Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Labs Offers Table-Based Search Results

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-want-chair-based-results dept.

blackbearnh writes "Google just released Google Squared into the Google Labs playground. Google Squared lets you get results back in row and column format, and then add more columns to the result set. There's a brief tour of the features over on O'Reilly Radar, where the judgement is that there's lots of rough edges, but a huge amount of potential, especially for quick and dirty table generation for reports."

27 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Bible Books by bwalling · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=bible+books Who knew Esther was a babe?

    1. Re:Bible Books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=bible+books Who knew Esther was a babe?

      Uh, the thing that stuck out at me from that list was that the book of Revelations is apparently published by Ubisoft and is preceded by the book of Devastation. How did it determine that? Why, Wikipedia's list of Xbox games, of course! I don't recall that book of the Bible from the Catholic Masses I attended as a child but it sounds pretty bitching.

      If someone made games out of the books of the Bible, I'd definitely hit up Revelations (and not that Left Behind crap) but I'd assume books like Psalms and Job would be a grind :/

    2. Re:Bible Books by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, she was a concubine of Xerxes (of 300 fame) and later his wife chosen because of her extraordinary beauty (and intelligence, but whatever).

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    3. Re:Bible Books by treeves · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Anyone who read the book. That's who.

      Esther 2:7

      Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This girl, who was also known as Esther, was lovely in form and features, and Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

      Esther 2:17

      Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:Bible Books by Jurily · · Score: 2, Funny

      Xerxes (of 300 fame)

      I think Herodotos has prior art on that.

  2. How it works by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This actually seems to be a pretty simple concept. It takes the keywords on the y axis (which is the initial search), and then generates popular keywords for the x axis, and then does searches for the combinations to fill in the boxes. What goes in the box is the least amount of the target page that more-or-less fulfills the keyword search. So as near as I can tell, there's no "semantic" analysis here, it's basically a bunch of mini web searches in a grid format. It's an interesting concept, but I don't see it as any sort of world changing function, like the hype seemed to imply.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:How it works by pete-wilko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you tried different queries? I think the selection of the column names is actually a very difficult task and it seems to do a decent job of extracting from different pages relevant pieces of information for each column.

      If the column 'types' were known a priori then this wouldn't be that neat, however if its classifying on the fly what columns are to be used then that's pretty cool. Looks like a really nice large scale application of 'wrapper induction'.

      How the columns are determined is the impressive and novel bit tbh.

    2. Re:How it works by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you do a regular google search for "normal distribution", you can see the pages that come up. That it can find those keywords is not all that surprising.

      Okay, now this is interesting. Compare a regular google search of "black cat" to the Google squared one. The Google squared one pulled a whole slew of Manga results, which is not the dominant search in regular Google. That tells me that Google pulls the first X pages and tries to find pages with some sort of commonality. "Black cat" fireworks was a unique page, so that one got tossed, because there was no commonality. The Manga pages was the first one with a lot of pages on the same general topic.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  3. E=MC^2 by Celeste+R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It doesn't take an Einstein to find out that this is good for researching things. It certainly beats going through all of the connecting websites to get to the juicy details.

    --
    There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:E=MC^2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Too bad about its accuracy though.

      Yup. I tested it out with a search on operating systems, and there are a number of hilarious misses within the results.

      For Windows, it's apparently under a free license, and it's date of birth looks like Google scraped the drop boxes for a sign-up form rather than getting the actual creation date of Windows.

      For Linux, it was a bit off course and grabbed a description of Ubuntu, instead. It lists the current version as 2.1 which doesn't make sense for either Ubuntu (9.04) or the Linux kernel (2.6.29.4 or 2.6.30-rc8). I suspect it grabbed the version of a random Linux app.

      Darwin resulted in the biggest miss, as one might suspect. It grabbed the biography and birthday of Charles Darwin.

    2. Re:E=MC^2 by afxgrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They have a long way to go then as it seems to provide some awfully terrible results. Like check this one out for Roller coasters.

      Apparently there's a roller coaster named GhostRider, it has a length of 4,533 ft, height of 118 ft, and it travels past the speed of sound at 1038 mph!!

      I think I'll just stick to the basic Google search using quotes, +'s, -'s, AND's and OR's.

  4. First thoughts by unfasten · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first thoughts after trying a few of the example searches on the main page are that it seems to be aimed a bit at Wolfram Alpha. It isn't as broad as Wolfram Alpha but it is focused on giving back data sets instead of a list of search results.

  5. Already better that Alpha by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In fifteen seconds of playing around with it, I already feel like I'm able to get better data and have better control than I do with Wolfram Alpha.

    1. Re:Already better that Alpha by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The major downside being that this can only do the equivalent of "vs" searches in Wolfram Alpha; i.e. it can't calculate with the information at all. That and the sources often being dubios at best.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Already better that Alpha by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it is a competitor to Alpha. I don't know that I'd say it's better, though.

      Alpha operates only on "curated" data, which means that there's a lot more that can be done with the data, since Alpha understands its structure much better. Also, Alpha can do math on it, create graphs, etc.. But with Alpha, you can only use the data that's been made available.

      Google squared can't do as much with the data, but it can use the whole web, so it's data source is much richer.

      Of course, alpha can add data, and Google can add knowledge of relationships and the ability to do calculations and generate graphs. Their capabilities may converge over time. In which case Google will win.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Already better that Alpha by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I typed in geniuses and it completely failed to mention the wisest human alive, Steven Wolfram. So I think it's pretty darned incomplete, especially compared to such an unprecedented knowledge-processing breakthrough as Wolfram Alpha.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    4. Re:Already better that Alpha by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No data analysis! GS and WA are completely different beasts.

      In Google Squared:

      Try getting a square with the five largest countries by area. (In Wolfram|Alpha search for five largest countries by area)

      Try to mathematically manipulate results like, say, dividing power usage of the united states by its population. (In Wolfram|Alpha search for united states electric production / population

      Try to get GS to do anything like growth charts, ISS location calculations, morse code translation, puzzle solving, food calorie counting, differential equations.

      Also the data is much less complete. Check out Google Squared's results for the escape velocities of the moons of Mars. Now check Wolfram|Alpha's. Yeah, there's a reason that WA is citable as a primary source.

  6. Wolfram Alpha by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wolfram Alpha may not be a direct competitor for Google, yet, this is their response.
    Yes, I know, Wolfram takes info from reduced and trusted sources while Google does not. But the semantic database that they are building have the same structure.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  7. Just goofing around by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yahoo URL: "No value found"
    http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=search+engines

    Random fun:
    http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=large+noses
    http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=lolcat+pictures

    Reply if you find other amusing queries!

  8. Re:Useful for brainstorming by Celeste+R · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unfortunately, it's not quite there for random brainstorming. It's geared toward easy fact generation. The "human" factor is almost completely removed, image linking to entries in the table is inaccurate at best (search "Planets" and you'll find Pluto the dog), and so on.

    I can see that this is a useful tool for people like say... engineers, who need to know a material's composition and properties (facts, again), but this tool is limited by the supporting databases.

    Take, for example, the fact that I can search for a consumer product, but I can't get much more than generic information.

    Links are difficult to follow, it takes more effort than needed to go somewhere. Brainstorming is easier with the vanilla Google.

    Yes, this is a useful tool, but it doesn't compare very well to Wolfram Alpha; this is a spreadsheet data generation tool, where Alpha is an analysis tool.

    --
    There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
  9. Mixed results by gaspyy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The default result sets are more than useless - are laughable.
    I searched for europe demographics and it automatically created a set of rows that was made of Gibraltar, Isle of Man and Faroe Islands; for columns it created Image, Description, Language, Capital and Currency. The same search on Wolfram Alpha produced clear, concise results.

    Eventually, I could get good results on Squared too by starting with an empty square and adding rows and columns myself. Took about 10 minutes; I could have made a simple search to get the same results.

    I realize Google-bashing is dangerous around here, but they definitely have to improve Squared if they want it to be useful.

  10. Spider Man = Monkey by Celeste+R · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=monkeys

    I never knew!

    --
    There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
  11. Wow. Pretty cool. by sootman · · Score: 5, Informative

    But when I asked for http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=supermodels I couldn't help but notice it was missing a few key columns.

    HOLY CRAP! This post started out as a joke but then I then typed 'measurements' into the 'Add columns' box and it effing worked! Then click in the 'Add items' in the lower left, add the 5 suggestions, do that a few more times, and BAM, you've got a good amount of data. Holy crap, this is neat. There goes the rest of my day. I could see using this for actual work, like bridge lengths and building heights and such.

    And it's FUN! Data appears instantly, as if by magic, complete with pictures. I've never said this in my 10+ years on Slashdot, but everyone, GO RTFA! Actually, skip TFA, just go visit the site!

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  12. Not usable at all... by Arrawa · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've tried several searches and found that all searches are completely false, misleading or screwed up.

    Example 1: Dutch provinces. Wolfram accurately lists 12 and has the right names. Google lists dozens results, including Belgium rivers, shows the picture of a soccer player (with the same name as a

    Example 2: Dutch prime ministers. Wolfram shows the current one correctly and some older ones. All the info Wolfram shows is correct. Google lists many. Mostly the names are correct, but there is a picture and description of a car salesman with the same name, among others.

    Example 3: Countries in the EU. Wolfram shows 27 correct names. Google shows lots and lots of names. On the first pages it is ok, but on page threee, Sports is listed as an country (with the capital listed as $9500 ??) as well as Switzerland (not a EU-member) and English.

    So the tables are completely useless, it also sources Wikipedia almost all the time.

    Ergo: do not use it. Not yet in any case.

    1. Re:Not usable at all... by Virak · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously that's because you're searching for the wrong things. It simply can't be bothered to gather good information for such trivial matters. If you search for something worthwhile, the superiority of Google Squared quickly becomes apparent.

      Search for "list of pokemon" on Wolfram Alpha, and you get this pathetic sight. On the other hand, if you put the same query into Google Squared, add a couple of suggested columns, and maybe a Pokemon or two you want specific information on, and it gives you something that's actually useful .

  13. Ordering algorithm for rows? by Odonian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how they are ordering their table results. If I put in "star trek characters" for instance, I do indeed get a first set of ten that are all from ST.
    #1 is Spock (the Zachary Quinto version, but OK good)
    Kirk however is #6 after Riker, Troi, Picard, and Neelix.
    Neelix? c'mon google, that's a fail.

  14. Re:It May Source Wikipedia... by Virak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's Google Squared, not plain Google. If you search for something the results of which cannot be reasonably be put into a table of things and facts about them, you're not likely to get good results. A lot of people don't seem to be catching onto this. For example, in TFA, the guy searches for "atomic weights of elements", gets results which are half elements and half things like "Melting point", which have nonsense columns that are empty in most cases, and then has to add an "atomic weight" column anyway (he didn't explicitly state this, but the column in his picture is all lowercase, and the ones Google adds aren't like that). The right way to use it is to search for just "elements" and then add an "atomic weight" column to that. Doing it this way gets only actual elements, and default columns that make sense ("Boiling Point", "Melting Point", and "Crystal System" for me) and have information for every row.