We're starting to see stories about "the next generation" of search engines. You know, Google's so 2002 and the only way we'll really be able to find important stuff is to have our results displayed as spheres or file cabinets or cute, fluffy little dogs that bark when they find what we want (See Get the Picture: Visualizing the Future of Search in EContent and Search for Tomorrow in Computerworld).
That may be true, but one thing bothers me about articles like those: They always have a paragraph like this one from the Computerworld story:
"But as powerful as they are, search engines have huge weaknesses. For example, a recent Google search on the word Linux took just 0.4 seconds, but it had 95 million hits. Too bad if the one you need is No. 10,000 on the list."
Yeah, so? Who actually types just "Linux" into a search box - except authors trying to make a point and maybe the people who run search-engine optimization consultancies? Wouldn't you type "Linux security" or "Linux distros" or whatever specific Linux thing you're looking for? The EContent article is even worse: It has some new-wave search vendor fretting about poor people typing "car" into their search boxes. I say: enough!
Phew, I'm glad I have that out of my system.
Heh, right on. Although based on the types of search referralsthat people post in their blogs, a typical search might not be "car", but rather "my car makes a clunking noise" :-)
Posted by: mike on April 7, 2004 10:27 AMPost a comment
