companies to make better products because they know if they don't others are going to try too.
Other companies are working really hard at getting a better search engine. Don't expect google to be on top forever, because athough slashdot readers love google, they'll leave it quickly if something better comes along (remember altavista/hotbot/webcrawler etc.. )
In the end everyone wins.
This is FUD. (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that, as many people here have already pointed out, Microsoft is readying/improving its own search offering, I think it's pretty plain that this is just an attempt by Slate/MSN/Microsoft to smear Google, using journalism or op/ed to do so.
Google isn't biased, as the article tries to make the case, the _web_ is biased, toward the technical (and unfortunately, towards blogs.) So those, will, of course, show up first. People don't publish complete books online, but they publish papers and articles by the droves. So, of course you're going to be pointed to that stuff first.
And frankly, anyone who types in "apple" into a search engine should know that they're going to get MANY very BROAD results. You need to be specific in your search. The more specific you are, the better results you're going to get.
what's interesting to me ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... is how some people, even smart people, don't or can't get the hang of search engines.
You know, the ones on newsgroup and mailing lists who say "anyone know of a good BLAH?". Then someone whaps them with a cluestick (or rather, google link).
There just seem to be brain types or personality types that don't get it. Here's the rules I try to impart:
But there are still some, like the author of the article, on whom any of this is lost.
Shopping Results (Score:3, Interesting)
subtle effect on research? (Score:5, Interesting)
If one is doing "research" on how to buy a new car, or "research" for one's fifth grade home work project, I suspect that PDF files are probably just fine as a source and that comprehensive literature searches are not necessary (but might still be useful).
The article states "Google is implicitly pushing you toward information stored in articles and away from information stored in books." More relevantly and accurately (and obviously), Google is pushing you towards information that is stored online. If one uses Google for research, one should understand that it is not the only tool available. If one uses Google as the only tool, well...
I think this is a vaguely interesting point that might have a lasting impression on the way online content is indexed/stored/made searchable. However, the more relevant issue here is that individuals need to learn how to search (as many have already pointed out in comments), search tools must be understood in the context of available tools and a sense of the data to be found must be developed (it does not need to be known in advance).
I also assume that the Amazon text searching of books [slashdot.org] story might put another spin on this.
Sounds like my mom trying to search.. (Score:4, Informative)
Lets examine his points:
Googlehole No. 1: All Shopping, All the Time
Hrmm, lets see. I'm looking for a Home Theater Receiver today, so I type in: "Pioneer Receiver". and I get mostly links to places selling them. But lets say I want a manual for my receiver, so I type in "Pioneer Receiver manual", the results [google.com] are much different. Thats what keywords are for...moron.
Googlehole No. 2: Skewed Synonyms.
If I type in apple, OF COURSE i'm going to get results about apple computers. Just add the word fruit to your search, if thats what you're looking [google.com] for. Ask and ye shall receive, I dunno about you..but most of those links seems to be relating to fruit.
Googlehole No. 3: Book Learning
Ok, I won't blame this one on google, I think this is due to the internet as a whole. Why would I go to the library, when I can poke around on the internet for 20 mins...and get just as much research done. Give me a break.
These all may be obvious points, but I was bored...so I decided to point them out.
Funtionality vs. Skill (Score:3, Insightful)
The MSN article was ridiculously lame. If you want to find DVD reviews, search on "DVD +review" and you'll get pages of them, starting with the very first page. In other words, in order to effectively use Google, or any search engine, one has to know how to construct the query. Expecting a single word search to discriminate down to the level of detail that any given person wants is hopelessly naive. Besides, Google has never made any prestence about having a commercial slant.
MSN's apparent expectation that google ought to accomodate those with enough skill to get on-line, but not much more than that, is just more of their corporate bias leaking through.
Breaking News: Bad searches return back results (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently basic computer literacy isn't a requirement for doing technical reporting on MSN. The examples given are just silly.
They complain that a search for "flowers" mostly returns commercial sites, not information on gardening tips. What is Google supposed to do, read your mind to determine your real intention? "Flowers" might mean you want to buy some flowers, look at pictures of flowers, get information growing your own flowers, buy some flower seeds, or be looking for a company or person with the "Flowers" name. Useless. However, if you try the crazy idea of asking for what you want, amazingly you're much more likely to get the results you want. Interested in gardening tips? Don't search for "flowers", instead search for "gardening tips [google.com]". Oooh, look, lots of useful links. Interesting in flower gardening tips specifically? Unsurprisingly, "flower gardening tips [google.com]" returns a slightly different set of relevant links.
Searching for a product's model number doesn't return reviews? Again, if you want a review, maybe you should ask for a review. Sure enough, "apex ad1200 [google.com]" primarily returns places to buy the DVD player, but just adding review [google.com] to the search term returns useful results. (Yes, Dealtime does jump to the top of the list, but that page does have several reviews on it.)
Oh no, search for "apple" doesn't return any information on artist Fiona Apple for many pages. Maybe you should actually search for "fiona apple [google.com]"? Don't remember her first name? Try "apple female artist [google.com]" or apple female musician [google.com]" which return some good pointers (notably to her first name, which will return even better results.
"apple" doesn't get you information on the fruit? Well, step one is search refinement. Prior to Google people spent lots of time refining searches. Just because Google often does what you want doesn't mean you'll never need to refine your search. So, let's be a bit more specific. Let's try "apple fruit [google.com]" Viola, hits on the fruit. Want to learn about growing apples? How about "growing apples [google.com]" Wow, more good hits.
Google doesn't index sites with non-public archives (like the New York Times [nytimes.com] ? Well, duh. They also don't sneak into your house and index your tax returns. By requiring registration to access their archives, the New York Times [nytimes.com] has effectively declined to be indexed. Expecting Google to circumvent that decision is stupid.
On the subject of Google not magically indexing everything, we get to the extremely silly complaint that doing research using Google tends to steer people only to online sources, not books. Again, duh. Similarly, if you use your local library's card catalog (or more typically, online catalog), it will only return books and magazines, not web pages. The points to two things. First, if you're doing Real Research, limiting yourself to a single source (be it online or in a library) is just dumb. Second, the internet is rising in importance, and perhaps publishing books online is a good idea.
Google is doing so well that lots of people are interested in taking potshots at it. I'm all in favor of people challenging the status quo, but try to have some real complaints.
Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus everyone seemed to miss this bit of the article:
You can't really hold Google responsible for these blind spots. Each of them is just a reflection of the way the Web has been organized by the millions who have contributed to its structure. But the existence of Googleholes suggests an important caveat to the Google-as-oracle rhetoric: Google may be the closest thing going to a vision of the "group mind," but that mind is shaped by the interests and habits of the people who create hypertext links. A group mind decides that Apple Computer is more relevant than the apples that you eat, but that group doesn't speak for everybody.
Which is a fair enough point. Sometimes what I'm looking for is not what Google thinks I'm looking for and I have to tailor my searches somewhat.
But if MS included an option to ignore certain sites (such as shopping, blogs etc.etc) then I'd take a look.
Steven posted a follow on... (Score:5, Informative)
"I am getting flamed to high heaven in Slate's Fray for a piece of mine they just posted talking about some of the built-in limitations of the Google PageRank system. The general critique seems to be that I don't understand how to refine a search, which I guess I should have made clear in the piece itself. (I do, for the record. I also think Google is absolutely brilliant.) But as you can see if you follow the link, it's not a piece about how to use Google more effectively; it's a piece about ways that Google's system implicitly pushes us in certain directions, which makes it less like an authoritative reference source, and more like an op-ed page. (Nothing wrong with that, just something we should keep in mind.) Normally I quote from the articles themselves in this blog, but today I think I'll quote from a followup comment that I posted in the Fray..."
http://stevenberlinjohnson.com [stevenberlinjohnson.com]
You too can participate in the roast by finding his e-mail address on Google [216.239.51.104].
Has anyone searched for Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is not perfect (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not instead discuss algorithms that would give apple, the fruit, the same relevance in search results as it has in most people's lives? If a search engine appeared that added that knowledge to its result ranking, Google would not be on top any longer.
Missed the real lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's look at a more subtle aspect through:
Is this verification that Google is vulnerable to astroturfing? If you assume that half of all web pages with the term "apple" are talking about the computer company and the other half are referring to the fruit, then it seems like a search for the term "apple" should bring up about equal numbers of computer & fruit hits. The fact that most top hits are about the company instead of the fruit probably suggests that at least some of the "ballot stuffing" tricks that companies try to bring up their ranking are effective, even against Google's famed efforts to avoid being astroturfed.
This example is probably bogus -- the computer company seems to be more popular than the fruit, or at least there's more for internet users to say about it, so pagerank is probably doing it's job well here. But in other cases, where the commercial alternative isn't as famous as Apple Computer but it still ranks higher in Google searches than non-commercial alternatives, that probably says something about astroturfing.
That or it just reiterates that the web went commercial a long time ago. Take your pick...
Google is great, but not perfect (Score:4, Insightful)
I develop in Perl. If you've ever seen Perl code, (as I'm sure many here have,) you know {it=>"isn\'t"} @the=("most", "friendly"); of languages, syntactically. However, with Google, searching for information is a moot point. Try searching for "$|++" (Search Link [google.com]). For those who don't want to click on the link, I'll tell you what happens: Google does nothing. That's because it doesn't accept punctuation.
This was particularly annoying when I wanted to do research on URThere's (awful) PDA: the @migo. When I searched for "@migo", I got lots of spanish sites, but nothing relative. Google had internally stripped my "@" symbol.
Granted, I will continue to use Google, as it is the most incredible search engine available right now, but because of these flaws, searching is severely limited.
Why is this a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
MSN can KMA (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds me of creationists pointing out gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary biology and concluding that lack of perfection in science proves that they are right.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Alternative methods (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with his analysis? Where do I start? First let me say that most of his statements are true. They just have no real merit for me.
1) Reference basis. In any scientific analysis you need a baseline. For example, if you wanted to compare the fuel economy of two vehicles, it would be good if you established that the baseline should be something like gasoline powered passenger cars. If you compared the gas consumption of a horse drawn carriage to a Ferrari F40, that's not valid. In this case, no reference baseline was established. He was comparing Google to nothing. What if all his gripes about Google were inherent to all search engines?
To make his points, he should at least have some sort of meaningful comparison between browsers: Well, Altavista doesn't do this but Google does . . . I think he omitted this part because the MSN search engine shows many of characteristics he complains about.
2) Testing methodology. When you test anything, each test has to be narrowly designed to test as few factors as possible, and the desired result has to be achievable. In the fuel economy example, it would be silly to complain how poor fuel economy is in a Ford Explorer if you used uranium as the fuel source.
It's ironic that the subtitle is Google may be our new god, but it's not omnipotent. He was testing the terms 'apple' and 'flowers', yet he was actually looking for 'growing apples' and 'gardening flowers'. But by searching on vague terms, he assured the test would fail. Additionally without a reference (see #1), we don't if this behavior is normal to search engines or just Google.
3) Objectivity. I don't need to elaborate on this.
Re:Doesn't work in Firebird (Score:3, Informative)