The answers my friends- are blowin’in the wind….

Response to Long Tails and Short Queries 

The Christina Wodtke interview with Amanda Spink

Amanda Spink needs to do some reading on human computer interaction and buy an ipod.  During her interview with Christina Wodtke she says, “the best way to encourage richer queries is to train users and expect them to put more effort into their search behavior. Search engines need to put more demands on the users. People don’t understand their own information behaviors, and they don’t really understand much about search or the web, so they will have to learn. It could take generations.”  This statement flies in the face of almost everything else we have learned throughout this semester.  In short, while Spink presents some interesting points I think the crux of her argument is way off base. 

The answer isn’t more training- its better search engines.  People enter one term searches in the first place because they are lazy- and no amount of training is going to change that.  Even Spink’s own research supports this, she found that “few people use advanced search features, and many queries include spelling and other mistakes that adversely affect the search results. People look at only a few result pages—not beyond the first or second results pages.”  This indicates to me that people don’t want to think harder- or receive more training- quite the contrary!  When a user types in the word “camp” they want the summer camp they went to one summer in second grade to appear- and why shouldn’t it!?

The advent of the wearable computer and the ability to record and catalogue one’s life is going to spur the development of more sophisticated searching capabilities.  Key word searches will become customizable, intuitive and personalized, but it won’t be because user’s have gotten smarter or better able to search.  The shift will occur because there will be a market need for it and because technology is now capable.  Much like the only reason we don’t have flying cars now is because the technology isn’t there yet- or because the government won’t let us (conspiracy).  

So the crux of my position- Users don’t need more training- search engines need to be smarter- and do away with all that optimization garbage that allows junk sites to appear legitimate.  Like Wikipedia- search engines should subscribe to the communal model and let the sites with the most number of hits display first- kind of like that site digit which you demonstrated in class.  This way, real sites with helpful information would always show up first and users wouldn’t have to scroll endlessly through all of the hyperlinked selections.

Before this can happen however- search engines need to find what users are looking for much more intuitively.  Many credit card companies and banks use voice recognition to input your data why can’t search engines use thought pattern recognition to connect that when I search for Kimberly Reidy I want the QU student not the apparent medical doctor in Okalahoma… Additionally, search strings, like Amazon, should remember what you last searched for and based off of that information find related topics… I am not talking about how Google will list items in the search box drop down- I’m talking about the kind of searching that says- humm last time she searched for exotic islands in
Tahiti- so perhaps now that she is searching under the word vacation I should pull up sites rife with water side tiki huts as well…

As ipods morph into the next generation of “this is so easy to use that a dead person could jam out” – the onus will fall even more heavily to other technology providers- including search engines- to serve up what users are looking for not just quickly, efficiently and exactly how they want it, but with the least amount of thought possible- and on a silver platter to boot.   

Once the search ability is straightened out- search engine providers should then focus on result display.  I’ll pick on Google since I Google everything and because I find the fact that “to Google” something has seeped its way into our everyday vocabulary impressive (or evil depending on my mood)… There is nothing more frustrating to me then to search for something and have the results come back as a mishmashed ad hoc assemblage of some of the key words I entered.  While Google does go to the trouble of highlighting them – it is quite annoying to have to read the “abstract” Google provides- which often don’t make any sense… Even Spink and I agree on this one- she says in her article that “all they can really do at present is squeeze in a few words, press search, and look at a list of websites-the list giving little indication of what the websites mean or how they are ranked.”

Spink asks in her article “how to train billions of people? Whoever comes up with the best solution for that question may capture huge market share.”  I disagree- the question is not how to train the population of web users that ranges from grandma to little johhny and keeps growing everyday.  Instead, we should be asking – how do we train the search engine providers to realize and understand the dynamic ways the human mind connects ideas and objects.  Quite literally- if people want better search capability then computers need to think more like we do- and the search technology needs to be customizable- so that  over time- it will understand the way I think and in time think just like me- scary thought isn’t it….

Brenda Battleson’s discussion of HCI (human computer interaction) provided a lot of linkages to many of the other articles we have read so far.  It was also a great step by step guide as to how to test the usability of one’s website- both inexpensively and easily.  While Battleson explored HCI as it relates to the design and implementation of the library site at the University of Buffalo and as a frame work for usability testing, I would argue that HCI thinking extends well beyond web site design and that an astute awareness of HCI is one of the main factors responsible for the recent boom in technology enabled communication.   

HCI is measured through usability testing which identifies problems that would have otherwise gone unnoticed; basically it is the balance between form and function.  According to Battleson the goal of usability testing is to determine how effectively a site can be used by people with no experience of the given site.  Important questions to ask are: “how quickly did the user work? Did choices seem obvious? How carefully did students read the information on the screens?  Was there an increasing level of certainty and success as the test progressed?” (Battleson, page 192) 

These questions, while important to web design, extend well beyond just the internet however and can be applied to a myriad of other technologies that have enabled two way communication outside of traditional chat rooms.  In short, HCI enables highly capable technologies to be placed in the hands of even the lowest denominator in our society and still work properly and thus have the ability to communicate with whomever- wherever…   

Immediately, the technology discussed in the Sept. 14^th readings comes to mind as an example of this idea, particularly Rheingold’s article on smart mobs.  The on street gaming played through one’s cell phone or the ability to drive around with a complete computer system in one’s back seat is possible because of designers understanding of HCI.  Furthermore, the overwhelming popularity of text messaging and other related technologies is in part due to how easy it is to send messages in the first place. 

Another aspect of HCI which Battleson also touched on was the idea of instant usability.  Whether it is a web site or any other technology, people want to be able to instantly begin using it.  The Ipod is the perfect example of this and really a demonstration of HCI at its best.  Apple did something very right when it designed this little music mogul… They understood human kind’s impatience with reading directions, they made the tool highly capable but extremely easy to use- so much so that even my grandmother has one now…  

The prevalence of HCI designed products is taken for granted nowadays but according to Battleson, “only recently have “user needs” become part of software and interface development. During the 1990s software companies began to address their customer needs seriously and to design “usability” into their products rather than focusing solely on functionality,” (Battleson, page 188.)

 Had this industry paradigm shift never occurred – the world of blackberries and palm pilots and text messaging would never have existed- let alone saturated societies around the world to the extent that it has.  HCI usability enables accessibility and thus grandmothers around the world can now groove down the supermarket aisle with their ipods – while checking out the sale prices at a competing store on their blackberries….

This week’s readings really made me think about an article i had read once about how this centruy will leave behind fewer artifacts than those who came thousands of years before us- mainly becuase most of what we create is digital.  While i couldn’t find that article, I found another one which i thought was interesting…

 http://www.wilhelm-research.com/usa_today/USAToday_Article_2004_07_27.pdf

I am currently grappling with an experience like those mentioned in the article in my vain attempt to preserve all of my files from college and my first masters.  A quest that has resulted in my calling local libraries to see if they still have computers with 3.5 disc drives- who knew the disk would go out of fashion so quickly?  The probelm becomes even more stressful when one thinks about having to back up a hard drive with your relative’s entire lives recorded on it- how do you keep pace with the constantly evolving technology while trying to carry the weight of your entire famiy’s legacy on your back from one new PC to the next… Certainly an issue that will have to be considered as this technology develops further.

Imagine a world where the thief who stole your purse is caught in a wave of head cams as he dashes down the streets of NYC- whose images are all being simultaneously loaded into a criminal database- while the police quickly close in- alerted by a signal sent from the robbery victim.  Conversely however, think of a world where lipstick on one’s collar is the least of an adulterer’s worries- as not only do they have to erase cell phone logs and cover up the foreign perfume smell, in this new world they would also have to somehow delete the recorded logs of everyone who saw them enter the hotel, in addition to trying to somehow file their own recording somewhere so deep that their partner could never discover it… Thus the pluses and minuses of living in a fully recordable, inter connected digital world.  Where memories would be accessible at the click of a button, but free will and personal choice would be limited by the fact that you know everyone is watching- everywhere. 

While Czerwinski’s article was written this year as a sort of hypothetical of the future it is certainly not that far fetched.  Despite its Sci-Fi feel I really think that the technology she examines will be here faster then Google can buy another web 2.0 company.  It is quite interesting to think about how out of date this article will be in 10 or even just 5 years from now, much like some of the older readings we have read for this class that discussed web topics that have already been surpassed by other technologies…   

While the information revolution is seemingly becoming eclipsed by the recordable revolution, we all need to stop and think about what implications this new era will bring.  This is thinking that has to happen right now, particularly when you consider that according to Czerwinski “many of the required components are commercially available today with more on the way.” 

The ability to record every aspect of one’s life, while appealing on the surface, carries many implications with it.  Conversations need to happen around how will this data be used, new protections need to be put into place so that I can’t self incriminate myself and general frameworks set up so as to avoid a sort of black market of “memories and experiences” which is sure to spring up.

This is particularly true where education is concerned.  The converging of the ability to record one’s life with the emerging popularity of online courses raises an interesting issue.  Hiltz says on page 62 “once most courses are available in digital formats as well as on campuses, geographic monopolies and barriers that have sustained thousands of different colleges and universities in the
U.S. and around the world will weaken.”  Taking this a step further however, won’t this also weaken the historic hold professors have had over ideas and discussions within the classroom?  Jumping ahead even another step – the capability to record one’s entire life experiences married with online classes could possibly eliminate the need for professors to teach intro courses year after year. In essence they could record themselves the first year and break down the memories into weekly modules to be completed by the student online. 

Leaping an even bigger step ahead and linking back to the black market of experiences I mentioned earlier Hiltz raises a second key point when she asks on page 63 “however, there are still fundamental questions as to whether higher education should be a right of the citizen as opposed to a privilege for those who can afford it, and what is in the best interest of society as a whole.”  I envision a day when students won’t be buying other people’s essays online, but will instead, purchase people’s entire college careers.  If the technology develops like Czerwinski predicts, higher education will be bartered and sold much like used cars are today… Those less fortunate won’t have to apply for financial aid anymore- because they’ll be able to purchase a Harvard degree second hand, and thus be spared the mountain of student loan debt that crushes my pay check every month. 

Before developers put together test groups and begin thinking about “user centered design” around this technology, questions and issues like the above must be analyzed and thought through.  While I would certainly enjoy the ability to rewind through a dinner party to remember the person’s name I was sitting next to – so that next time I saw them I won’t have to be embarrassed that I spent an entire evening feeling like they were my new best friend, but as soon as they left I forgot who they were…  At the same time the thought of it is extremely eerie.  I wonder if everyone will start acting like the stupid people on the real world who really aren’t famous, but think everyone should know who they are… Because truly everyone will be their own reality TV star now- on the flip side though maybe then the real world will go away- so ok I concede one concrete benefit to this new technology. 

Seriously though this week’s readings remind me of the movie Click, the basic premise of which was Adam Sandler finding a remote control that enabled him to fast-forward and rewind to different parts of his life- however he runs into trouble when the remote starts acting up and taking over his life.  I view this movie as an ominous warning for the rest of us that all this technology is perhaps not such a good thing. 

As the You Tubes of the world get bought up by the Googles – there will always be a drive for the next big thing- and the person who can make the next popular web 2.0 or by that point web 3.0 life data recorder site will – I’m sure – be the next internet start up billionaire… I just hope that when that time comes we fully understand what it means to live in an age where nothing is disposable….

Here is a response I wrote last week on someone elses blog… Forgot I should write it on my own…

I think your question about is local the niche for CTnow.com or can you delve even more is a very interesting one. On the one hand it would seem you already are targeting a limited scope of people- i.e. those interested in CT… However I think you are right in reassessing who your audience is and expanding it to include pretty much anyone every alive who might even think about CT once… Obvioulsy you will need to stay targeted enough to provide the high level info that actual visitors etc would be looking for- but by building in the deeper pages you mentioned i think you could really appeal to a general interest crowd who might find their way to your site froma completely different path then logging onto CTnow.com. Especially with the linkability of blogs now- say you post something about a recent concert and a blogger picks up the story and inputs that page onto thier page- and there you go- you’ve built a nother “highway” so to speak for people to access your site. One other idea to think about would be to use video or some other form of interactive media to maybe have local artists, or performers talk about why they like CT or what they love about performing at the Bushnell or the Palace in Waterbury- or do podcasts with people talking about their experiences of CT- so that when visitors click on a link to say the Old State House there might be Gov. Rell saying how she loves the stuffed birds on the third floor or something like that. Could be a costly project but might lend some personalization to places people are thinking about visiting…

So I finally got around to changing the look and feel of my blog from the blah standard template to something with at least a little more personality… I chose the grass template becuase it reminded me of the outdorrs- a place I never get to go, much like those who live in Second Life, becuase i am always at work or toiling away at QU.  I almost chose the Fresh Bananas theme since it had what in my mind is the perfect web 2.0 look and feel- rounded corners and all, but ultimately decided against it… So while i’ve given my blog a virtual facelift I still wish i could figure out how to make the paragraphs in my responses format correctly, some double space in between and some don’t *sigh* while the technological revolution is moving ahead rapidly I am still limping along…

Fun and play are activities that have been ingrained in humanity since its existence.  Despite the bleak and rugged hardships faced by ancient peoples, evidence exists of the games they played and the objects they crafted to amuse themselves.  While it is clear that human beings need and desire fun- the definition of one of the main ways of achieving that goal has become very unclear recently.  The concept of games has undergone a radical shift away from the traditional definition discussed in the earlier readings for this week and has entered a sphere where the line between real life and the game is either non-existent or blurry at best.

            Huizinga stated on page three of his article that the “intensity of and absorption in play finds no explanation in biological analysis,” he goes on to say further on page five that “pure play is one of the main bases of civilization.”  A point that still rings true today especially given the extensive selection of games and gaming systems and casinos and sporting events and the millions of other things people have created to amuse or distract themselves.  However the concept of play that exists now in relation to the online world is completely different from what Huizinga was writing about.  I wonder if he could have even imagined how far the concept of play would be stretched during this century- and what it would evolve into.  Could Huizinga have even conceived that games and play would cease being occasional diversions for some people and instead almost take the place of the real world?

            Like Huizinga, Crawford also thinks that “games are a fundamental part of human existence,” and later in his article he defines a game as “a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality. By ‘closed’ I mean that the game is complete and self sufficient as a structure. The model world created by the game is internally complete; no reference need be made to agents outside of the game.”  Obviously his definition holds no credence today whatsoever when one considers on-line gaming- though perhaps it is unfair to even compare his definition to today’s gaming environment, after all he was writing when Pong was popular.  Today the agents outside of the game are what make playing (if that is what you call it) Second Life so appealing to people.  And when those outside agents- not foreseen by the game developer, come into play the line between life and the game begin to blur. 

            Crawford’s article further supports this point when he says, “computer games seldom provide a human opponent, and so they lack the social element that other games offer. They can, however, present an illusory personality against which the player must work. And regardless of the computer’s success or failure in synthesizing a social element, the computer can readily make the game a highly interactive experience for the player.”  Here Crawford despite the 20 year time difference is not so far off the mark and actually touches on what has exactly happened with today’s online games.  Because computers have gotten so good at enabling interactivity, other people now have entire existences online and can engage in business as alter egos of themselves or as an entirely new self creation.  Thus the distinction between where the game ends and they begin has become increasingly more difficult to define.  This is especially true as relationships develop within the game and friendships are made through alter egos… Who is really the friend of whom and at what point are you playing verses living real life?

            When Hinton quotes his opponents as saying “Ha-ha, yeah… we live here!” sadly he isn’t kidding and for many there seems to be nothing wrong with living in a game.  Hinton sites how Doom and the Quake created not just a population of enthusiastic game players but also “many thousands of players who didn’t build anything, but spent many hours playing and socializing in the game and outside it in chat rooms and discussion boards.”  Here is evidence of a game leaving the traditional predefined boundaries many of us associate with them- you play a game and then you stop playing and put it away… The end.  Now however there really is no beginning or end, thus does the terms game or play even apply anymore?