8 replies to this topic

[ajeshnair]

Hi!!!

Check out this article in CNN about the search software Grocker2, which claims it is future of search.

Ajesh Nair

[Think Web]

I disagree that it's the future of search.

Eye candy does not equate to satisfied users.

It takes too many steps to find the results that you're looking for and it's too easy to get lost in the bubbles of information.

[Scottie]

I agree with Craig- not intuitive.

[SearchRank]

I too agree with Craig. Search has to be easy. text is easy and fast. Trying to sort your way through graphical eye candy - note for me!

[Grumpus]

Grokker's not really search at all. It's just a tool that orgainizes a search you made. For some applications, I can see that it might improve efficiency, but no more so than learning how to search properly in the first place.

The library of congress version of it will likely take off because of the fact that they aren't into "search" but rather "archival". It'll drastically improve the searchability of that site.

It won't take off for Google (though I'd imagine that some folks will give it a test drive) for the simple fact that Google's designed for searching in the first place. If I pick a better term, then I can accomplish the same thing. Thus, the product is only useful for lazy people.

---

I read that article earlier this week and it really annoyed me. If you read the headline and the beginning of the article it sounds like this is something that is going to be better than Google and be competition for it.

The reality of the article is that the plug-in will merely put colored outlines around your Google search results and those colors will correspond to a specifically themed subset of your search.

If Grokker takes off, it doesn't hurt Google in the least - it, in fact, makes Google the only search engine you can use - thus enhancing Google's power in the market.

And even the other products discussed rely on a search being performed elsewhere.

The headline of this article is as inaccurate and absurd as saying, "The 'Baby on Board Sign' is going to replace the automobile."

G.

[Ron Carnell]

Thus, the product is only useful for lazy people.

Where can I buy stock?

[Steve Sardell]

Grokker's not really search at all. It's just a tool that orgainizes a search you made. For some applications, I can see that it might improve efficiency, but no more so than learning how to search properly in the first place...

Agree G,it is not a search engine nor is mooper one. IMHO, You bring in a salient point--learning to search correctly. The general public appears to not know. This raises the the idea whose function is it to educate them on the proper search methods. Methinks it is going to be a long process. At least now in our secondary school system middle schoolers are learning varying search methods, hopefully, they go home and show Mom and Dad

[Grumpus]

I've often though about (usually right before some other important paying project comes up) starting a site/forum for How To Use The Web in general. There are lots of web sites - like this one - that tell us ways to reach out toward the users, but there is absolutely nothing out there teaching the users to reach back toward us. I'm not talking about a site that explains the basics like "What is a URL?" (though I suppose that would get covered) but everything from "This is a URL field in your browser and this is the search box that AOL gives you. YOu can save yourself a step by plugging the URL directly into your URL bar rather than putting it into the search box first and then clicking on the result." to "Advanced search theories" to "How to avoid Spam - without downloading one of those Scumware Spam blocker programs".

I don't know that it'd go over, but it's definitely an untapped market. But then when I think about the work involved in getting it all together and started, I recoil in fear.

I also think it's important for us, as web developers/designers/whatever, to raise awareness of how things work on the internet. If more people knew how to actually do an effective search, then SEO would be a lot easier. As it stands now, I have to optimize my page so that it ranks well for the poorly chosen search terms people are using.

G.

[Ron Carnell]

I could probably send you a fair amount of only slightly outdated material, Grumpus?

Some of you already know, after I retired, I started teaching part-time. The only thing I taught the first two years were database and programming classes or seminars, but after my own sites became well known locally, frequent requests for Internet related classes starting surfacing. One of the first that I taught was a four-hour night class titled "How to Search on the Internet."

It was (and still is) the largest class I ever tried, with over thirty attendees. There was a large handful of college students, but most of the class was comprised of faculty (and, often, their spouses). I showed them a lot of special- and general-interest directories (explaining, of course, the difference between those and a search engine), as well as most of the metas and more popular search engines (it's hard to remember for sure, but I don't think Google was one of them). I built a small web site for them, with articles on searching, references, and lots of links. The last hour of the class was spent at Alta Vista, learning how to do some really serious Boolean searches.

I have NEVER agreed to teach that class again! Put a search box in front of otherwise intelligent and well educated people, and they all turn into blithering idiots. In retrospect, I came to the conclusion that teaching people to search is too much akin to teaching them how to think. And that ain't gonna happen in four hours.

Fast forward. Two years ago, I spent two weeks teaching a summer camp for GearUP kids, mostly seventh and eight graders. One segment of my "Everything Internet" class centered on plagiarism, with an emphasis on showing them how easy it is for a teacher to discover when someone is cheating. Yep, that took us back to the search engines again, with Google this time playing a front-and-center role.

It wasn't any better! One kid out of ten had some solid experience on the 'Net (and was usually pretty cocky about it), and the other nine just turned into blithering idiots when faced with the daunting challenge of "thinking" about good ways to search. One particularly timid youngster had almost insurmountable problems with a vanity search, of all things. How hard is it to type your name into a search box? You might be surprised.

In at least one respect, I think searching and SEO share a common truth. Most people can do either as long as they're given recipes to follow. Ask them to think for themselves, however, and you'll find yourself staring into a very deep, very dark abyss.

Color me cynical, but I've decided it's a lot easier to teach people to program in C+ or .NET than to actually think.