He Said It and I'm Glad
One of my regular reads for topics technical is the TechRepublic website. While many of the topics are too technical and specific to IT professionals for me, it is a good reality check on what's happening in the tech world.
A recent article (Can Mahalo Save Us From Google, Digg, and Wikipedia) was so spot on what I have been thinking that I have to quote it here: "Like many users, I’ve been losing faith in Google, Digg, and Wikipedia for research and information gathering. Google is still great for looking up specific problems or finding specific things that you already know exist. Wikipedia is still fine for getting quick definitions. And Digg, well, I’m not sure what Digg is good for anymore. Unfortunately, none of them are consistently effective enough for the serious information gathering that IT professionals need."
The writer goes on to say that since the Google algorithm has been, and continues to be, studied so that it can be "managed," the quality of search results has declined (how many search strings give you Wikipedia in the top ten, or even top one position?). Fewer than 50% of us now trust Google results, down from 62% of us in 2006. He also argues (rightly, I think) that both Wikipedia and Digg are controlled by a dedicated core of users who have a big old ax to grind, and plenty of time on their hands to grind it.
I agree. While I still turn to Wikipedia for a first, quick look at a subject, I certainly don't trust it to be definitive - and it's a good thing schools outlaw Wikipedia as a primary source for research papers! And where I used to go to Digg to see what was new and hot in the technology world, I now go to read the flame wars in the comments section, which remain amusing when you have some time to kill. (I purposefully check out the most controversial sounding articles - like, "Darwin Was a Dope Addict," to see what the crazy cadre of diggers has to say.)
Once again, TechRepublic is my sanity check of choice!
A recent article (Can Mahalo Save Us From Google, Digg, and Wikipedia) was so spot on what I have been thinking that I have to quote it here: "Like many users, I’ve been losing faith in Google, Digg, and Wikipedia for research and information gathering. Google is still great for looking up specific problems or finding specific things that you already know exist. Wikipedia is still fine for getting quick definitions. And Digg, well, I’m not sure what Digg is good for anymore. Unfortunately, none of them are consistently effective enough for the serious information gathering that IT professionals need."
The writer goes on to say that since the Google algorithm has been, and continues to be, studied so that it can be "managed," the quality of search results has declined (how many search strings give you Wikipedia in the top ten, or even top one position?). Fewer than 50% of us now trust Google results, down from 62% of us in 2006. He also argues (rightly, I think) that both Wikipedia and Digg are controlled by a dedicated core of users who have a big old ax to grind, and plenty of time on their hands to grind it.
I agree. While I still turn to Wikipedia for a first, quick look at a subject, I certainly don't trust it to be definitive - and it's a good thing schools outlaw Wikipedia as a primary source for research papers! And where I used to go to Digg to see what was new and hot in the technology world, I now go to read the flame wars in the comments section, which remain amusing when you have some time to kill. (I purposefully check out the most controversial sounding articles - like, "Darwin Was a Dope Addict," to see what the crazy cadre of diggers has to say.)
Once again, TechRepublic is my sanity check of choice!
Comments