Forum Moderators: open
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:14 pm (utc) on June 29, 2003]
[edit reason] fixed no registration url [/edit]
Same (?) article at CNN [cnn.com].
I consider that a feature, not a bug :)
I recently went out to Silicon Valley to visit the offices of Google, the world's most popular search engine. It is a mind-bending experience. You can actually sit in front of a monitor and watch a sample of everything that everyone in the world is searching for. (Hint: sex, God, jobs and, oh my word, professional wrestling usually top the lists.)
In the New Project shows International Google search queries. [webmasterworld.com] thread there was another quote from the NYT:
To keep Live Query G-rated, Google filters out sex-related searches, though less successfully with foreign languages.
So, now I'm wondering what happened:
1. Google is no longer filtering those words
2. Friendman's knowledge of forieng languages is very good
3. Friedman wrote about it in the article without seeing the sex-related searches. After all, it is an article in the NYT recently famous for made up 'facts'.
In fact that's not a Google article at all, it's rather a political piece. Here's a journalist who has just realized what the first two letters in www stand for.
Thomas Friedman isn't just a columnist; he's also the author of a book on the global economy, THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE. He certainly isn't a latecomer to the idea that "ww" stands for "world-wide."
And you're correct in saying that his column isn't a Google article. For one thing, it isn't about Google; for another, it isn't an article--it's an essay. :-)
In the past three years, Google has gone from processing 100 million searches per day to over 200 million searches per day. And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S.
I agree that this is definitely not an article about Google, which is why I didn't post it yesterday.
This mistake - confusing languages and nationalities - may seem neglectible, in fact it's typical of the whole piece.
The key quote in my opion was this: speaking of G searches.
And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages.
The globalization of the Internet and thus powerful internet companies such as G are more powerful than any one administration, leader, geo-political issues, et al when looking at overarching global trends.
Look at the global reach of WW. We don't know where eachother is from, or what each other looks like, race, religion, income, age, et al. We are simply a global community, united, powerful, and committed to increasing the fluidity of communication beyond traditional geo-political boundaries.
Another point, the title: quite fitting. Why? Cause religion is a reference to a higher power that unites people together under a common purpose. The title is bold and brave and also a sign of the times in that it asks us whether a leading Internet company in the world can be this unifying force. In a sense, saying there is no wrong or right, there is a world of unique opinion, thought, and emotion, and the unification and relativism of such, is closer to the underpinnings of religion, than religion itself has been to this point.
[edited by: Chicago at 5:27 pm (utc) on June 29, 2003]
it is an american paper and an american company. what do you expect?
the point of the article was however, contrary to the very idea of an american centric world, so your point comfounds me.
if it isn't 88 languages, it is surely 88+ coutries. Who cares? the point still stands.
>>One of them?
Umm.Yea, an individual on this earth united by a communication vehicle that has done more to shrink (yes- geo-political) boundaries, than any other mechanisms in the last half century.
Google had everything to do with the article as it and MSFT, and Y, and a handful of others, with market capitalization the size of some country's gdp, that are the ones that are leading this movement. it is the truth. not something we should shy away from.
I could of done without the terrorism and 9/11 part myself, but the author was trying to put things into REAL LIFE TERMS for the lay people in AMERICA and beyond, that do not have an appreciation or understanding about the power of the internet. They think .com bust, or the stock market, or e-bay. There is larger consequencies here, and if WE OURSELVES don't recognize them, how in the world can we expect others too.
I am sorry, but I really appreciate attempts to put into perspective the importance of the internet from a political standpoint. You are just stefan to me stefan - that is the point. Google is god is the analogy that breaths life into that reality.
[edited by: Chicago at 5:35 pm (utc) on June 29, 2003]
Here's a journalist who has just realized what the first two letters in www stand for.
Look at the global reach of WW. We don't know where eachother is from, or what each other looks like, race, religion, income, age, et al. We are simply a global community, united, powerful, and committed to increasing the fluidity of communication beyond traditional geo-political boundaries.
And funny you are talking about "global community" stuff, I just stumbled across this quote (with respect to online communities) today:
It is not surprising that in a culture widely cited for its loss of community, the word "community" itself should come in for heavy use. The more we lack something, the more we may be fascinated by fragmentary glimpses of it. A starving man will discover food where the well fed see only garbage.
He is only mentioning God, knowing it will raise people's interest in the article. Tomorrow someone is going to write "Google is like FREE SEX". It does not cost anything and it can be a lot of fun. Now that I got your attention, ....blah...
Pleaaase. His reasoning seems ridiculous:
[Google] is a little bit like God. God is wireless, God is everywhere and God sees and knows everything. Throughout history, people connected to God without wires.
I agree with Brett though, it's interesting to see those numbers he mentions.
>>Says Alan Cohen, a V.P. of Airespace, a new Wi-Fi provider: "If I can operate Google, I can find anything. And with wireless, it means I will be able to find anything, anywhere, anytime. Which is why I say that Google, combined with Wi-Fi, is a little bit like God. God is wireless, God is everywhere and God sees and knows everything. Throughout history, people connected to God without wires. Now, for many questions in the world, you ask Google, and increasingly, you can do it without wires, too."
This is quoted by Alan Cohen not the Author.The author merely reproduced what Alan cohen said in quotes.
Personally my opinion is it's more of a political article written to wider audience ( not about google).Perhaps it might have been be titled like that to draw attention of people like us.
Aravind
Now that is a faar to idealistic and (IMHO) blinded view (no offense meant). ...but I assume that has more to do with the mindset of technologically oriented people.
Hence the point, ruserious. *We* (you and I - not america) are in a priveledged position to reach further than those of traditional business, govt, and culture. i embrace this fact and responsibility.
If there is a time and place to be idealistic in my opinion, it is when talking about the shape of the world. Idealism has little place in business, but it does in Geo-Politics.
As an American, I for one will save my pragmatism for my business, and I will always pull out my idealism for a stronger world community. I will not apologize for that, or stop trying. And it just so happens that the Internet and *not* politics is the means by which I can best personify such idealism.
[edited by: Chicago at 7:36 pm (utc) on June 29, 2003]
The complete quote is:
>And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages.
I found this quite annoying and I'm not even a native English speaker.
>>>>And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S. The rest are in 88 other languages.
Surely this should be amazingly one third (still) come from inside the US!
The rest are in 88 other languages - Ok does this mean that the whole English speaking world are in the US?
Also watch our for those Island Kingdoms (UK?)
;)
Because of the massive online presense of US citizens it can be assumed as it being the majority could cause it to influence , i dont think that is the case, but everyones different.
ruserious, no offense but your analogy is a very poor one.
The American viewpoint is natural because it's an american paper created for american consumption. I have the same experience when reading media from a french-centric view, or indian-centric view.
However, stefan, I would never sniff and huff about it because I understand and take it for granted that the view from your side of the fence is different from what I see from mine. In other words, stefan, aren't you being just a little naive or disingenuos to be surprised that an american viewpoint is being propagated from an american paper?
It's to be expected- although I agree that geographic and cultural awareness could be increased, not just in the united states, but in ALL OF YOUR BACKYARDS as well. :)
US English - almost a different language. <duck>
Different, yea, I will concede that Chiyo. Anytime you take a nation of 265 Million people that is more diverse in national origin than any country in the history of the world, you are bound to produce a different version of english.
This is so very troubling to me... comments from wonderful people in wonderful countries throughout the world, using a NYT article as a means to suggest self-aggrandizement, when one reporter for one paper suggests that the world is getting much smaller because of the Internet.
Looks like a lose-lose proposition when the message is convoluted by the perception of the messanger.
Don't you realize that there is more diverse opinion in the US on these topics than I can possibly comment on. That diversity is the linchpin of our society? Hell, if it were up to me, I would be sitting on a winery in Tuscany, Italy. Moreover, I feel closer in spirit to a Londoner than a Chicagoan. Don't you see? Don't you realize that this voice you are hearing from these borders is nothing but a fleeting opinion of one individual, that is closer to *you* in mind, body, and spirit, than that of any one policy of our respective governments.
Reach out your hand. Please. Come on' Dam* it. Reach out your hand.
Justin
[edited by: Chicago at 6:53 pm (utc) on June 29, 2003]
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea as much as you do, I just don't think it holds true as a description on how the world is or will be any time soon. :)
@martinibuster
ruserious- TV doesn't know anything and is not all-seeing in the way that Google is. TV gives you whatever information happens to be on it-regardless of what you wanted or needed. Google gives you information in response to what you ask of it.
ruserious, no offense but your analogy is a very poor one.
Hehe, an analogy is just that, as has been discussed a lot in the Google-Intel-analogy: It shows a common elemt, of course with every analogy you can always just look for the differences.
Let me rephrase what I meant with a few more argument: Google does not know anything, and it cannot answer any questions. It does not unite people anymore than it teaches people how to build bombs or tries to commit forgery of WWII-history. Google isn't answering anything (that's anthropologizing (is that the verb?), it's an algorithm that can calculate a ratio which is used to fit search-words with archived(!) douments.
Google can only 'reproduce' what other people have created first. And even though it may (or may not) be better than any other search engine, it has only a fraction of all the web (no pun intended) in its database. Further we all know that only a fraction of the human knowledge is even published on the net.
That all does make it far less than all-knowing, or all-seeing, in my book. People tend to get carried away...
In the past three years, Google has gone from processing 100 million searches per day to over 200 million searches per day. And get this: only one-third come from inside the U.S.
Since the US leads the pack again, assuming that about two-third of the searches three years ago came from the USA, it means the number of searches in the US has not gone up at all in the last three years (while number of web pages have gone by maybe 10+ times.)
Bodes bad for all SEs and webmasters.
(PS: And 150 million of those 200 million searches came from contributors to this board who check their ranking every 5 minutes. ;))
Alot of sick people in this world.
If I could summarize the article:
1/There are other people on the planet than just Americans.
2/Many of them use the internet. (The article illustrates this with a crude description of what Google does).
3/This could pose a threat of some sort, probably terrorism or at least anti-americanism.
4/The subtext: maybe we'd better keep an eye on this internet thing.
There is in the last paragraph a laughable suggestion to be better listeners.
There is no reference to the Patriot Act, but the entire article implies that the internet is a future threat because of all those pesky foreigners. If that's a representative view of folks there, then the rest of us are in trouble.
(I was hoping to get out of this with that last :-) rather than have to post my honest opinion of that piece of cr#p. No luck...)
entire article implies that the internet is a future threat because of all those pesky foreigners.
Whoa... that's not remotely close to how I read that article.
In fact, the author of that article is well known to espouse leftist views that are opposed to the Patriot Act, war on terror, war against iraq, etc.
So how you read into it what you did is beyond me. Maybe we're reading two different articles.
The key word in your last post is the word, "implies" and that, to me signals that you may be reading into it far more than it actually says.
That word, "IMPLIES" makes my eyebrows go up all the time because it's where people too often stuff their own opinions or conjectures into places they don't exist. I truly dislike that word.
:)
I never follow the US press, so I'm sorry if I mis-read that piece. He struck me as being another paranoid person looking for enemies under every bed, but perhaps I'm wrong.
To get back on topic... the Google part was feeble. :-)
He is an American 'leftist' wink wink. ;)
I pretty much consider myself a citizen of the world. I haven't lived in any one country for more than a quarter of my life. But the tone that came out of the article (sorry: essay) was definately xenophobic and alarmist. More to the point it was almost anti-search engine, casting them in the light of a force for terrorism and activism.
If that article was reaching out to the globe then I think he needs a few lessons in tact, diplomacy and demographics. Not to mention communication and terrorism.
