Bing! A Brave New World of Search 2014. Google & My World Wide Wave
What's Search? The endlessly searching National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) of the US may have a clue. "A search is the organized pursuit of information" (nasa.gov). That's probably how Google looks at Search. But it's not quite that. In fact, NASA also pursues empty ideas and empty spaces; you don't know until you get there. Based on my pursuit of creative writing of almost 40 years, while it must be pursued, unlike the American pursuit of happiness. a Creative Search must be unorganized, and it must be in the pursuit of anything, including stray thoughts. That's how Google does not look at Search. Let's see.
I uploaded my first 2014 essay on the very first minute of this New Year ("Advertisements for a DG. ICRISAT 41, William Dar 14," iCRiSAT Watch, blogspot.com); it's 0900 hours still New Year's Day as I do a Search for the very last 6 words of that essay (note the double quotes):
"lead the flock, serve the people"
and the exact same words come back to me from Google (via Opera) and Bing (via Mozilla Firefox); sorry but I seldom use Google Chrome now:
No results found for "lead the flock, serve the people"
Ha! Google and Bing are both shamelessly short in Search.
Google gave me the same no-results results with my Search for my title, "Advertisements for a DG" while Bing gave me 2 entries for "advertisements for a dog" – all that tells me that both Google and Bing are still asleep, those intellectual lazybones! They have to wake up to the New Year, to creativity.
In the matter of worldwide free access to knowledge on the arts and sciences, data and information, instructions and insights, let me be the first to say on New Year's Day 2014 that I have been dreaming of this:
A Search Engine that treasures the old and tallies the new.
I shall be explaining it here, but neither Google nor Bing measures to those, my double standards!
Now then, perceiving myself as David in this modern warfare, the target of my slingshot is Google because he's Goliath and as boastful.
I first complained about Google Search in "Search, Sex & Google’s Boolean smut" (07 February 2010, The Creattitudes Encyclopedia, blogspot.com). Google then wasn't and even now isn't smart about smut. My Search was for
philippines "sugarcane smut"
and Google gave me, in 0.48 seconds, 2,020,000 webpages, yes, 2 million Search results. A very fruitful Search, right? But then, Google had this note beneath the Search box:
The word "smut" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.
The hell it is! Google Search cannot distinguish a plant disease and doesn't know a double quote when it meets one. No wonder it ignores the fact that when I put 2 double quotes, I want the exact phrase between those quotes to be searched, not any of the single words that make up that phrase.
Google Search's algorithm is called PageRank, and that is where all the problems lie, or arise. Via Yahoo Comments, I have been taking potshots at Google/PageRank mostly since last year, 23 times in 23 different news or feature stories, starting 3 months ago, starting with Jim Edwards' "Google Changed Its Core Algorithm, Affecting 90% Of Search Results – And No One Noticed" (27 September 2013, yahoo.com), to which I give my Yahoo comment – from hereon, all my comments in italics and separate paragraphs are My Comments as faithfully documented by Yahoo Comments:
No matter, Google Search is not any more intelligent than it ever was – do you know that PageRank is, by its nature, anti-creativity?
With PageRank, if your piece has been cited by others, if your page has been linked by others to their pages, the higher PageRank puts you in its list of results to show the Google searcher. That is to say, Google Search recognizes you only if others have recognized you. If your idea is new or uncommon or has not been noticed by others, you are nothing, you are not listed by PageRank as someone whose idea matters. Search me!
Jim Edwards writes again about Google's new cookie jar (28 September 2013, "How Google's New Web Tracking Plan Could Give It A Monopoly Over Facebook And Apple," yahoo.com); I don't disagree, but my comment is:
Google is simply trying to gobble everything. The way to out-Google Google is for other searchers to demolish PageRank – which simply counts occurrences (the more the merrier) and thus simply DIScourages creativity – by offering a new searcher of ideas, new or old, and thus simply ENcourages creativity.
Jim Edwards writes again about Google Search ("Google, Apple And Facebook Are At War Over 'Latent' Search – A Business That's About To Be Huge," 06 October 2013, yahoo.com), and my comment is:
"The difference between Graph Search and Google keyword search is that on Facebook, you're searching for something where you don't actually know what the answer is – 'latent' search." Actually, it's all latent search – Google is just making big noise good for big business. And yes, Graph Search is exactly the same as PageRank - they tell you what some people have been thinking, not what some genius have come up with that nobody has ever thought. Mass appeal is what all those rankings are all about. What we need is a search engine that doesn't rank, and that would be indeed intelligent latent search. When Yahoo wakes up to this, watch out!
I want Yahoo! to wake up! How about Microsoft?
"But Google is facing a series of challenges that could upset that dominance. The challenge comes with a new type of search, called 'latent,' 'abstract,' or 'conversational' search. Whatever you call it, it's all the same.
ANN writes about an "enormous floating barge" on San Francisco Bay with "Google presumed builder of floating data center," (27 October 2013, yahoo.com). My comment is:
Why should anyone be surprised? Google has been building numbers around US for years!
By way of PageRank, that's how.
Jim Edwards writes again, "Google Has Gone 'Dark': The Search Giant Just Ended Its Free Data And People Are Freaking Out" (28 October 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
The problem is we are allowing Google to rule our Internet lives.
Jim Edwards writes again, "Google Has Reportedly Built Another Mystery Barge – This One Is Floating Off The Coast Of Maine" (30 October 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
I'm not surprised. Google is innovative in many ways, except in PageRank, where it is adversative – it values repetition versus competition.
Writing repeatedly in favor, Jim Edwards must be an extreme admirer of the genius in business that he sees in Google, as I am an extreme admirer of the genius in knowledge that I don't see in Google.
ANN writes, "Apple buys analytics firm for $2 mn" (03 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
Topsy describes itself as a company "with the only full-scale index of the public social web to instantly analyze any topic, term or hashtag across years of conversations on millions of web sites." I don't know; I hope it's not like Google with its PageRank that gives you only the ones that rank (read the double meaning), the ones that have been cited before and, therefore, new ideas don't have PageRanks! New ideas fall from heaven because of gravity - PageRank is antigravity!
Sarah McBride writes, "Google bus blocked in San Francisco gentrification protest" (yahoo.com), and I write:
Technology companies are not the problem; greedy capitalists are.
Brad Reed writes, "Google Fiber gets results: 300Mbps AT&T service launches in Austin" (11 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
Google has fiber after all in its guts.
But faster results are nothing if there is intellectual substance abuse – Google rejects creativity in favor of connectivity of content when it should favor both.
"Google opens online museum gallery, the Cultural Institute" (ANN, 12 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
I say Google's PageRank belongs in the museum itself, as it is ancient in its thinking, ranking only those who have been accepted by society (as in social climbing) and not giving a hoot to new ideas.
Brad Reed writes, "Why Android is the key to Google’s plan to rule the world" (13 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
Google ruling the world with, among other things, its PageRank search paradigm that belittles Creativity and exalts Conformity? I hope not!
ANN (author not named) writes, "Google+ too techy to be social" (13 December 2013, yahoo.com) and I write:
Google is unfriendly to people unless it's making money on them. It's all business. Google is also unfriendly to new ideas, unless it's his own. Like, Google's PageRank will count you only if others had counted you before (citation); PageRank will ignore you if your idea is new (original), and no one has cited it before. Ask me! Google does not help advance novel or untried ideas or spurs of the moment - who likes killjoys?
I'm the world's most creative writer who is the world's most unsearched, thanks to Google. (For a good idea of what I'm talking about, you may want to visit my The Creattitudes Encyclopedia, blogspot.com, with all of my 1700+ essays of 1,000+ words each; my new essays continue to be collected there. I would have directed you to my long American Chronicle author's page but, alas! that one has become an American dodo. As of 29 May 2013, I could still link to it. See my "Minus One. Frank H's 3 Cs of Communication," The Creattitudes Encyclopedia, blogspot.com.)
ANN writes, "Mandela tops 213 Google searches" (17 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
Do you notice that what comes out on top of Google searches is old? PageRank is designed for the old, not the new.
No offense meant to Nelson Mandela, but old is old, ancient is ancient.
"Google strikes back at Apple and Microsoft’s anti-Android patent consortium" (25 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
Do you know what happens when The Empire Strikes Back?
(If you don't know or don't remember, Luke Skywalker takes advanced Jedi training with Master Yoda. The plot thickens!)
Neal E Boudette writes, "Google, Apple Forge Auto Ties" (30 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
An Apple a day keeps the Google away.
Tom Warren writes, "(Google's Executive Chair) Eric Schmidt makes 2014 predictions, says mobile has won" (30 December 2013, yahoo.com), and I write:
And I predict that Google will continue to ignore the innovators with its PageRank paradigm.
And Google continues to be a winner and we all losers, those who want a Search Engine to browse for them the Encyclopedia of the World called the Internet. The Search Engine is not supposed to Select for the Searcher; it is supposed only to Search!
I will end this where it all began. Reading ANN's "The Digital Divide Created by Google Glass" (31 December 2013, bloomberg.com), I write:
The real Digital Divide was created by Google when it began. It's called PageRank. It divides those who are creative or new and not yet mentioned (no citation), and those who are old and already mentioned (citation).
Is it that Google thinks it is the Salmon of Knowledge? (For the details, read "The Legend of the Salmon of Knowledge," babynamesofireland.com). According to the story for children, the Salmon of Knowledge is the wisest.
I have suspected all along that Google is an intellectual snob even as it presents itself as the gray matter to use in searching for knowledge in the World Wide Web. In this New Year, with its old PageRank, Google will continue to ignore divergence and idolize convergence; it will continue to ignore the new and idolize the old; it will continue to cultivate those who have cultivated friends and acquaintances. Keep your friends close and your enemies not any closer.
Google will continue to be Google.
Who of these Search Engines will give genius a break in 2014? List from Wikipedia:
1. Bing, multilingual, bing.com
2. Blekko, English, blekko.com
3. DuckDuckGo, English, duckduckgo.com
4. Exalead, multilingual, exalead.com/search
5. Gigablast, English, gigablast.com
6. Google, multilingual, google.com
7. Volunia, multilingual, volunia.com
8. Yahoo! multilingual, search.yahoo.com
9. Yandex, multilingual, yandex.com
Since Google is unregenerate, our Search for Knowledge needs any of those other 8 or a rank outsider to give Search results that come out super-fast because they are:
(1) Not ranked
(2) Not cited
(3) Not optimized
(4) Not classified
(5) Not sorted
(6) Not marked
(7) Not linked
The better for creativity!
This genius wants a Search Engine with which I can choose whether to do any or all of these Types of Searches:
Literal – such as word for word
Nuanced – synonyms, similarities
Relationship – direct & indirect links
Essence – my Search words are not found but the idea behind them lurks there, a predictive type of Search that Google Search is incapable of right now. Yahoo!
Failing in all that, in my unorganized pursuit of happiness, I'm imagining A Brave New World of Creativity. I suggest a startlingly revolutionary WWW, the World Wide Wave where only the new, untried, novel, crazy ideas can be found.
Of course, you'll never find Google there. Google is not crazy enough!
Of course, you'll find me there.