Putting Google to the Test 441
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."
Yeah but it was fast enough..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah but it was fast enough..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Who was the first person to say the word "motherfucker" on national (US) TV?
Even knowing the answer, I was unable to find it on Google. (Maybe your Google skills are better than mine - give it a try
I know if I was making a trivia contest, I'd made sure that the results were difficult to find, or non-existant on google.
Re:Yeah but it was fast enough..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the panel were always obscenely up on standard trivia, we had to ask very cunning questions or we'd never win anything. For a while, the studio had no internet connection, so the last three points were almost a lock. Google for some obscure fact, like the number of canals in Antananarivo, and you get the point.
When they finally got a PC, it became tougher. Anything that could be googled for in the time it took to take a call would be caught. So, we started working broken into smaller teams. One team on a PC on google. The other team as runners in the university library. Walkie-talkies connected the two who then passed the answers and new questions along to a dialer who would try and get a position in the phone queue.
Yeah, I know. Crazy set up for a trivia game, eh? But it was worth it. Besides being a very fun way to spend a nerdy evening, the prizes were pretty cool, and the players a fairly unusual breakdown of college goths, high school skatepunks, idie rock losers and retired people with nothing better to do.
Free BEER using Google! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ricochet was around $70 amonth, but at 20-60 bucks a week it more than paid for itself. Best thing, there were no rules that said you couldn't access the internet. People were amazed at my trivia knowledge.
Re:Free BEER using Google! (Score:3, Insightful)
Admit it, you acted like a child. Grow up.
Re:Free BEER using Google! (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet, people sneak their cell phones all the time. They walk outside, hide in the bushes, use text messages, etc.
My team didn't care, because usually the cheaters didn't do that much better than we did. All your really smart friends come with you to trivia anyway
It still is faster... if you know how to use it. (Score:5, Informative)
Question 3: Who is the vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on back care?
A google search for:
"vice chairman" all-party parliamentary group "back care"
resulted in *exactly one* hit, a pdf document listing all parliamentary groups. A click on View As HTML, a find on "back care" and Voila, the answer took about 30 seconds to get.
An experienced googler can find things faster than they did. This particular case was just a matter of knowing the difference between words and phrases and putting quotes in the right place. But there are many other tricks (such as negation and using 'site:') that their google searches could have benefited from.
Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Funny)
I actually had the same concern.
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Informative)
...and even then, some of their numbers are questionable themselves:
Question 1: List the titles of all the books written by Piers Morgan, editor of the Daily Mirror - Library Stephen Moss, 20sec (1st)
So you're saying that once I'm at the library, it takes me 20 seconds to look up the call number/location of Who's Who, turn to the appropriate page, and list out all of the man's books? Right. More than likely, this is an example of "you are in the library, with the book in hand, opened directly to the page you want."
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Funny)
There are exits to the north and west. There is a small cardboard box here.
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:3, Funny)
"I can't find any cardboard box here"
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Funny)
you can't TAKE the BOX
get box
you can't do that right now
pick up the goddamn box
you take the box
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the library at the firm where I work, I know exactly where Who's Who is. East wall, middle set of shelves, on the second shelf from the top. Can't miss it.
This is where the "Google vs. library book" analogy isn't quite accurate. Google doesn't contain any info itself -- Google is like the (card/electronic) catalogue system. It points to sites that contain the information. Who's Who, on the other hand, is a specific book with information. Granted it's pretty generalized, but still...
By knowing exa
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking it up in a card catalog (electronic or not)
Finding the book/periodical on the shelf
Accounting for missing resources (like a real life 404!)
Yeah, I'm a Google fan. Sometimes the library is better - but not for factoid lookups or finding out what the Royal Wessex couple did on Tuesday.
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
Books in the library tend to be checked and reviewed for accuracy of thier content. Websites generally are not. Even then, books might be wrong, so it is still up to the person doing the research to determine if the information presented is good or not.
Also, it seems the author's googling skills are somewhat lacking. It took me less than a
Re:Time to get to the Library? (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is your library.
Books in the library tend to be checked and reviewed for accuracy of thier content. Websites generally are not.
Many websites are. And many materials at the library aren't. Either way, you have to figure out who can be trusted yourself.
Homeless Guy Living behind the Library (Score:3, Insightful)
For people who have computers and access at home, the internet has many sources. The web is not the whole internet, nor is google the whole web.
Not versus, with (Score:5, Insightful)
Kathryn Hepburn in "Desk Set" (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this the whole premise behind the old movie, "Desk Set," where a research librarian's job is endangered by the newfangled Computer?
Re:Not versus, with (Score:5, Interesting)
I first had access to the internet back in '96 when I was a sophomore in High School. I've written TONS of research papers since then, even more so in college. Using the internet to look up information not only returns better (and more) information than the library would have, but it's faster. For example, you could look up ATP in an encyclopedia, but if you saw "nucleotide" and didn't know what that was.. guess what? Flip to Nucleotide.. look it up.. etc etc. as opposed to clicking a single link provided on MOST pages that explain ATP. Faster, more efficient data retreival.
Library resources take up WAY too much time, and they aren't always guaranteed to have what you're looking for. It's a flat out waste of time. I'm not saying "burn all the books", but there is absolutely NO point in using the library for research as opposed to the internet.
For example, I had to write a 10 page paper comparing and contrasting Dostoyevsky and Joseph Conrad. The professor wanted us to use the LIBRARY to look up magazine articles that other journalists wrote which discussed either of these two authors. I wanted to stab my teacher in the eye for that one. I saw how much time other students wasted in the library trying to find their information, and I really can't say I understand how exactly the library is BETTER.
We had two weeks straight where our entire class was in the Library researching this. Let me tell you, it's not fun trying to find resources that 20 other students are trying to search for at the same time. Needless to say, I left early every time we went down there. A few days before the report was due, I used google and found all the articles I'd ever need for this paper in little under an hour.
When all was said and done, I got an A on my paper. What'd it cost me? An hour of research, which is about a 10th of what most other people spent on it (there were a few others who also used Google).
This is what I don't understand about professors. They're so hard up for you to use the library, but there's really no point in it. If my assignment is to compare and contrast two authors, wtf difference does it make if I use the library vs. Google? It's like those math teachers in the 60's who frowned upon calculators and insisted you use your "handy, tried and true" slide rule.
Re:Not versus, with (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm convinced that my ability to find what I want on the web was greatly honed by my time spent in the stacks. I also miss a bit of the serendipity of where the card catalog could lead but that is just nostalgia that doesn't recall al
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
It is very interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the stuff where Google with kick everyones trash, not complete list of authorships
uncommon question (Score:2)
This is an uncommon question for your average person. It is even an uncommon type of question. They are looking at more common questions your average user would ask. That is a better test. If you know this question you probubally don't even need to search google but can go directly to the site.
Re:It is very interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
Us geeks are sooooo predictable.
Library (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Library (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Library (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Library (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Library (Score:3, Insightful)
assuming 100% coverage for the internet (Score:2)
Not everyone has an internet connection, either (Score:2)
Is google really that accurate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is google really that accurate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is google really that accurate? (Score:2)
Re:Is google really that accurate? (Score:5, Informative)
They have done in the past for legal reasons. They do not do so for editorial reasons. For instance:
(From google.com/explanation [google.com]).
No, that is just one possibility. A far likelier reason would be that you don't know the Google ranking algorithm and so haven't taken into account important details.
Interesting but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like we have a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as looking for the information in places other than the net, I found my mom knows all those places and where to find things quickly without the web or google.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I went to school we were taught library skills, is that still the case, or do teachers assume you are all going to hit google?
Google does not trawl the entire internet, it barely touches it in fact, relying on it for your information, is like relying on the Discovery channels for your education or one station only for your news.
Besides, half the fun of researching in the library is the irrelevant but interesting information you stumble across as you browse!
Re:Interesting but... (Score:3, Funny)
Since the only things in the library nowadays are Internet-connected computers, DVDs and homeless people, "library skills" essentially amounts to using Google.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Teachers are trying to combat this now by requiring sources other than the internet. My last year of high school we were only allowed two or three internet sources. The rest had to be dead-tree books, magazines, newspapers, etc.
What I find even more disconcerting are students who put down "www.google.com" in their bibliography.
Stumbling into gems (Score:3, Interesting)
I get same experience on Google. One of my favorite things, after I got what I wanted, is to click on the higher numbered search pages and see what unusual results it also pulled up.
This is from a guy who, as a kid, used to pause constantly while looking a word up in the dictionary because I kept stumbling onto words I didn't know before.
the library has PEOPLE (Score:5, Informative)
Who cares if you don't know where to look for a piece of information? The reference librarian does. In larger libraries, there are usually librarians who specialize in particular fields of research. My university's library, for instance, has at least one research librarian assigned to each college or school within the university-- all degreed, and many dual-degreed in library science and their respective specialty fields. And they don't care in the least who is asking them for help-- it's not like the CS librarian will only talk to CS students.
Google is convenient, and fast for most searches, but there's a lot of information that just isn't available to it. Libraries buy access to that information, both in print and in databases, and they hire people to help you find the stuff you need.
The most important library skill, and the one that is most often overlooked, is recognizing the reference desk and asking for help.
Re:Interesting but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet a normal person would do considerably worse trying to find those answers on the phone than a professional journalist.
The answer to your question... (Score:5, Interesting)
How? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, you could argue that a google search should also include travel time to the internet-connected computer, but I think computers are a bit better distributed than libraries.
No one said google is an encyclopedia... (Score:2)
With just a wee bit of ai built into google you cannot expect it to answer questions like those.Of course given a little time goofle will manage to pull it up.
Google Answers (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds me, has anyone here used Google Answers [google.com], and if so what was the result? I'm assuming that their researchers use resources other than the internet.
Re:Google Answers (Score:5, Informative)
However, there have been quite a number of extraordinary cases where people have been so interested in answering the question that they've made phone calls, chased people, and dug out answers to incredibly complex questions. In one case, a Researcher managed to track down someone's obscure pre-20th C. German heritage.
Do remember that Google Answers is primarily for people who don't have excellent research skills of their own. While easy to use, finding certain things with Google (and other engines) requires skill, time, intelligence, and abstract thinking faculties that many people lack. Also bear in mind that most Google Researchers don't do it for the money. You will inevitably get a far higher quality (and longer) answer than you could possibly expect for the money. This is why tips are given to Researchers so often on the system.
What you want, and when you want it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its wrong to brand Google as the only means to look for information online.
Secondly, the issues that the reviewer raises are also adhoc - they cant be used to generalise the entire deal / spectrum of infomation that people need / want / desire.
Try looking for a code sample that shows you how the GTK# can be used from Mono to display a Multi level Outline filelist. What are the options that you have for this in the Non - Online world ?
The guy already knew who to ask / who to talk to - what if you dont know that - what then ? how do you go about finding the best non-online resource to speak with / enquire from ? My guess is that you are going to be heading right back online.
What about the fact that the online resources / google are avilable to you when you want it - how you want it and where you want it. Ever looked up what a word from the bible meant in the middle of sunday mass at the local church using a Wap phone over gprs at wml.google.com ? Me neither....
Calling people is simply a litle delay (Score:5, Funny)
bias in the article? (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading the article, I feel there is a slight bias in favour of the libraries when looking at the questions. Of course a library has a master index of books of one author. Or - to find out about some very specific question about an event you immediately know what kind of journals to look in.
The only question really geared for search engines was the Thatcher quote (as that would be a full text search).
Would this be the time to create a true categorisation of questions to be used in comparisons? (Note - not the ACTUAL questions, so that search engines could optimise for them, but only specify the general direction of questions).
I admit, it would be pretty hard to do, but I guess it could be worth the effort...
Time is the issue... (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, and probably most others, time is of the essence when doing searches. Getting a 10% better result in 10% of the cases, at the expense of valuable time, is *not* worth it.
Google is the way, and here's my soon to be revised guide (shameless) to using it more effectively:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:PApKy9D-R4
Google doesn't fare that well (Score:3, Interesting)
What this shows is that google isn't the know all. That when all things are considered there are other places to look for information and some may be better sources. Like the right tool for the right job that is the same here. There is no end all tool.
Things Failed to be mentioned... (Score:3, Interesting)
1 When using the phone, there are really two searches. The one you care about, and the one before that where you try to find the correct phon number. This can take quite a while in some instances.
2 I have to leave my house (which could entail getting dressed, which adds more time) and drive 4 minutes to the library. Once I get my online library account through the county, however, this will no longer be a factor
3 I actually have to have a conversation with someone on the phone. Google can be a more private experience, which depending on what I'm searching for, can allow me to better focus on finding the information I need.
4 With google and the library, I can have multiple searches running at once. With the phone, I'd have to pay extra per search.
5 With the library and phone, I can only use them during business hours. I can use Google 24/7.
The importance of private searches (Score:3, Funny)
"Hi, I'm looking for pictures of hot young naked sluts?...yes, I'll hold"
Biased? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a biase comparison.
In the phone and library search, it is assumed upon a narrowed subject or particular topic. Where the searcher knows where to look for the _authorative_ answer, for example the title of the particular book to get the answer.
Overall, I think the winner is pretty inconclusive, but it still does shows that Google is a really good search engine - where you can actually find a reasonable result.
Unfair comparisons. (Score:2)
This all is a bit unrelevant... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's nothing that beats human interaction and direct knowledge in many cases, but people are not there all the time. If I had them right at me, I wouldn't need google. Google (and the library) is a compilation of what a bunch of people once knew, worked on, built further on, et cetera. Now, since it's impossible to reach these people, we wrote books. Books that we can read, to learn what people found out. That has it's value. Now, we can find the book, read about it, even read it, using google, or we could find other information rapidly that the library won't have for a long time - at least not before the next day's newspaper.
After all, the library might even have their search engine against a GoogleServer in the back room
Final point: Cherish all sources of knowledge, and use them appropriately. That will give you the best results.
Google Answers Researcher (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google Answers Researcher (Score:3, Insightful)
Bias? Proof: (Score:2, Insightful)
1min 17sec (1st)
1,201 km (499 km of which is electrified). I type "percentage" as well as "Slovenian railway system" and "electrified". Google isn't playing with that combination at all, so I take out "percentage" and separate "Slovenia". Scanning the results, I choose a site I've visited before: the CIA World Factbook, Washington's greatest gift to the web. I am prepared to trust the CIA on Slovenia. For the time being, anyway.
Verdict: The higher figure attained over the phone may be more up to da
Searching skills (Score:5, Insightful)
Google - 6min 27sec (3rd)
Quote: "Unfortunately, "back" is rather a common word, and is turning up in all sorts of irrelevant documents..."
Entering "back care" in quotation marks got me the answer in 25 seconds, much less than either of the "offline" sources. If they're going to have an accurate test, at least make sure the person performing it knows how to use a search engine.
Or maybe I'm wrong; maybe most people don't have these basic searching skills, in which case the test is accurate after all?
Re:Searching skills (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Searching skills (Score:3, Interesting)
"Hell, I can get the results faster than that".
Re:Searching skills (Score:3, Funny)
And so far, Google has failed to answer my question -- what on earth is going on with British backs that they need such a parliamentary group?
Re:Searching skills (Score:3, Funny)
This doesn't seem right (Score:5, Insightful)
Entertaining, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe in using the right tool for the job. If you are in the middle of something at work or at school and need to check on a fact real quick, use Google. If you are doing in-depth research on a topic, you are probably better off first going to the library because it's easier to determine the quality of your source material there. Afterwards, you can supplement with a bit of Googling and you'll probably know whether your search results are useful or pure hogwash. The phone call method? Use that if you're lonely.
But can they use google? (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you search google for "vice chairman" "all-party parliamentary group" "back care" you only get two results which are actually for the same document - an alphabetical list of all-party groups. Scroll down to back care and there's your answer. Why would that would take six and a half minutes?
Google Is The Bomb.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've often said that I'd have to quit programming if Google ever disappeared. I lean on it for information in the same way that excessively using a calulator will lead you to punching in 1 + 1. In fact, I'm so good at it that people sometimes think I'm a genius problem solver, when really it's just a matter of creative googling on an error message.
Google searcher doesn't seem very experienced (Score:5, Insightful)
The third question (Score:3, Informative)
Google came last in their test, with a time of 6 minutes and 27 seconds. I decided to recreate their test (before knowing what the answer was). I entered.. "vice chairman" "parliamentary group" "back care"
First response, scrolled down a few pages till I saw 'back care' highlighted.. found the name, Janet Dean. Less than a minute! These people are not very good at their Google
Google is not some magic research machine. The person is the magic research machine, who uses Google as a tool. Just like "Do It Yourselfers" at home use the same hammers and saws that carpenters do.. but make a crappier job of it.
Huh? This isn't a comparison... (Score:4, Insightful)
The library searches don't include travel time. They also appear to only count the time it takes you to read the text in the book... not to:
a) Find WHAT book you want (Card catalog?)
b) Locate the book on the shelf
c) Find the correct page
All those things take the MOST amount of time, not reading the actual text. This is assuming that you KNOW what book you're looking for to begin with. I had no idea Who's Who would be a good place to look for the answer to the author's books. Google would have given me the answer pretty quickly without the need to know that information. How much more time would it have taken to find out Who's Who is the book you wanted?
Add on top of the fact that I'd have had to drive ot the library, and the time increases dramatically.
Calling a friend? Maybe faster, but I don't have many friends that would know answers like that... nor do I have the number to railway stations on speed dial... especially those in other countries.
Google is simply the fastest AND most convenient method to find the information. Or at least, if not Google, SOME search engine. If you're already at the library and KNOW what book you want, it might be a better choice, but seriously, how often does that happen? How often do you sit at the library and think of things you want to know?
I don't... I'm usually sitting at home reading, or surfing the web and come across something I want to know more about. Driving to the library to find that information would be ludicrous... and calling my friends regularly with mundane questions would cause me to lose what little outside life I already have.
Bleh... this isn't even an aritcle worth reading... jeez.
How up to date is the library data (Score:3, Insightful)
If I used the encyclopedia that was available in my High School library (in 1983) I would have learned that because of the recent Sputnik launch that man would someday walk on the moon.
Not addressed in the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
Try calling Piers Morgan's press office at 4:00am. I bet your friend James won't appreciate you calling him when he's just sat down to dinner. The Library is a very poor information source when it's closed.
Google would beat any of those methods 'out of hours'.
Wrong People to Do Searches (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, who but a reporter would have such a wide selection of friends to call on for stupid questions.
Janet Dean is Vice Chair of Back Care group (Score:3, Informative)
Google search criteria: 'UK +"vice chair" +parliament + "back care"'
Results 1 - 9 of about 10 for UK + "vice chair" +parliament +"back care". (0.24 seconds)
First page presented was http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/cm/cmparty/memi135.htm which takes you directly to the Back Care Group, where we find that Janet Dean (Labour) is listed as Vice Chair.
Perhaps the testers don't know how to use Google?
Anecdotal at best. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, more comprehensive searches at a library could involve actually having to visit the library... with it's associated drive time.
A good test would have had more questions, more participants and questions selected for a vareity of information types. The premise of the article I think is interesting: what kinds of research is the net really good for? Other than porn, of course, which is a given (try not finding it).
The problem with Google (et al) isn't finding information: it's finding reliable information (for most subjects). There's a hell of a lot of noise out there.
Cheers!
SCB
Advantage: Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Google is pretty much 'always on'. I can do a Google search any time of day where as I can't use the phone or the library at 3 am.
2. The ability to Find a keyword. Usually when I use a google search I use the google cache. This highlights the terms I am looking for so I can find them easily on the page. This is an inherent advantage of the computer over people or your eyes - scanning through text looking for what you really want.
Library times are bogus (Score:3, Insightful)
Libraries are expensive dinosaurs. All information in book or journal form should be digitized and put on the internet.
Lexis-Nexis (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare Google to Lexis-Nexis.
Lexis-Nexis has boolean logic driven search (not natural language), and lacks "PageRank", but it includes all sorts of major periodicals not offered and certainly not archived on the web.
Lexis-Nexis would win hands down in all sorts of categories of questions.
It's an object lesson in the impact of intellectual property laws on access to information in our societies.
Re:Lexis-Nexis - Medline (Score:3, Insightful)
Since there is a committee that predefines the keyword, and a modern search engine (on medline for instance Ovid), will map your free text to the MESH heading to which all articles have been mapped by a review committee. This is simply shifting the
Bad timings (Score:3, Interesting)
The library timings are all ridiculuously low. One "ilbrary" query was listed as 20 seconds. Google and the Phone (the other two compared information search services) are ubiquitous and can be used from anywhere. A library involves a trip to the library, which is at least 10 minutes travel for most people, if not more. And even if the stopwatch started when you walked in the front door of the library, there's now way in hell they answered that first query in 20 seconds time total.
Sounds like someone wanted to make a point that Google was inferior to your local library, and made up the data to prove it.
Speed vs accuracy (Score:3, Interesting)
- the value of the information presented is inversely proportional to the effort made presenting it
- the accuracy of the data is inversely proportional to the effort required to collect it
I've noticed that the most useful pages to me are the ones that contain plain text, like mailing list archives, for example. Maybe that's just an artifact of the type of information I'm typically trying to collect (technical questions, etc).The second point is just a general observation. When I was in school, the web was a wet-behind-the-ears DARPA project that nobody had heard of. To write a paper, I had to go to the library and look stuff up in books and periodicals. It took friggin' forever, but the results were pretty accurate. Now, I can type something in google and get a bazillion hits pretty much instantly, but I have to carefully search through the results to weed out lunatic fringe webpages (unless that's what I'm looking for), out-of-date webpages with no date on them, etc. I wonder how that affects kids today doing research papers? Imagine never having to go to the library, but, instead, having to hone your skills of scepticism.
I'm picking up a theme, here (Score:4, Funny)
Both the tests and the replies miss the most obvious problem: Google, libraries and friends answer different information needs.
Google is a fantastic way to find web sites. That's both the massive scope and the cramped limitation of it. It's up to you to sift through the web site result for the specific bit of information you want and then determine its accuracy. Google itself makes no claims on providing informationally accurate results, it claims to provide contextually accurate results.
If you want a significantly higher chance of information accuracy, a library is your ideal choice. For comprehensive information on the topic, a library is a better choice. You have experts on hand to steer you towards the most useful/reliable sources, and information pre-catalogued and cross-referenced for you.
If you want a an answer to a question that's particularly obscure, highly specialized, or couched in necessarily vague (or, worse, common) terms, a human expert is your best bet. If you want to find the last time the Milwaukee Brewers were over .500 in June, you talk to your baseball-enthusiast friend (substitute in appropriate football clubs and stats if you happen to be in the 90% of the world that prefers football). If you want to know the name of that one blonde girl your ex-roommate dated sophomore year, you call your ex-roommate.
Somewhat tangentially, the other glaring problem with most of the responses I've seen is they ignore the skill required to use any of these sources. Plenty of people have complained how they wouldn't know what books to reference or what people to call...often the same people who mock the author for not knowing what search terms to use. It's all learned skills. Google-fu is learned, not natural. Just like library research (anyone who's played Call Of Cthulhu should know that), and knowing who to call. Knowing how to differentiate a web site that's probably authoritative from one that's at best shaky is a skill that's really no easier or harder than being able to recognize a publication as reliable or a rag.
Anyhow: my point is that the article is neither right nor wrong. Google vs. libraries vs. phone-a-friend is a pretty meaningless question. They're different resources for different jobs.
Get Them Right? Unfair! (Score:3, Insightful)
But is the internet really the quickest way to access facts - and get them right?
It's not a fair test. The "get them right" requirement skews results against the internet.
Very Interesting... but... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also great that they seemed to have put pretty good people to the test, which proves that whether you're on the Internet, in the Library, or on the phone, the best information miners will always be the most highly skilled people working with their most effective tools.
The library and phone guys seemed to really be great, and the Google guy wasn't bad. He pointed out Google quoted phrase searching, which is something the general searching public should be more aware of. But I was still not terribly impressed with him. I quizzed myself on the same questions. I'm not British, so I had a bit of a cultural disadvantage (not much of one, though). I blew their Google guy out of the water.
Again, it's not the tools... it's the person using them. Still an extremely interesting experiment.
RP
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
You'd notice this was the whole test.
We asked various "pub quiz" type questions and then comapres the speed of response of various methods of finding the answers, such as telephone, library and of course google.
Then again I wouldn't have needed to write this post if you'd bothered to read the article.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:god google (Score:3, Interesting)
Google can search anything that can be searched.
Unfortunately, Google is unable to search my soul and desire.
You need to give me something better.
Henry, 19 years old
Re:god google (Score:5, Insightful)
But really, that test does not consider the fact that it takes a while to go to the library and that you actually need to get out of your house. Plus, library isn't available at night, neither is most people you can try to call.
Google sure wins any convenience test.
Re:god google (Score:3, Informative)
Google knows nothing, except where words are placed.
Wrong! Google knows more than you think [google.ca].
For those too lazy to follow the link, type something like 4*5 in google and it will give you the result, or type 100 miles and it will show you how many kilometres that is.