Hi!
I found this to be interesting.
It's about google..

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085668/

Also read this on linux -
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084727/


Regards
Amar

Hmm... I've never had that problem with google. Maybe the person that wrote the article doesnt know how to exclude words from their search.

Suppose if I wanted to find information on apples (the fruit) I'd type the following in my search: "Apples" +fruit -computer -mac...

This is one reason why I don't like reading most of the articles on MSN.

Sounds like a bad case of not knowing how to use a tool.

Consider a person who does not know computers much.
We really can't expect them to know all about "how to use search engines"...

Anyway, those are not my views. :)

Regards
Amar

Agreed but are you gonna write an article about it without learning at least the basics of including and excluding and requiring certain words & phrases?

Yes. I agree there Gary.
My point was not to totally agree with what the author said. However, one point does come up google results are now not as good as it used to be earlier. It may be going the lycos , altavista way. But too early to say.

Personally, google is the site I have been using for a real long time and I still like it.

Have a nice day :)

Regards
Amar

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. After that it's all Mac-related links until Fiona Apple's home page. You have to sift through 50 results before you reach a link that deals with apples that grow on trees: the home page for the Washington State Apple Growers Association.

search: washington apples
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=washington+apples&spell=1

search: fiona apple
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=fiona+apple

search: apple computers
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=apple+computers

All results showed the page I'd be looking for listed as the first result.

The writers problem there is not providing decent information for Google to work with. One extra word and he gets all he needs. A poor article, and that's being kind :)

Most of the problems the author describes in the Google article are basically from his/her inability to properly use search keywords. :rolleyes:

Getting away from the google article, which points have already been made in that the author was a dolt, I must say I was actually somewhat impressed with the second article regarding max/linux. It was a pretty fair article without most of the MS spin that I'm used to seeing. It actually gave Linux and Mac some nice comments.

You have to sift through 50 results before you reach a link that deals with apples that grow on trees: This is probably the stupidest thing in an article full of them. Look, just like the author did himself in that sentence, anyone looking for information on "apples that grow on trees" would, even if they were just using one word instead of a more precise phrase, use apples, not apple. Do that, and the first two sites returned -- and most of the top ten -- are about the fruit
Google is implicitly pushing you toward information stored in articles and away from information stored in books. There's a shocker: Google indexes stuff stored on the web, but not stuff printed on paper and stored in a library!We're wrong to think of Google as a pure reference source. Uh... OK.

Does anyone think of Google as a "pure reference source"? Hmm... all this time I was thinking of it as a way to locate possible reference sources.

Ah well, the real weakness of search engines will be illustrated in a few weeks: this drivel itself will be indexed, and someone looking for worthwhile and considered opinions will likely stumble across it and waste their time reading it.

As a public service, I may organize a google bombing to get it ranked for "google-related humor," since that's probably the best way to look at it. :)

Originally posted by nacs
Most of the problems the author describes in the Google article are basically from his/her inability to properly use search keywords. :rolleyes: Exactly!