Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Looking for Answers in the Age of Search

Posted by timothy on from the wrong-answers-are-the-best-kind dept.

prostoalex writes "James Fallows, in a New York Times article, notices that search engines are getting pretty good at providing information for simple keyword-based queries. However, when it comes to the actual information, such as finding the necessary data and statistics, they're not doing a great job. The article talks about the NSA- and CIA-sponsored Aquaint project that aims to deliver answers to questions that might be expressed with a variety of keywords, and need to be 'understood' by the search engine before providing the answer."

5 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. What I'd like to see.... by Chowser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing missed in so many search engines now is finding information on a particular company quickly and efficiently. Often when I type a particular company into google or another search, I get a bunch of other hits before the actual company itself. Now, bigger companies come as the first hit often (i.e., apple, dell, canon, etc.) Try finding for that lesser-known company though and you'll encounter a lot of crap first. The company listing should always come first.

    --
    sig here
  2. Looking for Answers... by rah1420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...like the Semantic Web?

    No, I don't know why it's being relaunched. My guess is that it's probably one of the answers that we are looking for in the age of search that didn't quite cut it. But isn't that what all these different meta-searches are talking about? The ability to get semantic meaning imbued into the web?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  3. I agree by nxtr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just try to google a website for these guys!

  4. Google works pretty well by suitepotato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you say Dogpile?

    Google is the number one search agent for me as more often than not with a short list of carefully chosen starting terms, and a little refinement from sleuthing, I can find what I need pretty quickly.

    Do the search engines have to be so smart they find what we meant to find or even what we think we meant to find as opposed to what we literally asked for? They're tools, like library cards, not servants there to do our work for us and stop us from thinking about the search process. Are we complaining because this all isn't as brainless as AOL?

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  5. Because they are tools only by SkiifGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that there will always be a need for knowledge specialists (professional researchers), whose job it is to develop useful results from requests for information, using whatever tools are at hand.

    Tools like Google and MSN Search are not the only thing you need to find information. There are still places for other information, and 'because Google said so' is not a valid reason for accepting information as relevant, or factual.

    Although these tools will continue to improve, the application of wisdom will still require human input to make the results useful.

    --
    InfoSec that matters, when it counts.