Here are a few comments I posted on my ResourceShelf.com site last week
about the article Sybil shared.
I also have comments in Thursday's SF Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/26/BUG996RJLN24.DTL
+ The study points out that, "Google's results vary little from those found
on other search sites." However, SearchDay recently noted that, " A new
comparison tool shows that the major search engines have surprisingly
little overlap, even for popular search terms. Search engine guru Greg
Notess has long studied search engine overlap -- the number of pages found
by more than one search engine. Greg's findings have consistently shown
that there is very little overlap in the web page databases of the major
search engines, meaning you'll likely get very different results depending
on the engine." The article also says, "Google users searching for the
leading cause of death for people between the ages of 25 and 34, found the
information they were looking for 55 percent of the time. The company's
rivals fell close behind with between 52 percent and 54 percent success
rates, Vividence observed." So I guess the question is, what did the study
participants consider a good result? Were those surveyed satisfied with
whatever they found? Did time constraints come into play? What were the
search terms? How many search terms were used? Those of us who use
specialized info databases (free and fee-based) -- along with things
called books (no kidding) -- realize that the web/web engines are just one
of many research tools. However, I think the general public has little or
no idea about "other" existing resources that could not only be helpful,
but also SAVE them aggravation and effort. We also know that with a little
effort, general web search tools like Google and Yahoo can become much
more powerful and precise. This will become even more noticeable as these
resources grow in size. I guess the most interesting news is that more and
more users are realizing that general web search tools (other than Google)
are useful.
+ "The company found that Google clearly remains consumers' favorite,
largely because of the search engine's less-cluttered interface." I can't
figure out why Yahoo doesn't spend some effort promoting the
search.yahoo.com interface? Heck, you can even customize the tabs! I also
think Teoma.com is far from cluttered, and it also gives refinement
options not available at Google. Again, creating and purchasing an info
resource is one thing, but getting people to use it is something else.
Google does it very well (better than just about anyone); others,
including traditional vendors and libraries, need to do better.
+ "Watkins said part of the reason why Google lags behind its competitors
is the company's stringent practice of keeping ads well marked, while the
other sites sometimes mix solicitations in with regular search results."
Google deserves mega kudos for their work in labeling web results and
making everyone else follow. That said, everyone else is better, and it's
hard to find examples of where the other engines mentioned in the article
don't clearly mark ads vs. organic results.
+ I'll conclude with two comments that I think are relevant. The first from
our friend Tara Calishain, who said in a 8/03 AP article, "Google has a
lot of smart people who have built a great search engine, but there are a
lot of other smart people out there looking for ways to make search
engines even better." The other comment is found in a 5/03 Forbes article,
"Even Google's engineers admit FAST and Teoma deliver results comparable
to theirs."
cheers,
gary
p.s. I'll also point out that WHILE GOOGLE deserves plenty of credit for
making web search what it is today, many services it offers are concepts
that they did not start.
1) Keyword-based advertising was first introduced by Overture. Overture is
now part of Yahoo.
2) Search "shortcuts" now a popular Google tool were first offered several
years ago by AltaVista.
3) Online calculator was first made available by AllTheWeb.
4) Link analysis, what Google calls PageRank was first developed for the
web by a research project at IBM. They called their engine CLEVER. It was
never released publicly but many of its concpets are being used by Teoma.
cheers,
gary
--
Visit The ResourceShelf
http://www.resourceshelf.com
Gary D. Price, MLIS
Librarian
Gary Price Library Research and Internet Consulting
> Quoting Sybil Finemel <sfinemel@COMCAST.NET>:
>
> > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/ecommerce/0,39020372,39155836,00.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Google's long-term dominance doubted
> > Like Netscape, Google could lose its market dominance as rivals
> > increasingly
> > adopt its tactics"
> >
> >
> > Matt Hines
> > CNET News.com
> > May 26, 2004,
> >
> >
> > Sybil Finemel
> > Library Director MLIS.CIO.
> > Los Angeles CA
> > Contributor, lii.org, Librarians' Index to the Internet
> > http://lii.org/
> > Virtual Reference Desk Volunteer
> > 24/7 Reference Librarian.
> > sfinemel@comcast.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home