Well you are using a really obscure browser. Internet Explorer, wasn't that from the mid 1990s?
Google recently released Google Squared, which is the Mountain View Chocolate Factory’s attempt at structured data search. Riding the tails of the Wolfram Alpha launch, Google hopes to convince people that they actually should care about structured search. Alpha showed us that it’s possible to do something interesting, albeit …
After bitching and moaning about WolframAlpha a few days ago from this author, we have this.
Obviously Google Squared isn't ready for prime time, but if you have so little love for this company, why does its Maps feature prominently on your company's website milo.com?
That makes this diatribe a new kind of rant!
Maps is one of the old google products; the bulk of the design and mechanisms were developed elsewhere, and google merely purchased it and glued a nice UI on the front. This is how good google apps are made: by someone else. Stuff they've made in-house tends to be pretty lousy, no? Doesn't seem like an unreasonable target to me.
Did you get turned down for an admin post with google? What the he'll's the problem. A company that can rapidly innovate, and deploy through labs and isn't afraid to get it wrong? That's very good behaviour, from a mature company. Where as this article is purile anti-google fanboi drivel. Come on Reg, you're better than this dross.
Or do all these so called "knowledge engines" simply put loads of references from wikipedia in there just to bulk them out? Also, since when is the phrase "united states" used as a lead in to each individual state, rather than the country as a whole? The first entry i was expecting was a big map of the whole US with some interesting information. Instead i get a list of the 7 or 8 most boring states, and the option to carry on looking at yet more states.
"This is how good google apps are made: by someone else. Stuff they've made in-house tends to be pretty lousy, no? "
Its like being a retailer for Nike shoes, saying their employment conditions in China where said shoe are made suck, lambasting Nike's human rights record, but is OK to retail their shoes because the laces are made in Korea.
You asked "Am I dumbass?" but failed to pose said question to Google. Let me help out here and tell you that the answer is "Yes."
Google Squared useful? Nope. Far from it. But it's an interesting idea. But all you seem to specialize in is knocking stuff. No attempt to balance things: yes, poke some fun at it, but also point out where it does work and where, in the future, it could work better.
So, to use your own eloquent words, "Ted Dziuba, kindly get the fuck off out of my internet."
BTW, I would have thought someone with such a fondness for the words might get it right: it's "Fuck off..." or "Get the fuck out..." but not "Get the fuck off out..."
It seems that Tennessee is located in Knoxville which is located in Tennessee. So unless Knoxville = Tennessee we have an infinite recursion problem if we try and resolve the location of Tennessee.
Oh an by the way the Google Squared has rendering problems in Google Chrome as well if you try and resize the window beyond a size that google determines is necessary.
I don't think this person should be permitted to publish any further.
Clearly just a self involved rant attacking a Google toy which they haven't even released. Google labs isn't "beta" it's just a "what happens if we do... this".
Oh an Milo.com? "Powered by Google" for the maps. If you hate them so much try another data provider. No, the argument that you're content to use their maps service and yet wish to write this diatribe of an article are not unrelated. If you have a hatred and principles stick with them.
Stop the whining and get on with it. Oh, and please don't attempt to be a journalist, you just give them a worse name than they already have.
Paris, because she knows what experimentation is.
...that the word "Squared" in that last sentence is superfluous, Ted.
I also can't help thinking that the result "kmacleod" is appropriate for where humanity is going, if you think dystopian authors, so it may well be relevant. Without the Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, too!
"You know how when you’re driving on the freeway and some douchebag goes flying past in a Honda Civic? How you think, "Man, I wish the police would just nail that guy"?"
Wrong approach, Ted. Instead, think "cool, a Cop Plow :-)" and increase your speed to a few percent MPH (KPH) under said idiot's speed. Assuming you can drive, that is. If you can't drive, please ignore this advice ... or more likely you'll already be the Cop-plow. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've used this technique to cut a couple hours off the trip between N.CA and S.CA.
As for search engines ... It seems to me that for the most part, people search on simple text strings. For example, "Brie Cheese Tomales" or "IPA Petaluma" or "Noyo Salmon Barbecue" ... They don't give a rat's ass about esoteric info that might be derived from the input of the person making the query, and other people making similar inquiries in the past. Fact is , they want a simple match based on the text they input.
People misunderstanding this simple fact and trying to re-invent search are driving too fast in several directions at once, without fully understanding the route they are attempting to traverse.
Oh, and Ted ... lose "fail" as a meme. It was old almost before it was born.
How about the rest of the article?
They describe it as a first step. First step.
Could some other Reg writer please write a story lambasting Ted for his ability to get down to Tesco with his first step? I mean it takes him several steps- he even has to use a car (developed by someone else as he's clearly too crap with tech to build one himself. Nevermind that it's quicker and easier to buy a pre-made solution, he should have designed and built it himself!) for part of the journey. Clearly, Ted is teh failz.
Also, his technique when taking this first step was poor (though it was getting out of the depression he's made in the sofa, so wasn't really representitive of the bigger picture of his journey to the shops) to the point where consistently using this system would lead to horrendous inefficiencies. He could modify it later, but didn't for this step.
So clearly, Ted is teh failz.
And haven't we recently stopped using assrape as a way of emphasising someone being in prison? It's even filtered out of most of the comments (though that's more to do with those comments being blocked).
Plus he's using windows / IE / comcast and... well, that surely destroys his rep 'round these penguin-loving parts?
The term "Get the fuck off out" is acceptable in some parts of the world, I would be more inclined to say its depends on the regional dialect though. Either way its generally understood.
Personally, I enjoy Ted's articles, if for nothing more than to read the comments of the anally retentive whinging douchebags who cry about his use of language or whatever else.
From where I am sitting:
Google are a little bit Monty Python.
Google are a little bit Microsoft.
I like the first, I don't like the second.
Google come up with a steady stream of interesting stuff, some of it useful, much of it not. But some of their misses may well turn into hits later on, with some more thought. I say 'Let the crazy development continue!", they are one of the few companies who aren’t trying to reinvent the round wheel by making more round wheels.
And onto the side of Google that is becoming increasingly depressing.... Google want to be the internet, at the moment they are developing crazy ideas and buying up all sorts of stuff in an attempt to grow larger, nowt wrong with that, that’s how business grows. However, once they own the all the bigger social networking/video sharing etc sites and then release Google Waves, for many people they will effectively become the internet. Monopolies are scary, they take over with good ideas/innovations, then stifle with self serving and poorly implemented shite. Attempting to trample on and stamp out all real innovation by others, along the way (see MS).
I like what Google are, I don't like what I think they are going to turn into.
The axis of evil is almost complete, the heavens are coming into alignment and all points of the universe are converging. Google, the final piece of the puzzle, are growing in power and will soon join with their brethren, IBM and Microsoft, to shower us in shite for the rest of eternity. Only one thing stands in their way, but does any one amongst us have the courage to sacrifice themselves, for the good of us all. Could you be the one that the prophecy tells of? Could you, against all odds, reach for the power button on your PC, turn it off and go spend some quality time with your family instead?
No me neither, an eternity of shite it is then. Well that’s that sorted then.
Do you ever get the feeling that you should have stopped wya before you did?
Google Squared is pure entertainment - just search for random data sets and see what laughable results turn up.
I can kind of understand what they are doing, and even though the data is shit, it's from the internet, which is 99.999% shit. They're doing it better than Wolfram, because that uses it's own small data set, which may be correct but is the size of a gerbil.
Google's approach is more realistic; now we just need to tell the machines that not everything they read on the internets is true. Now I worry that the machines will rise and kill all the fleshy liars as part of a data cleaning and deduplication drive.
Excellent article as always though :)
"Is there some sort of Killfile for this foul-mouth ranter"
Hopefully the bozo filter is embedded in your wetware ... If not, I respectfully suggest you find other sources of entertainment.
(For the record, I think Ted's a troll who brings in lots of advertising revenue for ElReg ... also for the record, I doubt that anyone with a clue will ever see any of that advertising ... which kinda makes me wonder what the point is ... But it's late. I'll sleep on it ;-)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the Everything's Mostly Shit philosophy that Ted seems to be a great exponent of, but this guy really is taking the biscuit.
Ted: You are a cretin.
This article is bashing google for no real reason. So what if it doesn't work first go? If you follow this logic then Ted would kill innovation.
Alternatively, did Ted consider that it's not supposed to work? MS is bring out Bing, AskJeeves has returned, could this be google waving a flag and going "Hey, look at me, I'm doing 'stuff'!"
Less of Ted, please, Reg?
No need to use bad language (so, does that make me a 'anally retentive whinging douchebag', or just someone who appreciates people who can make a point without resorting to 'bad' language?)
A good journalist, would provide balanced insight, grammatically correct prose, and avoid use bad language. Since you have scored zero from three, I deduce from this that you are not a journalist, just someone who has found somewhere to publish your barely comprehensible rants. Surely Slashdot would be a better place for you? Or perhaps the Daily Mail, although you will have to tone your language down a bit.
Your continued use of the 'F' word - fail - also grates.
(For all those about to complain about my grammar and/or prose, please note that I, also, am not a journalist and don't attempt to have my rants published as articles)
Keep it up Ted, your articles make my Monday mornings that little lighter than usual (",)
As for the idiots above, would you like some cheese with that whine?
And, Anon Coward, upgrading to IE 8?? Shhhhh! I did that a long time ago and had to wind back all of my windows machines to 7 because they crash and burn on simple things like Google Maps and js automation. When they bring out a real upgrade that doesn't cost half a gig in memory then it'll be worth upgrading to.
Two pages of bile including incredibly low-budget annotated screenshots which just serve to highlight the author's inexplicable grudge against google.
I personally think it's good that google try these things, whether they work or not. I'm sure more helpful members of the public than this 'writer' can actually contribute and help them improve the project.
Search for mineralogy. Add another 10 results.
It helpfully gives you the information that cleavage was born on December 26th 1973.
And if you click on that box, it helpfully tells you that cleavage's full name is 'Darlene Magnolia Ricasa Antonino-Custodio'
You'll also be sad to note that 'color' died on 28 September 1914
Why even post this? the register deserves better.
When I came across google squared, a few develoeprs were gathered round my box, having a little play with it, we thought it was a good next step, not working in a particularly accurate way or anything, but pretty inovative and something that, if google spent time improving, could be a very useful and clever tool.
I'd like to see you build something that even compares to this version of squared. If not don't bitch and moan, it's google labs after all, if it were linked on google's hompeage, yes, poke fun at it all you like.
This article is very poorly written. I am not a prude but the the constant use of the word 'fuck' and its variants in this article feels forced. I am also not a Google advocate but the points you are attempting to make are not well served by your tone or style.
Obviously I will be cancelling by subscription etc.
I'm not up on the latest in the world of cut-rate-techno-journalism, but judging by the author's liberal dropping of F-bombs I can only imagine that they're quickly going out of style.
I'd like, therefore, to call the next potty-pen trend:
Shit is the new Fuck!
You heard it here first.
Very fun idea, but until a microformats/HTML5 revolution in how the fabric of the Internet is made up, it's going to be fairly rubbish. Problem is, scenarios where I want unqualified, unattributed factoids on demand are slim — and when I do, finding them via an automated parsing system that provides utter nonsense a fair chunk of the time and rips the isolated figures/text from the original context… takes what little value there was in the task and throws it out the window.
Queries you use (more so than with Wolfram review) aren't too helpful though. Being incredibly vague and generalistic without a remotely realistic use-case scenario, let alone success hypothesis, isn't aiding your point. Search for 'tennis' or 'video games' and set some criteria (or don't, even) and you get interesting data (with just as much erroneous crap to take the piss out of).
Meanwhile, people having a go at Ted for alleged Google hating — give it up. People with no sense of humour who invest themselves in humour columns never get sympathy. If you want some serious insight from the same author on Google's latest HCI/tech/world domination promises, read the Wave presentation review: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/03/google_wave_and_developers/
Ian Ferguson got it right - "Google Squared is pure entertainment".
My point is, so is Ted.
If they don't mind releasing such a laughable website, I don't mind if Ted takes the piss out of it for 10 minutes on a Monday morning. It's the highlight of my week (or bi-week, now that Ted's reduced his frequency a bit).
After the last article where Ted decried Wolfram Alpha is being poor compared the how great Google was (in his opinion), in this one he says how crap a Google product is, and it seems like more people got the joke this time. How many Paint-scrawled images with the word "wat" does it take before people realise he isn't 100% serious?
This one is not a great example of Ted's work though; it's too sympathetic and almost understands why Google Squared is crap, rather than decrying it and making stupid comparisons.
I'm guessing it will take another couple of articles before the dumbass people who leave comments will be outnumbered by those who get it, even if they don't find it all that funny.
...and all of the politics, lobbying, and other frustrating aspects of the tech sector, and then criticize Ted for being a little critical of Google's attempts at, well, anything that doesn't appear to have a purpose for the public sector? Just because they aren't actually out to dominate the world Dr. Evil style, doesn't mean they are saints either. They are humans with a lot of influence, and most people don't realize how much a lot is...
The most uninformed people out there are the noobs to the tech world, barely console junkies, and far from real nerds, who complain about big corporate bashing (tends to be those who either know nothing and think everyone else is as ignorant as them, so how could the criticizers know better, or people who's first FPS was Halo, absentmindedly giving MS head because they got off on it so hard). The good Corps don't get bashed, but no one pays attention to them, they don't make enough money, or aren't media hogs.
If we have learned anything, it's that we have yet to run into a big corporation that has stayed trustworthy as they grow. Especially when the $$ they see keep getting bigger and bigger, and since humans are involved, sometimes a little power and/or social influence too (however you want to state it). Anyone who doesn't realize this may as well keep their heads in the sand and shut up and let the rest of us try to fix it by pointing out the flaws of the way systems are being run. It's all one can do with the written word, it's not like any of us jaded are going to storm the Google or MS head office. But it won't keep us from being critical.
Also, the comments made by those criticizing the critical nature of the article seem to miss their own ironic acts :P Everyone should try going around saying how great they are and see how many people actually can keep their criticism about you to themselves. There are people who criticize Jesus for Christs sake (pun intended).
And reviewers ARE a kind of critic. This site reviews tech, therefore there is a lot of criticism of tech on this site. Holy crap, what a mind blower!
When a toddler calls a piece of dirt gold it is cute, when a supposedly successful company does it, they shouldn't get the same treatment. (ESPECIALLY ones who get public funding for secret projects, but of course I would never be critical of such things. GO USA!!)
But what the hell do I know...
Mine's the one that says, "When you're a Nerd, you're a Nerd all the way from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day."
gave it a good try though, can't get anything useful out of it.
tried flex, silverlight ,javafx
against programming, gui, web browser
nothing really useful, either it lacks data, or it sucks. it can't lack data because google ownes all our data, so it must suck.
Problem with google is that software engineers instead of hired psychologists/gui designers come up with the ideas,so only other software engineers will have a clue what it is supposed to do.
Do you really think your grandma is going to build and maintain a square of search terms. Give human interfaces to humans, not some grid where you have to relate terms in some unknown mathematical way to get something out of it.
An entertaining read, for sure! I don't care what browser he uses, or whether he uses Maps or not, the fact of the matter is simple: the results he got from simple search queries were terrible. That's all this article is about: terrible results. What gives terrible results? A terrible search engine.
I reckon Ted hit the nail on the head, and his intentionally amateurish ways of tearing into it are hilarious (I love the use of MS Paint for showing things, I absolutely love it -- Real Men use MS Paint!)
As for the baited amongst you, I find it amusing you feel it necessary to investigate Ted's own website in the name of getting some material on the guy. Why not take the article for what it is at face value: sledging an atrocity of the Internet from a company that should know better.
As much as I also disagree with Google's dominance of search and information collection, I think this author should not try to comment on it while he's associated with milo.com .
milo.com is driven by Google maps, has no geo-location to speak of and seems to be, stylisticly, something straight from the Redmond camp. All in all, except for the Google bit, very badly written.
Please, as one commenter has already said, don't call the kettle black until you're all nice and shiny...
Someone I know pointed me toward a Google Squared search for "British Prime Ministers". I noted it seemed to think that John Major died in 1982. So for a laugh I checked out where it got the info from and it turns out to be a Wikipedia article on John Main (some monk or summat). Mind you it seems to think that The Smiling Meanace (Blair) died on the same day he was born, that might have made a few changes. No mention of idiot Brown, so no great loss there.
If it can't even grab stuff from Wikipedia correctly (let alone somewhere factual) then that's fail for me.
Just gave Squared a try and searched for AJAX... 1st item is 'Live Search' and under Categories a link to:
An artiicle titled 'Facial Recognition Comes to Live Search' that doesn't mention AJAX once... Mmmm. I'll stick to the classic search for a while, it's not that tedious after all !
If search for even one of their "suggested" searches, such as US Presidents, you don't get good information. For example, a search for "United States Presidents" reveals some tabular data including a picture, date of birth, and a few other facts. One of the default columns is "Succeeded by." George W. Bush was apparently succeeded by "Rick Perry." When you select the link for "Other values," you're presented with John McCain (which it ranks as low confidence) or Barack Obama (which Google Squared also ranks as low confidence.)
License to fail, indeed.
Mine's the one stuck in an alternate universe.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019