Putting Google to the Test

Big Nothing writes "Google has built its reputation on being the fastest and most accurate way to find information. But is the internet really the quickest way to access facts - and get them right? The Guardian puts Google to the test against more old-fashioned methods."

Comments

Re:Time to get to the Library?

[mopslik]

...and even then, some of their numbers are questionable themselves:

Question 1: List the titles of all the books written by Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror - Library Stephen Moss, 20sec (1st)

So you're saying that once I'm at the library, it takes me 20 seconds to look up the call number/location of Who's Who, turn to the appropriate page, and list out all of the man's books? Right. More than likely, this is an example of "you are in the library, with the book in hand, opened directly to the page you want."

Re:I wonder...

[Spansh]

Had you even bothered to read the article (Duh, this is slashdot, what am I thinking).

You'd notice this was the whole test.

We asked various "pub quiz" type questions and then comapres the speed of response of various methods of finding the answers, such as telephone, library and of course google.

Then again I wouldn't have needed to write this post if you'd bothered to read the article.

Re:Google Answers

[Peter Cooper]

I'm a Google Researcher. Generally most Researchers use the Internet or their own knowledge as their primary resource when answering questions. This is because most questions have a low fee and can be given answers which are merely pointers to further resources. Researchers are also encouraged to give the methods they used in their answer, to help the person who asked the question.

However, there have been quite a number of extraordinary cases where people have been so interested in answering the question that they've made phone calls, chased people, and dug out answers to incredibly complex questions. In one case, a Researcher managed to track down someone's obscure pre-20th C. German heritage.

Do remember that Google Answers is primarily for people who don't have excellent research skills of their own. While easy to use, finding certain things with Google (and other engines) requires skill, time, intelligence, and abstract thinking faculties that many people lack. Also bear in mind that most Google Researchers don't do it for the money. You will inevitably get a far higher quality (and longer) answer than you could possibly expect for the money. This is why tips are given to Researchers so often on the system.

Re:Is google really that accurate?

[JimDabell]

I'd have to say that google deliberately alters certain rankings.

They have done in the past for legal reasons. They do not do so for editorial reasons. For instance:

Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results.

(From google.com/explanation).

By almost any measure of page rank google would have to be listed first, but it is not. This means that google deliberately lowered their rankings.

No, that is just one possibility. A far likelier reason would be that you don't know the Google ranking algorithm and so haven't taken into account important details.

It still is faster... if you know how to use it.

[Black Perl]

Obviously, the researcher was not an experienced googler. I saw one question that they claim took 6 minutes 27 seconds:

Question 3: Who is the vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on back care?

A google search for:

"vice chairman" all-party parliamentary group "back care"
resulted in *exactly one* hit, a pdf document listing all parliamentary groups. A click on View As HTML, a find on "back care" and Voila, the answer took about 30 seconds to get.

An experienced googler can find things faster than they did. This particular case was just a matter of knowing the difference between words and phrases and putting quotes in the right place. But there are many other tricks (such as negation and using 'site:') that their google searches could have benefited from.

the library has PEOPLE

[dangermouse]

What I find disconcerting is that so many people don't even realize that the library is not just a big stack of books, it's a service. Libraries have trained staff-- many of them degreed in library & information science-- who spend all day finding information for people.

Who cares if you don't know where to look for a piece of information? The reference librarian does. In larger libraries, there are usually librarians who specialize in particular fields of research. My university's library, for instance, has at least one research librarian assigned to each college or school within the university-- all degreed, and many dual-degreed in library science and their respective specialty fields. And they don't care in the least who is asking them for help-- it's not like the CS librarian will only talk to CS students.

Google is convenient, and fast for most searches, but there's a lot of information that just isn't available to it. Libraries buy access to that information, both in print and in databases, and they hire people to help you find the stuff you need.

The most important library skill, and the one that is most often overlooked, is recognizing the reference desk and asking for help.