Google's Really Advanced Search

To contact us Click HERE
You've know doubt heard of Advanced Search. How about Really Advanced Search?

I spotted this at the bottom of a Google Search Results page today and had to take a look.

Among the search features, including the usual ones, are:

• words almost, but not quite entirely unlike:
• rhyming slang for:
• this exact word or phrase, whose sum of unicode code points is a mersenne prime:
• subtext or innuendo for:

and this:

• the words , but not , unless they contain either the intersection of phrases , , and or a gerund in which case the disjunction of and will also be taken into account (on Tuesdays). 

At the bottom of the page are also several links:

You can also... Tickle a unicorn Download our ranking code so you can run Google at home Search by odor Some of the features of really advanced search might make a good coding project. They might also be a challenge to explain. But they really make a better April Fools Joke.

Tips from Google: What's Missing?

To contact us Click HERE
One of my colleague's recent bookmarks caught my eye:  How to solve impossible problems.  
The link is to a story by John Tedesco of the San Antonio Times about Google search guru Daniel Russell who posed a daunting challenge to a room full of investigative journalists:

What’s the phone number of the office where this picture was snapped?

Here's the photo:
What makes this challenge difficult is that there is no direct information about the office from which the picture was snapped.
According to the article, "(Russell) wasn’t asking for a phone number for the skyscraper in the picture, which sounds hard enough. He wanted the phone number of the precise office where the photographer was standing when the picture was taken.  Nothing in that office was even in the photo. Yet in a few minutes, Russell, a research scientist at Google, revealed the answer by paying attention to small details and walking us through a series of smart Google searches."

Yes, most of us don't put Google's full power to use. Advanced features can make searching more surgical.  The article goes on to illustrate Boolean modifiers (what works and doesn't) as well as operators many people haven't tried lately, if ever. It's a good summary; take a look.
But Google is all about finding. Nothing about how good a result may be. This is typical of most students. We laugh when we hear "If it's on the Internet, it must be true," but that's how students actually behave. We're getting better at finding. We've made little progress at evaluating.
It's really not Google's business to tell us what to believe. And we resist attempts at interference when it comes to second-guessing what we want to see--although search engines are paying attention to what we click and are influenced by our choices.  Which is why it becomes all the more important that we develop good investigative habits.
Spoiler Alert
I managed to find an answer I'm pretty sure is right, but there is still some conjecture involved. If you'd like to solve Russell's challenge, go ahead. Answers are easy to find, thanks to Google.  Here's Russell's blog, and some answers.  Did I/they get it right?

A Search I Couldn't Find

To contact us Click HERE
I'm certain it happens to all of us.  We just can't find something we're looking for. We run out of options and/or energy and have to give up (for now or for good). It's one reason why I consider information research mastery on the Internet to be somewhere around 80%.

This happened to me recently while looking online for information about a musical score. A member of my church (where I'm the music director) recommended an arrangement of a hymn she heard while on vacation. Here's an excerpt from her email:

"I was in Albuquerque in May for my granddaughter's high school graduation; she played a recital on violin accompanied on piano. There was a beautiful arrangement of "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing, arranged by Paul Bailey and Charles Romer.  It would be a beautiful piece to play on a Sunday morning if you know of a violinist."

Normally, this would be plenty of information to track the piece down to a source.  I was hoping to find a copy to download (for free or a license), but would have settled to find the publisher and order a copy.

A sensible query would be:  come thou font of every blessing paul bailey charles romer.  It's pretty long, but to find the song title and the arrangers, this seems like the best path.  But it doesn't work. In Google, you get about six relevant entries matching the title and arrangers before Charles Dickens references start popping up--apparently the most popular match for Charles. None of the results is a musical score or a path to a score.

Putting quotes around the title is risky. Am I sure the title is spelled correctly or includes only these words?  There is another spelling for fount (font). Putting quotes around the arrangers names may also eliminate all the instances where a middle initial is used. But it's worth a try. Quotes around the title returns 2 results, neither of which is relevant. Quotes around the arrangers names (separately) returns about 6 results, none of which is a musical score. The results are mainly bulletins that shows the song was performed in a service.

Hmm.

I thought I would try a Deep Web search by going to a database of scores and publishers. The biggies in this field (e.g., www.sheetmusicplus.com, jwpepper.com, etc.) don't list the song with these arrangers. There are plenty of arrangements of the song, but by different arrangers. This is starting to feel like looking for a needle in a haystack. But which Deep Web haystack?

Advanced search filters didn't help, limiting results to violin and title or arrangers produced no relevant results that lined up all the information.


I did find the music online and downloaded it. But the granddaughter first had to share a link with me. Sometimes the quickest way is still to ask someone who knows.

There are other clues such as the publisher of the music that may be found just with good searching.  I found that before I gave up. I'll leave that as the challenge. Who published the music? And if you're up for a tough challenge, where can you download a copy?

Searching isn't as hard as Thinking.

To contact us Click HERE
Just google it. You're bound to find something you're looking for.
Finding is no longer the challenge it once was. Knowing what you are looking for remains no easy matter.

Asking the right question usually precedes touching a computer. What are the hours of the Louvre? Go to the computer. What is 4 degrees Celsius in degrees Fahrenheit? Go to the computer.

These are the average one-off questions an Internet search is really good--and fast--at answering.

But what about the occasional harder question? Harder questions include: a) those that lack precision in what is being asked, b) those with competing or rival answers and c) those with no known answers.  Googling the Internet is not particularly useful at answering this last type.

A and B type questions occur frequently and make easy searching harder. I've blogged before on the need to fact check B type questions to avoid trusting misleading and/or malicious information. Investigative searching is a remedy for establishing the credibility of answers.

Let's focus on A, ambiguous questions. These are questions that may be answered different ways (with different answers) and still be right. An example used on our web site is for the search challenge: What is the top speed of earth's fastest animal? Like most ambiguous questions, this question is unintentionally ambiguous. Only after searching and finding rival answers does its ambiguity become increasingly apparent. This requires real thinking.

Skimming the top ten Google results for the query speed fastest animal, possible answers include:

• cheetah (3)
• peregrine falcon (2)
• sailfish (2)
• pronghorn antelope
• wildebeest
• lion
• thompson's gazelle
• quarter horse
• man
• cow dropped from a helicopter

The student is confronted by a common problem: which one is right? The underlying problem is not that there are multiple answers (which one is right?) but that these are answers to different questions (which question am I supposed to answer?).

The problem could be simplified by rethinking the question: what animal travels the fastest? Now the differences between air, water and land don't factor in (cheetah is fastest on land, sailfish is fastest in water and peregrine falcon is fastest in air). The fastest speed belongs to the falcon.

But another search result--a cow dropped from a helicopter--reveals further ambiguity in the question. The originator of the question may have assumed the animal needs to travel under its own power. In that case, the falcon, which 'cheats' by virtue of gravity, could be bested by the cheetah. By the same token, what prevents an astronaut orbiting the earth from beating the falcon? It ultimately depends on the question.

The example is ridiculous but illustrates how 'right' answers may differ depending on how a question is interpreted and how thinking is aided by searching. Questions that leave room for interpretation make Internet searching more difficult (and may be more interesting). Teachers are advised to try the searches their students are likely to use in an attempt to avoid asking ambiguous questions and inviting 'smart' answers in return.

For the individual, questions may be improved the same way: try a search and see what happens. Don't expect the best answer the first time because the right question has not yet been asked. It's very hard to think of a question you haven't though of yet. Iterative queries are good at helping discover and refine questions.

So, how would you ask the fastest speed question? Go ahead and post your response.

Here are a couple more ambiguous questions that need refinement. See if you can figure out an unambiguous question without searching; then try a search.

• How many buffalo are living in North America today? link
• Between 1918 and 2012, in what year did Americans pay the most for a gallon of gas? link

Invisible Query

To contact us Click HERE
Time flies! I've neglected this blog for about 6 weeks.

Dennis O'Connor and I are deep into authoring a book on Teaching Information Fluency. Our deadline is the end of April.

Writing a book is a discovery activity for me. Last time I wrote this much was my dissertation and I discovered plenty about flow and mathematics while doing that.

This time, while it would seem I've traversed the topic of information fluency through this blog and the 21st Century Information Fluency Project website, there are still Aha! moments.

As I was thinking about the process of querying, it occurred to me that there's a lot more to it than translating a natural language question into a query. That's just the visible query--the one that search engine responds to. There's also an invisible query, the one you don't enter into the text box. The keywords or concepts that remain in your head.

These help you filter the results of the query. Some results are more relevant than others, not due to their ranking, but because you have some priorities in mind the search engine is unaware of.

It's generally ineffective to enter everything you're looking for in a search box.  It constrains the search and produces fewer results--sometimes none. It's better to submit two or more (keeping it a small number) keywords and scan the results for your invisible query.

Using one of our classic examples, "How many buffalo are there in North America today?", a good query is buffalo north america (bison is better than buffalo). Yet that's not really enough information to answer the question which is going to be 1) a number and 2) as recent as possible. That's the invisible part that you have to remember throughout the process. You choose results that satisfy 1 and 2; if not, you're probably not answering the question.

One premise of the Filter Bubble is that the machine is learning from us and will hone its output to our preferences. This becomes a harder task when we are not feeding the machine everything we have in mind. It may be a pretty good way to keep the Filter Bubble from encompassing us.

Think about what you're not querying that you are still looking for next time you search.

Saturday Night Complainers

To contact us Click HERE

The website Government Attic has posted a treasure trove of indecency complaints the FCC received in the last five years about "Saturday Night Live." The reasons are about what you'd expect -- words or ideas the viewer was offended by -- with spelling and grammar mistakes galore. For example:

The show was a re-run hosted by Will Ferrel and contained a skit with Usher, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberwolf, etc. It was the most graphic and vulgar display I have ever witnessed on Public TV. NBC should not only be ashamed of the content, but should be held accountable to any violations committed. If this kind of garbage is allowed by the FCC, then shame on you for contributing to the downfall of common decency and respect.

I'm always amazed that someone would be so incensed by a simple television (or radio) broadcast that they'd stop what they were doing and take the time to file a formal complaint with anyone. I'm also amazed how ignorant these viewers are of the fact that the FCC has no authority over NBC's broadcasts of "Saturday Night Live," because it airs in the Safe Harbor hours, which are explained on the commission's website:

Congress and the courts have instructed the Commission only to enforce the indecency standard between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., local time. -- when children are more likely to be in the audience. As a consequence, the Commission does not take action on indecent material aired between 10 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. In this way, constitutionally-protected free speech rights of adults are balanced with the need to protect children from harmful content.

As a parent, I've never needed a Nanny Government to protect my child from anything on television or radio, nor to keep my adult eyes and ears free of material that might be offensive to my sensitive nature. And I'd bet (yet again) that many of those complaining to the FCC are the same folks who claim they want government to do less, except when they're bothered by something or someone.

Here's another:

I don't typically watch SNL because of it's offensive material. In this instance, we had company over and it happened to be on. Unfortunatley, our 2 children were also in the room. They had a spoof of Clint Eastwood's Superbowl commercial for Chrysler. In the spoof the 'Clint Eastwood' character was talking about the presidential candidates and clearly said the word 'pus*y' in the clip. I was taken aback at the crude and offensive remark especially on REGULAR TV, not cable. I hope the FCC can start taking back the airwaves and bring back just plain common decency.

Well, that's some damned fine monitoring of what's on the TV while your children are in the room. You're already offended by the show, but you don't turn it off? Sorry, your fault. And by the way, the word "pussy" isn't banned from the airwaves, even outside the Safe Harbor hours.

Another (with original punctuation and case):

under the sea skit depicting Osama Bin Laden floating in the sea. Shocking and inappropriate. totally tasteless and upsetting. unAmerican. will boycott advertisers.

That will probably shut the show down. Meanwhile, the network appreciates you watching all the way through so you can make a list of all the advertisers you're going to stop doing business with. Do you have any idea how many viewers have threatened to boycott "Saturday Night Live" in its 38 years on the air?

And then there's my favorite comment from a complainer to the FCC:

Lome Greene ought to be ashamed of what he has allowed his show to deteriorate into.

Government Attic acquired the complaints from the FCC through a Freedom Of Information Act request. You can browse through them here.

Worth A Link

To contact us Click HERE

From my Twitter feed...

• Yet another radio commercial for a Jaguar dealership mis-pronounces it "jag-wire." Try not to crash it into a "gired-rail."
• A newspaper explains why it's dropping a comic strip. Surprisingly, the reason isn't "it was never funny."
• Some friends I watched the Super Bowl with brought up this end-of-game possibility: the ultra-rare fair-catch-kick scenario.
• You won't believe the ridiculous claims made by the people who sell this brand of bottled water.