Slashdot Mirror
Digging Holes in Google
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."
Not that MSN doesn't have a vested interest in some other search engine or anything.
Aren't microsoft on the verge of releasing their googleslaying search engine (or perhaps just search marketing) on the world.
How nice on an impartial journalistic source to pick holes in google which are almost certainly specific areas which microsoft has chosen to optimise.
We tend to forget that:
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.
.sig
I won't say it. It's too obvious...
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
"look for apple and you have to troll through three pages of ... before you find apple computer ..."
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Maybe try searching with "flower gardening" next time.
word.
Mod me down if you must but this article is crap. Sure Google is going to give you several pages of links to Apple Computer when you search for 'apple' - that's the way the system is supposed to work. However, if you do a multi-word search for something specific - like 'kixtart audit software', you're going to start seeing success. A search for 'apple trees' finds the top four links pointing to great sites that each link to more sites on apples. Same thing for 'tulips' - 'planting tulips' brings up several relevant links within the top 10. Moral of the story is the same as it is everywhere - GIGO.
Remember when the only search engines were archie and Altavista (the old altavista.digital.com, not the "new" one.) Well I certainly do. Google was a quantum-leap improvement over any of them; spidering had been tried with other search engines, but Google made it work. While it certainly has gotten LOTS more commercialized since I first used it, it's still better than anything else out there. I just hope they can stay off of the slippery slope to being clogged with ads.
Unfortunately, computers can't read the minds of dumb people yet....so the rest of the world will need to settle with flowers -shop so that most pages they find are not shops... Searching for something as generic as 'flowers' is the same as searching for 'car'. We typically don't walk into a library anymore and know there is no place to buy flowers there. We know that we're in a world where the Internet is a portal to a) buying and b) information. (Might I add that I think most people buy flowers more often than they grow them?)
--<Mike>--
i think all of these "google-holes" are actually just the result of poor searching techniques on the part of the author.
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.
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
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.
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.
Google does have a tendency to skew results towards shopping, though. Just because Microsoft says it's so doesn't mean that it's untrue. A lot of the time when I'm trying to find out information about something, I find zillions of links to where I can buy it, but very little actual information about the thing in question. It's really annoying.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
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.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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" you might get mostly shopping links (although as a previous poster pointed out, you get this potentially helpful link from Asus as number two on your list), however if you search on "Asus A7N8X-X specs", "Asus A7N8X-X review", or similar, you might get information closer to what you are looking for.
It's not meant to be a tool to "give you what you want", as that would require a psychic.
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"
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Google does have a tendency to skew results towards shopping, though.
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 about offering book search. Rule 3, when there's a real market hole, look for the opportunity for profit.
After having read both the article, and the majority of high-ranking comments here, I must say article is more objective than the majority of comments. Google is not perfect and the article points out some shortcomings. Of course, they are a logical result given how google works, but it can still be argued that some results are less than optimal. Of course, by changing the query you can get better results, but it is also possible that a different page rank algorithm can give better results.
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.