|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: April 11, 2003 A day in the life of BBCi search -- "The majority of users on BBCi put something unique into search the search box, and 80% of the users of the service put in search terms that never appear on any of the statistical reports, because they only happen once or twice during the course of a day." (MadMan comments: Here's a thought - by making commonly searched information more easily accessible, are we making the other information more difficult to find? Thanks IASlash)
Reader Comments...
Oh no, run Webworders! The scourge of Derek Rogerson has reached Webword too. Derek, isn't it enough that you terrorised sigia-l? Leave us alone. Posted by: Steve Hunt on April 13, 2003 10:49 PM
And I know history will show there has been a great deal more 'terrorizing' of Derek Rogerson on WebWord than the other-way-around! Shame on you. Grow-up and get the facts straight please.
I don't know if you've seen other posts of mine, Derek, but just because I said "here's a thought", that doesn't automatically mean I'm unsure. Rather than laying it down cold, I like to stimulate discussion. John Rhodes too does the same thing. I was hoping more people would come up with issues they've faced and how they've solved them. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn't. Pity you couldn't get the intent of my post. Posted by: MadMan on April 14, 2003 11:01 AM
Ok, Madman. Forget about BBCi for a moment. Do you believe that by making commonly searched information more easily accessible, it makes other information more difficult to find? Even looking at the BBCi case, it appears the obvious holds true: that what is 'commonly searched' is *contingent,* so that each searcher is indeed an individual, and not some 'aggregate' composition (i.e. the abstract vs. the particular, the imaginary vs. the real) . . . . Are you living in the happy delusion of la-la-land (a symptom of mental illness)? Or are you aware of actual use (praxis)? These are important questions not intended to inflame. Posted by: Derek R on April 14, 2003 12:33 PM
...More inclined to present information, than to give commands From About Derek Derek, I would like to hear more about your views and opinions on the items posted in WebWord, but do you think you can do it in such a way that it doesn't alienate your audience? Ruts have value too, and are there for a reason. Posted by: Mac - People Stop Wars on April 14, 2003 12:36 PM
I am not aware of any value associated with ruts. Quite the opposite. I gladly confer on you, Chris McEvoy, the title of 'Champion of Ruts' - good luck with that. More to the point, as I have stated elsewhere before, there is a profound difference between *knowing* the path, and *walking* it.
Immediately make an impression on other people From About Derek One out of three isn't too bad. Posted by: Mac - People Stop Wars on April 14, 2003 01:04 PM
Chris, Why don't you try keeping your views and opinions focused on the items posted in WebWord, and not on terrorizing me personally? I would like to hear more from you, but I am not willing to engage in childish games. Let's please try and be professional? Pretty please?
So how 'bout it, Madman? Do you believe making commonly searched information more easily accessible makes other information more difficult to find? Are you not sure? Posted by: Derek R on April 14, 2003 06:44 PM
Do you believe making commonly searched information more easily accessible makes other information more difficult to find? Yes However, you could've asked me that without implying that I was deluded or mentally ill (is "la-la-land" an American expression?) This is the last time I'll enter into a debate with you, Mr. Rogerson. Posted by: MadMan on April 15, 2003 10:53 AM
MadMan, I'm interested in hearing you expand on that idea; I'm not sure I understand. Usually when I go to a search engine, it is for a targeted search, but if I see a "most popular" search term that seems to match what I am looking for, I'd probably click it thinking I'd get better results. Is that what you mean? I see that as unintentionally narrowing individual search patterns. It reminds me of a scene from a movie where a teacher tells his kids to walk around in a circle. They start shuffling around, but eventually they get into sort of a rhythmic marching, and the other kids start clapping in time with the marching, and at the end the teacher asks them all to consider why they all conformed to the marching when they started out walking around at their own pace. A bit of a digression, but you pose an interesting question. Posted by: Lydia on April 15, 2003 01:32 PM
>| you could've asked me that without implying Actually, I implied "living in the happy delusion of la-la-land" was "a symptom of mental illness" and did so to facilitate understanding (i.e. delusion=symptom). see def. #3--> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delusion Your own paranoia is making a malicious personal implication. Don't do that and you won't face that obstacle. That is your ego getting in the way of reason. # Nevertheless, we agree, so isn't that nice? There is no need to engage in theatrics ("this is the last time..."). How do we empower others to see clearly as we do? Clearly the BBCi, for instance, is engaged in a state of *delusion* (a false judgment) when it presents statements like the following: since their own 'invalidating evidence' clearly shows otherwise --> "The majority of users on BBCi put something unique into search the search box, and 80% of the users of the service put in search terms that never appear on any of the statistical reports." In other words, how can we convince Web sites like BBCi, and the people who control them, that they are *deluding* themselves (a symptom of mental illness) and others by making statements like the above 'popular searches right now' ? ...over 80% of users make unique enquiries How can less than 20% be indicative of popularity? Is this not just whimsical categorizing (i.e. marketing)? -- An attempt to 'dress-up' and provide *appearance* of authority or 'popularity-of-use' where none, in reality, exists. In short, how long will we tolerate being lied to? This is an open question to the readership, and an important one which may be difficult to face, I realize. Nevertheless, true personal growth is, by all acceptable psychological standards, a *deflating* experience -- but once you take the plunge and dive-in you will discover that the truth is not so bad and, behold, you are better off, having left your delusions and false security-blankets behind. Let's challenge this dog-'n'-pony show! Let's get real and face-up! __________________________________
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |