Centroids : This past weekend I saw parts of an interview with the author of a new book about Google.Very informative and it explained why Google now provides prompts when you type-in topics. Google is in the mind-reading business these days. That is, the company is putting faith in its treasured algorithms which are made use of in tracking user searches. The idea is by aggregating preferences of all user searches for specific subjects the search engine can predict what else you may seek to find. The purpose seems to be to gently steer you to commercial sites and, therefore, help make Google more profitable. The only thing more idiotic is the heavy-handed approach of AOL. The quest for profitability is understandable, of course, but what if any other company outside of computers did something similar ? What if you could not buy a toaster without ads plastered all over the product ? What if the dashboard of your car had ads over every square inch except the dials and gauges ? To be sure, "deep" emphasis on ad revenue can pay off and, at the same time, be acceptable to consumers. Call it the NASCAR approach. And in that case there even is a cultural plus. It is chic in some circles to over-advertise, in which case advertisements are sort of an art form. But NASCAR gives you something for all of the advertising it promotes. It gives you winning race cars to take pride in, What do you get with most ( nearly all ) computer advertising ? A worse and worse search experience. Ads that add clutter or that won't go away except with difficulty. Ads that must be put up with before you get to content you want and need. And add animations that are serious distractions. This more typifies AOL, however, and many news sites. Goggle is more subtle. But Google is also sublimely stupid. Which is now inescapable since Bing has decided to ape Google and there is no alternative to turn to. With a few exceptions, but only a precious few, each time I type in a search topic ALL of the in-your-face suggestions are irrelevant and simply are hurdles to leap over to get to what you are looking for. I mean, looked at logically, well over 90% of Google's suggestions, if a human were making them, would be considered imbecilic. Google assumes that each user is a youthful punk or a couch potato with lowest common denominator mentality. I learned --well-- how to use the old Google system to maximum effect. Type in WPost and the first item to surface was the Washington Post. Same for JPost. Could not do so with Christian Post and that had to be typed in, not just CPost. Very fast and efficient. Not any more. Now type in WPost and before you can click on the Washington Post site you must first cope with a menu of prompts, all of the "WPost" possibilities that Google as mind-reader "thinks" you might want. NONE of which are in any way meaningful and simply consist of clutter and annoyance. What dim-witted 15 year old dreamed up this crap ? In contrast, from the information from just one of my recent purchases, Amazon sent me recommendations for some books it "thinks" I might be interested in. How it did this I have no idea, but I was rather surprised that at least the first two or three suggestions were actually pretty good. Still not exactly what I want, but new book titles often interest me and I did not resent the intrusion, which was more of an information service than a pushy ad. Amazon grade for today A- Google grade for today F For your consideration. Billy
-- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
