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
Maybe try searching with "flower gardening" next time.
word.
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$)
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!
The article (at Slate which is part of MSN but acts independently of Microsoft) complains of Google searches skewing toward shopping. Their example if how a query on "apple" gives pages of links to Apple Computer and the 50th entry is the first dealing with actual apples. I don't know about you, but if I were looking for information on apples I would type "apples" into the search field and not "apple." If fact if I do type "apples" into the Google search field in my Safari browser the first result is this:
"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.
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.
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.