Comments for Read Doug's Mind

Comment on Another reason to move to Europe by Robert Kuykendall

Robert Kuykendall — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:19:32 +0000

http://www.piratepartyofcanada.com/

Comment on This will likely confuse you … by sandrar

sandrar — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:42:02 +0000

Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. Cheers! Sandra. R.

Comment on Another reason to move to Europe by seizuresalad

seizuresalad — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:52:13 +0000

There is a growing body of research (for music anyway) that suggests something called the ’sampling effect’ – basically, a lot of people who find free music online look for songs, and then BUY albums.

The copyright fascists and CRIA don’t want to talk about this research, but it’s legitimate and it’s out there.

Comment on Search and research by SpectateSwamp

SpectateSwamp — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:18:40 +0000

You bet. It’s about the finding. Then what do you do once you have found it. Keep a copy of course. Sites come and data changes, so you should copy stuff. Search is so important I wrote my own. I use it to archive mpeg video, pictures and music. Favorite web sites and google search strings are retrieved and pasted into the browser or web search

Random sampling of my data keeps it fresh.

Comment on Search and research by doughorne

doughorne — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:28:09 +0000

Ah, well, you agree with me then … my real point is that the inherently social process of research is not well served by our very non-social, very literal string-matching tools in libraries. Discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of Google is another post that I don’t really want to write. I said the only thing that I really want to say about Google … that the Pagerank algorithm allows Google to claim to have a significantly social element to its search, as it claims that linking is based on a value judgment (unless, I suppose, one links to other documents randomly one links to things that you are suggesting someone else should look at). I would go out on a limb to say that the main reason that scholarly literature requires advanced search is because it has been structured in such a god-awful way in the world of licensing and under the control of vendors. The really awful thing about that is that there is a basic linking material already built into scholarly material that is not utilized … citations, and bibliographies. Well, they are utilized, but only by searchers reading them, and then finding that they often aren’t even directly linked to the source article (and my conspiracy minded brain suggests that is the case because that would require linking to material owned by, gasp, another vendor).

Anyway, all I’m saying is that our search tools are big, blunt machines for sorting like-shaped objects into buckets, while research is like going to a cocktail party and chatting with scholars who have come before you about your favourite subject. At this point, the two don’t match up very well.

Comment on Search and research by Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:18:50 +0000

Yeah, I see that. Google works so well because they built, right from the start, to work that well. Everything within it is connected. Google uses these connections to produce results that work – it is popularity in action, and in a great many cases it works great.

If you were to mean: can we harness this kind of linking for research, then I would agree with you. Can we read into papers and thesis and titles and find ways that these things link together, and make good search? Sure. I think it can and should be done.

But even Google has its limitations, and when I’m using Google Scholar (which I do quite a lot of), I still end up creating rather complicated search strings, and probing more advanced features like: journal selection, date refinement, boolean search strings, etc. Perhaps this is because Google Scholar doesn’t have as advanced ‘algorithms’ behind it: I look forward to a simpler system.

Until scholarly material: books, journals, articles, and everything else, gains the kind of social linking that web has, I don’t think the single search box will work.

Comment on UX by seizuresalad

seizuresalad — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:59:01 +0000

My ex-boyfriend is an information architecht/user experience professional. I’d never heard of it until I met him. Interestingly, his academic background was in anthropology, not computer science or engineering.

I’ve been frustrated and thwarted many, many times by online library collections and academic search engines, and 99% of the time have reverted to Google Scholar too.

Comment on Search and research by doughorne

doughorne — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:35:26 +0000

Another way of looking at it: Can you imagine the algorithm behind the single search box being good enough that precision and comprehensiveness were no longer a concern? So, not quick and dirty, but powerful and efficient? And I don’t mean do you think that you can build this, but rather can you conceive of that scenario? I (perhaps transparently) ask because I’m wondering if the principle is that you want control, or is that you need control? I never look for the advanced search on Google because it is quite good enough to always provide me with enough stuff that I want that I can’t recall ever wanting to refine that search… could a library-type research tool be that good? (and once again I mean this as a thought experiment)

Comment on Search and research by doughorne

doughorne — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:16:44 +0000

Well, I’m sure we’ll continue to have advanced search options and for certain tasks that will be handy. My real point, though, is about the nature of research, which follows a very different path from that type of searching that involves a lot of “advanced” options. If I were to design the ultimate advanced search it wouldn’t be about matching keywords, dates, formats, or descriptors. It would be about following lines of influence between researchers and their works. Citation analysis is a sort of blunt instrument for this type of work, but I’d want something with even more human factors. (I’d say ’social’ but that would likely conjure up Facebook in people’s minds). That being said, the ultimate source for anything is talking to an expert and asking them to recommend what’s good … I’d take that over any search that I can imagine. Being an anti-social geek, I’d like the system to do the equivalent.

Comment on Search and research by Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:55:25 +0000

I hear you. A single search box to ’start’ is ideal, make it quick and dirty. However, I really do think there needs to be alternatives for those that need more precision and comprehensiveness. The advanced features ought to be available, if not necessarily in your face.

Because, in my mind, searching the web for ’stuff’ is not the same as researching information for a scholarly work. Sometimes you need precision and comprehensiveness.