1334: "Second"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4751
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

1334: "Second"

Postby poxic » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:18 am UTC

Image

Title text: "Let me just scroll down and check behind that rock. Annnnd ... nope, page copyright year starts with '19'. Oh God, is this a WEBRING?"

I go to later search result pages sometimes. Usually when I'm looking for a specific thing that just won't be found that way. :|
A man who is 'ill-adjusted' to the world is always on the verge of finding himself. One who is adjusted to the world never finds himself, but gets to be a cabinet minister.
- Hermann Hesse, novelist, poet, Nobel laureate (2 Jul 1877-1962)

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:23 am UTC

I once was desperate enough to actually see what Yahoo! came up with. I remember it was gaudy and vaguely relevant before instinctively blacking out.

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Envelope Generator » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:09 am UTC

Randall never searches for anything that doesn't have a single well-defined answer? A lot of the time when I look for info it's a "find discussions between real people about X" kind of search that can take me as many pages into the results as it takes.

It's even worse when a part of the search string is also a part of the name of something that's sold online because then the first result page is a heap of garbage.
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

Eutychus
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 am UTC
Location: France

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Eutychus » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:15 am UTC

I also disagree with this premise strongly enough to log in and post.

I think just about the only times page 1 is enough are when one is using Google for the basest, consumer-driven motivations (such as a local restaurant), finding essentially neutral information (such as flight times), or a quick take on a non-political news story.

For everything else, first you have to start by sifting through all the things Google is pointing at you personally because of your search history.
Then you have to sift through all the things that have risen in the rankings because they are popular (or populist) but not necessarily well-informed.

By far and away my biggest use of Google is to check terminology when translating. Invariably, what I find on page 1 is not right. And even if it is claimed my test search throws up 25,432 results, in many, many cases clicking on page 2 of these alleged 25,432 results leads one to discover that in fact there are only 27 hits in all. There is no way of checking this without going to page 2.

My next most intensive use is to do investigative research into things like con schemes and their perpetrators. To get to the truth of these (and I mean truth that can then be verified in reputable ways, not tinfoil-hat truth) involves a lot of time spent digging around in the end pages of Google results.

So in summary, page 1 sums up just about all the most evil aspects of Google for me. Remember, if it's free, you're the product.
Be very careful about rectilinear assumptions. Raptors could be hiding there - ucim

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby keithl » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:24 am UTC

Maybe my "google foo" is getting worse, but lately the search engine shows me popular results with lots of examples instead of the obscure stuff I'm typically looking for, so I sometimes dive pretty deep. Today I was looking for "northern Laotian farmer median income" and google helpfully changed median to average, Laotians in northern California, etc. After using lots of strategic quote marks, I found ideas on the second or third page which inspired subsequent searches (crop prices per hectare, duh!).

My real question was "what would a 10 million Laotian Kip prize be worth to a struggling farmer", this being the prize for a contest winner in the recent Laotian/Australian film "The Rocket" (recommended). Much imagination and perseverence can be required to disentangle the biases of search engine programmers.

When I'm looking for the website for a non-chain hotel or motel, I almost always have to wade through three pages of expedia wannabees to find the hotel owner's actual site.

So yeah, for most things Google's first page is useful, but sometimes the answers are buried down among the Chinese web pages and the keyword diarrhea pornsites.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby addams » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:46 am UTC

You people have a complicated Major.

First I had to look up WebRings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webring
ok. Now it makes sense. (sort of)

Then, Search Engine Optimization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization

Then I discovered Black and White Hats in the Wild.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_eng ... techniques

ech. Not any more boring than Policy Papers.
Not any less boring than Policy Papers. (yawn)
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
player_03
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby player_03 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:07 am UTC

I'm sure Google considers this comic a complement. That is, their first page has such relevant results that if the answer isn't there, it isn't anywhere.

For my part, if I don't find something on the first page, I tend to refine my search terms rather than going to page two. So I guess that's a possibility too.

Eutychus wrote:Remember, if it's free, you're the product.


Or maybe it's open source.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:44 am UTC

When I was doing my project to discover the most abundant element on the internet, I found it revealing that the top Google hit for the name of all but two or three of them was the Wikipedia page on that element.

Accordingly, in my "reference" bookmarks tab I now have Wikipedia, then Google (in six flavors, followed by Wolfram|Alpha).

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Flumble » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:11 pm UTC

Eutychus wrote:Remember, if it's free, you're the product.

I don't really like the word "product"; google's search engine is the product. You're "one who's expected to return a favour", which can be money (the one considered "not free") or personal information (indeed google, facebook) or plain work (see re-captchas) or indirect payment through advertisments (indeed google and half the web).

keithl wrote:My real question was "what would a 10 million Laotian Kip prize be worth to a struggling farmer", this being the prize for a contest winner in the recent Laotian/Australian film "The Rocket" (recommended).

For future searches: what was the answer? As it stands, xkcd can rank high for these keywords, especially if you link to your sources. :wink:

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:29 pm UTC

player_03 wrote:I'm sure Google considers this comic a complement. That is, their first page has such relevant results that if the answer isn't there, it isn't anywhere.


So it not only is a compliment to Google but it enhances their first page? :mrgreen:

Meanwhile, I agree that first page is enough, but then I've got it set to return 100 hits per page. Requiring more than two keywords helps a lot, too.
Last edited by cellocgw on Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby orthogon » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:31 pm UTC

I really liked this one. It's a well observed comment on a common experience, and nicely presented using an evocative metaphor. OK, so this doesn't apply all searches, as various posters have pointed out, but for the majority of my searches, which are looking for objective answers to specific problems, it pretty much nails it. I agree that the stemming, synonyms and auto-correction can be annoying, but you can override them with quotes, plus signs etc., and if your search has suffered from over-application of these techniques then you're almost certainly going to get better results by modifying the search than by wading through all the results you didn't want.

Often the problem is that the information you're after simply isn't on the Internet. I'm amazed by how many independent businesses, in 2014, don't have their own website. I'm not asking for an extensive, RESTful, Web2.0 interactive site, just a couple of static pages with a map, prices and opening hours. If you don't have that, I'm just going to go to your competitor who does have a site, rather than phone up the number I find on some other site and hope somebody answers.

BTW, following Time and Frequency, was anyone else expecting "Second" to be about the eponymous SI unit?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

sonicspin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:17 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby sonicspin » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:39 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:BTW, following Time and Frequency, was anyone else expecting "Second" to be about the eponymous SI unit?

We now need...PLANCK TIME

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:03 pm UTC

sonicspin wrote:
orthogon wrote:BTW, following Time and Frequency, was anyone else expecting "Second" to be about the eponymous SI unit?

We now need...PLANCK TIME


I believe "Planck Time" is defined as "how long Schrodinger's Cat will.... Wait For It"
:oops:
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:33 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:When I was doing my project to discover the most abundant element on the internet
I kept reading that as finding "The element that, on the internet, is most abundant" (which of course is "stupidity"), rather than using the internet to find the most abundant element (presumably on earth).

keithl wrote: Today I was looking for "northern Laotian farmer median income" and google helpfully changed median to average, Laotians in northern California, etc.
Don't you hate machines that think that they are smarter than you are?

Flumble wrote:I don't really like the word "product"; google's search engine is the product. You're "one who's expected to return a favour", which can be money (the one considered "not free") or personal information (indeed google, facebook) or plain work (see re-captchas) or indirect payment through advertisments (indeed google and half the web).
No, that's the illusion. If you're not the customer, you are the product. You are not "returning a favor" (something which is done voluntarily), but rather, google is funneling your profile and personal information to anybody who pays for it (thus making you a product) in exchange for the bait of providing a search result.

And, as keithl points out, finding the actual web address of a hotel, which should be quite simple for google, is well nigh impossible through google. I wonder why that i$.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:41 pm UTC

ucim wrote:And, as keithl points out, finding the actual web address of a hotel, which should be quite simple for google, is well nigh impossible through google. I wonder why that i$.

Jose


I fear the answer to that is "you're doing it wrong." I just tried two searches:

URL:kitano found me the Kitano hotel, NYC in the first 5 or 10 hits.
URL:jefferson hotel DC found me the Jefferson Hotel, Washington DC in the very first sponsored and unsponsored hits.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby orthogon » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:47 pm UTC

sonicspin wrote:
orthogon wrote:BTW, following Time and Frequency, was anyone else expecting "Second" to be about the eponymous SI unit?

We now need...PLANCK TIME

PlanckTime.jpg
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Klear » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:54 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:When I was doing my project to discover the most abundant element on the internet, I found it revealing that the top Google hit for the name of all but two or three of them was the Wikipedia page on that element.

Accordingly, in my "reference" bookmarks tab I now have Wikipedia, then Google (in six flavors, followed by Wolfram|Alpha).


I no longer have wikipedia bookmarked at all because of this - when I really want to be sure I'll get wikipedia result, I just type "whatever wiki" into the search. That always results in the wikipedia article, or even an article on a more specialized wiki.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:30 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:I fear the answer to that is "you're doing it wrong." I just tried two searches:

URL:kitano found me the Kitano hotel, NYC in the first 5 or 10 hits.
URL:jefferson hotel DC found me the Jefferson Hotel, Washington DC in the very first sponsored and unsponsored hits.

I guess things have gotten better. Interestingly, my results are better without the URL: prefix.

But yes, it's better than it was a few years back.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby jc » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:38 pm UTC

Eutychus wrote:I think just about the only times page 1 is enough are when one is using Google for the basest, consumer-driven motivations (such as a local restaurant), finding essentially neutral information (such as flight times), or a quick take on a non-political news story.

For everything else, first you have to start by sifting through all the things Google is pointing at you personally because of your search history.
Then you have to sift through all the things that have risen in the rankings because they are popular (or populist) but not necessarily well-informed.

Another inherent problem is common to any sort of keyword-based search: The inherent problems with the English (or any other human) language makes finding a lot of information very difficult.

For example, I often want to find readable versions of pieces of music. This fails mostly because English provides no reliable way to distinguish "music" that you turn on and listen to from "music" that you put on your music stand, pick up your instrument, and read. The same words are used for both, and there at least 1000 hits for the former than for the latter. The obvious distinguisher is "sheet music", but that isn't used much online, because it means music printed on paper. A computer screen is never called a "sheet", so musicians don't use that phrase for PDF or JPEG or other images of music notation. Using "sheet music" merely moves the desired pages farther down, because they mostly don't contain "sheet". There's also a problem of marketers including "sheet-music" as a keyword to attract musicians to their recorded-music sites, but that's a different topic, since it's simply fraud.

It used to be that you could tell google things like "-mp3", but that now seems to be ignored. Also, google has gotten "smart" enough to look for misspellings. Thus, If I'm looking for a tune that I know is a reel, adding "reel" to the search keys often falls afoul of google treating it as a mispelling of "real". (It also adds lots of hits at fishing and old-movie sites. ;-) It used to be that a long enough title, when quoted, was enough, but google seems to more and more ignore attempts to specify a phrase, and put pages that use the words in different paragraphs at the top of the list.

So I usually just skim over the first few pages, looking for things that aren't obviously attempts to sell me recordings (which I usually already have; that's why I'm looking ;-). Eventually, N pages in, there are hits that seem to talk about the music rather than advertise it, so I look at them.

There are a lot of other subject areas that google doesn't handle well, for similar linguistic reasons. This is much of the reason that there are hundreds (thousands?) of projects to develop topic-specific sites, with software that can identify and reject off-topic pages that use the same words to describe something else. Music is just a useful example because even non-musicians can understand it , though you usually have to explain why the obvious keywords don't work well. What I've found works best is to say "Yes, google does find the readable music, but it's buried in thousands of times as many pages for listenable music, because both kinds of pages use the same musical words."

wolfticket
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:32 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby wolfticket » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:42 pm UTC

The true answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is on the 3rd page (there are rumours that the question is on the 4th).

sotanaht
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby sotanaht » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:29 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:When I was doing my project to discover the most abundant element on the internet, I found it revealing that the top Google hit for the name of all but two or three of them was the Wikipedia page on that element.

Accordingly, in my "reference" bookmarks tab I now have Wikipedia, then Google (in six flavors, followed by Wolfram|Alpha).


I find that Google does a better job of searching for Wikipedia results than Wikipedia. If I want to look something up on Wikipedia I find it works best if I google the Wikipedia page

dtobias
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:09 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby dtobias » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:46 pm UTC

Another topic that can be annoying to try to "google" is file format information about any fairly obscure format. That tends to produce search results dominated by cookie-cutter script-generated pages in sites that are trying to spamdex the file-format-query field, where they have Mad-Lib-ish pages on every conceivable format that read like "Are you trying to find out how to open a .XYZ file? Joe's File Format Site has the most comprehensive information about .XYZ files anywhere. What is a .XYZ file? It is a XYLOPHONE YOUTH ZEPHYR file, which is opened by the XYLOPHONE YOUTH ZEPHYR software. To open it, try clicking on it, in the vain hope that your operating system is somehow configured to find that oddball program when you click on a file of that type, despite it being an obscure open-source project for a different operating system, last updated in 1994." Then, after some sections that would have links to file format specs, software, etc., if the site operator actually had managed to supply any (but are actually blank), there's an ad for a commercial file recovery service that supposedly SPECIALIZES in .XYZ files.

CBusAlex
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby CBusAlex » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

sotanaht wrote:I find that Google does a better job of searching for Wikipedia results than Wikipedia. If I want to look something up on Wikipedia I find it works best if I google the Wikipedia page


I also find that it's faster to type the extra four characters into a google search term than to load the front page of wikipedia. (Especially if you count the time saved by avoiding a three-hour wikiwalk from whatever article they have highlighted there.)

Vertices
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:35 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Vertices » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:30 pm UTC

CBusAlex wrote:(snip) Especially if you count the time saved by avoiding a three-hour wikiwalk from whatever article they have highlighted there.


Wikiwalk :lol:

Interesting since "wiki" supposedly means "fast"... A wikiwalk sounds fine, especially right after lunch.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:45 pm UTC

dtobias wrote:Another topic that can be annoying to try to "google" is file format information about any fairly obscure format. That tends to produce search results dominated by cookie-cutter script-generated pages in sites that are trying to spamdex the file-format-query field, where they have Mad-Lib-ish pages on every conceivable format that read like "Are you trying to find out how to open a .XYZ file? Joe's File Format Site has the most comprehensive information about .XYZ files anywhere. What is a .XYZ file? It is a XYLOPHONE YOUTH ZEPHYR file, which is opened by the XYLOPHONE YOUTH ZEPHYR software. To open it, try clicking on it, in the vain hope that your operating system is somehow configured to find that oddball program when you click on a file of that type, despite it being an obscure open-source project for a different operating system, last updated in 1994." Then, after some sections that would have links to file format specs, software, etc., if the site operator actually had managed to supply any (but are actually blank), there's an ad for a commercial file recovery service that supposedly SPECIALIZES in .XYZ files.


I recommend Wikipedia for file format searches... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xyz

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:52 pm UTC

Gotta love the chorus of "I'm anomalously terrible at searching, therefore this comic must be wrong."
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby EvanED » Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

Wow. I wonder how many years it's been since I've seen the term "webring."

jc wrote:For example, I often want to find readable versions of pieces of music. This fails mostly because English provides no reliable way to distinguish "music" that you turn on and listen to from "music" that you put on your music stand, pick up your instrument, and read. The same words are used for both, and there at least 1000 hits for the former than for the latter. The obvious distinguisher is "sheet music", but that isn't used much online, because it means music printed on paper. A computer screen is never called a "sheet", so musicians don't use that phrase for PDF or JPEG or other images of music notation.
I've found I have reasonable success with "sheet music", and lots of people who sell or otherwise distribute PDFs with music notation call it sheet music. Quite possibly I've missed some, but like I said it feels like I've had reasonable success overall. I also haven't really seen the opposite (MP3 vendors advertising by including "sheet music"); closest I've seen is something like a YouTube comment saying "sorry I don't have sheet music" or something like that.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Klear » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:08 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
dtobias wrote:Another topic that can be annoying to try to "google" is file format information about any fairly obscure format. That tends to produce search results dominated by cookie-cutter script-generated pages in sites that are trying to spamdex the file-format-query field, where they have Mad-Lib-ish pages on every conceivable format that read like "Are you trying to find out how to open a .XYZ file? Joe's File Format Site has the most comprehensive information about .XYZ files anywhere. What is a .XYZ file? It is a XYLOPHONE YOUTH ZEPHYR file, which is opened by the XYLOPHONE YOUTH ZEPHYR software. To open it, try clicking on it, in the vain hope that your operating system is somehow configured to find that oddball program when you click on a file of that type, despite it being an obscure open-source project for a different operating system, last updated in 1994." Then, after some sections that would have links to file format specs, software, etc., if the site operator actually had managed to supply any (but are actually blank), there's an ad for a commercial file recovery service that supposedly SPECIALIZES in .XYZ files.


I recommend Wikipedia for file format searches... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xyz


For the record, searching <xyz wiki> returns its disambiguation page as the second result.

dtobias
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:09 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby dtobias » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:20 pm UTC

I think "sheet music" is one of those archaisms that remain in use because there's no better way of distinguishing their category even though it's changed technologically to no longer technically be described by the original term. It's similar to people talking about "dialing" a number on a phone without a rotary dial, entering a "CC" address (actually standing for "carbon copy") on an e-mail, or clicking on a floppy-disk icon to save a file.

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:39 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
player_03 wrote:I'm sure Google considers this comic a complement. That is, their first page has such relevant results that if the answer isn't there, it isn't anywhere.


So it not only is a compliment to Google but it enhances their first page? :mrgreen:

Meanwhile, I agree that first page is enough, but then I've got it set to return 100 hits per page. Requiring more than two keywords helps a lot, too.

Image   Except for porn. Image

Depending on what trips your trigger, there are literally thousands of sites that will return what you are looking for, and there is no way they will all end up on the front page.

m1el
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:38 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby m1el » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:45 pm UTC

Twice, I found useful result on 8th+ page only.
No kidding, once I was looking for music video "Ray Parker Jr. - Ghostbusters" and I did not find it in proper quality until 8th page, on some shitty German file dumpster.
The second time I was looking for a free textbook 0321749006, and first 12 pages were filled with dumpster sites redirecting to each other, asking for money (no, I did not pay anything), but ultimately not giving the file. But I found it on 13th page.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:58 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
da Doctah wrote:When I was doing my project to discover the most abundant element on the internet
I kept reading that as finding "The element that, on the internet, is most abundant" (which of course is "stupidity"), rather than using the internet to find the most abundant element (presumably on earth).

Actually, you had it right the first time. You'll often run across lists of "the most abundant element in the universe", "in the earth's crust", "in the human body", etc. I wanted to know what element is talked about most on the web, so I painstakingly Googled the names of the first 110, from "hydrogen" to "darmstadtium", and recorded the approximate number of hits returned, tableized the results, and sorted by frequency. (I chose to ignore the fact that some of the names have other meanings, like both "lead" and "palladium" can refer to dancing as well as chemistry, so "tin" counted as a metal even when it's really an editor.)

Turns out the most common element in cyberspace is "gold".

(I had to make a decision regarding multiple spellings. If I Googled both "sulfur" and "sulphur" and added the numbers, I'd be double-counting pages that mentioned both as alternative ways of writing it. I decided to stick with one spelling for each and call the results close enough. Sorry, "aluminium" and "caesium", but at least it saved me fiddling with deprecated names like "masurium" and "kurchatovium".)

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Flumble » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:29 pm UTC

ucim wrote:If you're not the customer, you are the product.

That's strange, I always thought trade consisted of three parts: a customer, a vendor and the goods being exchanged.
ucim wrote:You are not "returning a favor" (something which is done voluntarily), but rather, google is funneling your profile and personal information to anybody who pays for it (thus making you a product) in exchange for the bait of providing a search result.

Ah, ok, you think the profile google builds is you. By that logic, yes, you are the product.
But I'm of the opinion that you share information as a good in exchange for information shared by the search engine, which makes two parties (I presume you are the customer and not the vendor, since the engine has put its supply and demand on display and you accept them) and the trade.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:04 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
keithl wrote: Today I was looking for "northern Laotian farmer median income" and google helpfully changed median to average, Laotians in northern California, etc.
Don't you hate machines that think that they are smarter than you are?

I think the problem is with things making stupid wrong corrections in general. Auto-correct should be optional like in duckduckgo (I think this is how google used to do it too, until they broke it), it's incredibly annoying when google assumes you want to use a different language which is also why I don't get how google stays so popular in Europe.
jc wrote:It used to be that you could tell google things like "-mp3", but that now seems to be ignored. Also, google has gotten "smart" enough to look for misspellings. Thus, If I'm looking for a tune that I know is a reel, adding "reel" to the search keys often falls afoul of google treating it as a mispelling of "real". (It also adds lots of hits at fishing and old-movie sites. ;-) It used to be that a long enough title, when quoted, was enough, but google seems to more and more ignore attempts to specify a phrase, and put pages that use the words in different paragraphs at the top of the list.

What kind of music are you looking for? "für elise -mp3" gets me two hits with sheet music on the first page, but I haven't tried anything else as I don't know where the problem lies. Have you tried "music filetype:pdf" or something like that?
CBusAlex wrote:
sotanaht wrote:I find that Google does a better job of searching for Wikipedia results than Wikipedia. If I want to look something up on Wikipedia I find it works best if I google the Wikipedia page

I also find that it's faster to type the extra four characters into a google search term than to load the front page of wikipedia. (Especially if you count the time saved by avoiding a three-hour wikiwalk from whatever article they have highlighted there.)

Wait, am I the only weirdo that just tries en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[topic] first and keeps the search engine as a backup?
Flumble wrote:But I'm of the opinion that you share information as a good in exchange for information shared by the search engine, which makes two parties (I presume you are the customer and not the vendor, since the engine has put its supply and demand on display and you accept them) and the trade.

Except that they don't have a warning on the front page, nor a tickbox with a link or a warning when pressing search that tells you google spies on you and steals your personal information. It's only a trade if both parties are informed of what is going on, they should not just assume the other party knows even a well known company like google should accommodate for people who don't know what they are.
m1el wrote:Twice, I found useful result on 8th+ page only.
No kidding, once I was looking for music video "Ray Parker Jr. - Ghostbusters" and I did not find it in proper quality until 8th page, on some shitty German file dumpster.
The second time I was looking for a free textbook 0321749006, and first 12 pages were filled with dumpster sites redirecting to each other, asking for money (no, I did not pay anything), but ultimately not giving the file. But I found it on 13th page.

You cannot really blame them for removing the earlier hits due to some idiots overdoing it on the Berne convention and the WTO (or did those people work for the media industry, then they're not idiots but evil geniuses), especially as Google has been calling for a reduction in copyright law.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 705
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:39 pm UTC

player_03 wrote:
Eutychus wrote:Remember, if it's free, you're the product.

Or maybe it's open source.

Hell, even then. An alarming amount of open source software is hosted on shady-looking sites whose banner ads are all disguised as the download link. Which I'd call unfortunate targeted marketing combined with Google failing to police their ad clients, but given that the hosting sites always stick their banner ads exactly where you expect the download links to be and hide the actual download link where you'd least expect it, I'd say they must be complicit in this.

Flumble wrote:
ucim wrote:If you're not the customer, you are the product.

That's strange, I always thought trade consisted of three parts: a customer, a vendor and the goods being exchanged.

In that case, shouldn't it technically be four, distinguishing between the goods being sold and whatever the customer gives in return? In your analogy, the customer's information is the latter.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Flumble » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:49 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:
Flumble wrote:
ucim wrote:If you're not the customer, you are the product.

That's strange, I always thought trade consisted of three parts: a customer, a vendor and the goods being exchanged.

In that case, shouldn't it technically be four, distinguishing between the goods being sold and whatever the customer gives in return? In your analogy, the customer's information is the latter.

Indeed, you can expand it to four, when you want to distinguish goods going one way from goods going the other. Or to n+m, where n is the collection of stakeholders and m the collection of goods going from a to b.

PinkShinyRose wrote:Except that they don't have a warning on the front page, nor a tickbox with a link or a warning when pressing search that tells you google spies on you and steals your personal information.

Nah, it's not spying or stealing, it's tracking someone's every move through your domain. :twisted:
Contrary to popular belief, google does have a warning about their tracking you, but it's called a privacy policy, so nobody cares to view it, let alone read it, and, depending on your jurisdiction, simply accepts it. I'm not fond of it, but depending on your jurisdiction, someone using the service, after having the chance to read the agreements that are linked from the main page, accepts those agreements.

PinkShinyRose wrote:people who don't know what they are.

Hahaha :lol:

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby lgw » Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:16 am UTC

For some reason, having my search results tailored to my search history as Google does really annoys me. Fortunately, there is DuckDuckGo. (When I was young, the game was "duck duck goose" - it that some regional thing?).

And it may be cliché but it's true: whatever I'm searching for, there's a band with that name.
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

Himme
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:26 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Himme » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:37 am UTC

I often find relevant information past the first page too. Depends largely on what I'm searching for though. If it is something really obscure sometimes you wont even get more than one page, and what you're searching for isn't there. D:

lgw wrote:For some reason, having my search results tailored to my search history as Google does really annoys me. Fortunately, there is DuckDuckGo. (When I was young, the game was "duck duck goose" - it that some regional thing?).

And it may be cliché but it's true: whatever I'm searching for, there's a band with that name.


This + that it really annoys me when sites (like Google) thinks I want to use their swedish site because my OS is installed in swedish. In many cases the localized sites just aren't as good as the original version. In Google's case the localized versions also seems to focus mainly on search results that are from that region too (swedish in my case).

Marscaleb
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby Marscaleb » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:14 am UTC

When I read this comic, I applauded, for it was so true.

littledman
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:29 am UTC

Re: 1334: "Second"

Postby littledman » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:14 am UTC

dtobias wrote:I think "sheet music" is one of those archaisms that remain in use because there's no better way of distinguishing their category even though it's changed technologically to no longer technically be described by the original term. It's similar to people talking about "dialing" a number on a phone without a rotary dial, entering a "CC" address (actually standing for "carbon copy") on an e-mail, or clicking on a floppy-disk icon to save a file.


There is a technical name for music that's written down: a "score".
Or a "chart" or "lead sheet" for jazz.
Or just "print music".
From my experience, "sheet music" is alright for searching too.

When searching for things, context is everything. The strategy I find most useful: iteratively modify keywords until relevancy is high, using the most relevant results as a guide. Many fields use technical names and jargon that are actually very easy to search with... once you know them (looking at you, programming). My initial searches simply find the proper words to describe what I am looking for, and then I refine my keywords until the first page is full with useful results. Also, I <3 field-specific resources (Stackoverflow -> coding, IMSLP -> public domain scores).

From personal experience, if I'm looking for something that exists, trying another search string is about as good as checking the next page. If it exists aplenty, an optimized search string has the advantage that relevant results are nicely condensed (if you prefer sifting results over typing, that might be a detriment). If it doesn't exist, or barely exists, neither strategy helps. Sometimes there's just that one page in Russian buried on the 15th page of results that contains what you actually need.

Re: the context of music... printed classical music tends to be described as a "score", the composers are referred to by last name, and works often have opus numbers. Popular music tends to be defined by album names, recording date, the identity of the performer a.k.a. artist... Maybe this just highlights the kind of music I tend to search for, but it's not often I have trouble finding print music vs. recordings. If you're looking for pop charts you might be out of luck. But it's all under copyright anyways >=O


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests