Search Engine Galore
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68045/68045efb1e6654090ada209d16915b09bb0652b5" alt=""
To be able to look at this objectively we need to first analyze what the various search scenarios for most of us normally are. At times we’re looking for some yes or no (factual) type of information. For instance, if you were to type TechQuark, you’re probably expecting a search engine to take you to our web site. There is nothing better or worse that a search engine can provide other than a link to the TechQuark web site and maybe a Wikipedia entry. But what about a search where you don’t really know what you’re looking for. In this case, your knowledge of a particular subject will be restricted to the search engine results. This brings in the question of trust. Here is probably where Bing stands to loose out to Google. When it comes to such searches, users will constantly find themselves cross checking with the search giant to see if the older more experienced search engine gives them better results. There is always the underlying doubt – “Am I missing out on something. Will Google be able to show me something else?”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2cbad/2cbad96c67551c6caf5460b47bb8e502d78e5df9" alt=""
This little back of the envelope test is of course not perfect but it is indicative. Even if Bing is just as good as the currently reigning search champion, will we trust it enough to be exhaustive and accurate? Most likely, we’ll keep benchmarking it against Google for days to come. Are the breathtaking backdrops with tidbits of interesting click-able information enough to make it the search engine of choice? Some folks might switch, enamored by the novelty and buzz. But most will keep coming back to Google at least for now. Until of course Google does some major blunder down the line.
Wolfram|Alpha
Wolfram Alpha is not a search engine. It’s a computational knowledge engine. Confused? Well, in a nutshell it is designed to simply give you answers to factual questions. For example if you were to ask it – the distance between Mumbai and Mangalore. It will not only tell you the distance as the crow flies, but also by road, the time it will take to reach there by regular aircraft, at light speed or even at the speed of sound. You won’t even have to enter the Mangaluru form of the name. It already know it! Sounds like the sci-fi computers we’ve read in so many novels right? It is exactly that – the character Data from Star Trek but not in the android form. So, in effect what Google or other search engines try to do with questions like Population of India, Wolfram will do much better. Conventional search engines will either parse language on a page and return many results, or if human intervention by way of tagging is involved, it will return information based on tagged data, or as a last alternative point you to web pages that should contain the answer. On the Wolfram web site it says its aim is to make “all systematic knowledge immediately computable by anyone”. Wolfram alpha has aligned all the data it has available to it in such a way that it can actually make sense of it; compute it. It has built tiny models of computational knowledge to compute human fields of data systematically. So you can ask it to tell you anything from “Number of internet users in Asia” or how much time it will take you to type 3000 words at standard typing speed, or find out which year in history was the name John most popular and it will actually compute the answer; replete with charts, graphs and any other information you might require. Of course by now you might have guessed that it is not pre-programmed with all sets of questions and answers that can ever be asked – that’s just not feasible.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2625/a2625e3a3f15ae70401e2e494d8e7c83cf7b550a" alt=""
So if it knows so much will it take over the world? No, because it doesn’t have a consciousness. But if everything is answered so easily it might make us brainless retards. Google only helped us locate stuff; we still had to make sense of it for ourselves. This little puppy on the other hand is going to answer everything for us.
Google Wave
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eaa21/eaa211881bd49c980914735c66788a2960779129" alt=""
All this free for all communication might just not go down well with those who are a little reticent. That’s one of the first things that comes to mind when you watch the wave presentation; “hey I don’t want people to see what I’m typing while I’m composing a mail”. Understandable. And the developers of Wave are not unmindful of that. They’ve incorporated a feature that hides you from the rest of the Wave. Perhaps the best thing about wave is that it can be embedded on other sites. Another interesting feature of wave is that discussion and content collaboration can be done on documents in the same tool i.e. wave. So you don’t have to follow the traditional Wiki and document format.
Wave is open source. That means that developers will get their hands on a set of external APIs with which they can build widgets for wave (which they call extensions) and even discover better ways of using its functionality. App developers only have to worry about coding XML on the client side and the server takes care of updating over the wire. Collaborative games are also on the drawing board amongst other things. There is also the scope of developing server side extensions using bots. Google demoed one such bot “Rosy” that can translate 40 languages on the fly! Since Google is keeping the much of the code open source, other corporations are free to come up with their own deployments of the wave system. By the time Wave formally launches, in a year, it might very well become a refined and extremely powerful tool. We’re eagerly waiting.