Slashdot Mirror
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."
The library may have presented quick results for some things, but they didn't take into account the 30mins it takes me to drive to the library to find the answer, turn around and come home... And most of the friends I would phone to find these things out aren't Journalists or politicians!!
For example, on Question 3, "Who is the vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on back care?", which took the Googler 6 min, 27 sec, all I did was put "vice chairman" "all-party parliamentary group" "back care" into Google, and got one PDF (well, two, but they were the same).
Instead of loading the PDF (or being confused), I viewed it as HTML, searched for "back care", and had the name of the Vice Chairman (labelled as V.Ch.), Janet Dean, MP. 20 seconds.
Did they include drive time to the library? OK, maybe that's not the point of the article. But if it takes a few minutes to add some modifying keywords to the google search, fine with me. I'm not jogging down to the library to settle a pub bet.
Yes, it is cheating. But does he count how long it takes to turn his computer on and dailup for each question as well? I'm assuming that he had his computer turned on and web browser up on a lan. It could have taken him 30-40 seconds on dialup.
Remember this is just a benchmarking review. When have benchmarks ever told the truth?