Reminds me of a story I love telling. My very first real job - a summer gig between my junior and senior years of high school - I was working in the records department of a pharmaceutical company (shout out to Burroughs-Wellcome, long since absorbed by some other corporate behemoth).
My job was to sit in a dark room methodically microfilming documents. I'd empty a box of records, and go through it page by page, putting each one under a camera, pressing a button to photograph it, move it to the "done" stack and moving on to the next one. All day long, ten hours a day, all summer long. After about the third day of this, I swiped my sister's transistor radio so that I'd have something to listen to while I tried to avoid dying of boredom.
The only radio station I could get was the local Top-40 station, and they constantly advertised that they'd play "ten hits every hour!" After a couple of days I realized what they really meant was the *same* ten hits every hour. It was the summer that the Dirty Dancing soundtrack was all the rage, and to this day I can sing the songs that made the radio by heart, some 30+ years later.
The question, of course, is whether you can find anything for which you *are* the audience. I find it frustrating that in many cases, either what I want doesn't exist, or it's incredibly hard to find. (Cue rant about news sites and searches that think everyone cares primarily about whatever is "trending".)
Oddly enough, I can do a bit better with the punditsphere than I can with more mundane things. Someone on substack probably produces something more suitable to me (or you?) than the NYT does. But no one wants to sell me appliances that don't have "soft" controls, and far too often at least the potential for software "upgrades" not under my control, potentially changing their user interface.
I would have agreed with your opening question, had you asked it in the dark ages before we got the Internet. Nowadays, though, it's hard to imagine how it could be any easier (at least, without having to pay a curator) to find stuff that is exactly in line with one's interests.
In fact, the Internet's ability to keep one within one's one bubble is now, arguably, a bug, not a feature.
Search has been getting better and better - at finding me what the average American would probably want. It corrects my "typos" - even when they are the correct spelling of something I actually want, rather than the more popular thing with vaguely similar spelling. It "knows" that my IP address geolocating to somewhere in the US means I am a unilingual anglophone. (It also gets my geographical address wrong, routinely, but only by perhaps an hour's driving time.)
I've been unable to find any documentation more recent than 2003 for how to give any of the big search engines hints about what not to include, or for that matter what to include. And no tech company keeps a stable user interface for 5 years, never mind 20. (Best available instructions found so far (from 2003): https://www.librarything.com/work/11674)
Yes, whatever I want might well be on the internet somewhere. But would Google, or Bing ever find it for me? It sure would - if it's the latest movie, or a major brand name, or even one of their "advertising partners". But those things are all advertised to death already; how often would I ever want to look them up?
And that's before we think about outright errors, where the information returned has nothing to do with the query. (Ask for information on iOS, get an answer for Windows, etc. etc., in spite of putting iOS in the query.)
First, depending on what search engine you use, you might find that, over time, the results returned are increasingly tailored to your particular interests. Google, for instance, trumpets this. I find this somewhat annoying, truth be told. I miss being able to give a link to Google results with the assurance that everyone would see the same thing. (Helpful when arguing in online forums, for instance. ;))
Second, I don't think it's fair to say that it's hard to find stuff that you, personally, are interested if all you are doing is considering what initial search results show. Here, I have in mind that, for example, that I used to read ScienceBlogs back in the day, because I knew that PZ Myers posted there. That is how I discovered Chad Orzel. And although SB went belly up some years ago, somehow, I got my attention drawn to Chad starting a Substack. And I could go on all day about how his newsletters have led me to things that really interest me.
In other words, I'll grant that you can't just open your browser and be magically catered to. But it seems to me that it doesn't take much effort at all beyond that ideal state: I usually start from any one of a bunch of starting points, do a little link-hopping, and ... boom ... I've just spent another who knows how many hours reading about stuff that I'm very happy I did.
I guess if your complaint is in fact restricted only to frustrations due to search engine results, I don't have a good answer. I can only say that Googling gives me what I want well more than 99% of the time. On the other hand, I never Google for things like specific movies or products (I tend to go to Wikipedia first, for these).
One final note, in case you didn't already know: if you want info on something to do with iOS, without having the results swamped by Windows-related results, put quote marks around that term when Googling. That will restrict the results to only those containing that string. Not perfectly, but generally pretty satisfactorily.
I *thought* quotation marks might mean "I want this whole phrase" (e.g. "black book" means don't match 'black' or 'book' or even 'book on the black table') - except it didn't work. Or of course it might mean 'match the whole string, including the quotes'
It did not occur to me that a quotation mark might mean 'MUST match THIS string'.
FWIW, I found Chad's blog as a result of reading one of his books. I don't recall the precise sequence of events, but I often google the names of authors I read.
Yes, you are correct. Quotes around something -- be it one word or a phrase -- essentially means "results must contain this." A somtimes handy option: you can specify multiple words, each surrounded by their own set of quotes, if you want the result to contain all of those words, but you suspect they won't appear in a phrase.
Which one of Chad's books got you going? I just finished "A Brief History of Timekeeping." Recommended.
A few years ago, I got myself in the habit of searching Wikipedia first, for many things. New-to-me authors is a good example. If a given author has an entry, there is generally a bibliography and links to the author's personal website(s), which usually suffices for me. And it's easy enough to Google, next, in the rare case where there is no entry.
Goodreads [.com] is also pretty handy for the search you described. You do have to create an account to get much use out of the site, but it's free, and they don't overwhelm you with spam.
I believe the book that got me following Chad was the same one you mention: A Brief History of Timekeeping.
I've been using LibraryThing, which is more-or-less an alternative to Goodreads. (As of when I joined LT, in 2015, there was less difference in their sizes.) I prefer it partly because Amazon is not involved, partly because it does not limit itself to books which are currently in print, and partly because its user interface is less modern - and thus far easier for me to use. I also like the community, but don't know enough about Goodreads to compare that.
“...the low entropy of Top 40 radio playlists”. I love this juxtaposition. And you’re right, the 11-year old expressed that skillfully, if not in specialist terminology.
Reminds me of a story I love telling. My very first real job - a summer gig between my junior and senior years of high school - I was working in the records department of a pharmaceutical company (shout out to Burroughs-Wellcome, long since absorbed by some other corporate behemoth).
My job was to sit in a dark room methodically microfilming documents. I'd empty a box of records, and go through it page by page, putting each one under a camera, pressing a button to photograph it, move it to the "done" stack and moving on to the next one. All day long, ten hours a day, all summer long. After about the third day of this, I swiped my sister's transistor radio so that I'd have something to listen to while I tried to avoid dying of boredom.
The only radio station I could get was the local Top-40 station, and they constantly advertised that they'd play "ten hits every hour!" After a couple of days I realized what they really meant was the *same* ten hits every hour. It was the summer that the Dirty Dancing soundtrack was all the rage, and to this day I can sing the songs that made the radio by heart, some 30+ years later.
The question, of course, is whether you can find anything for which you *are* the audience. I find it frustrating that in many cases, either what I want doesn't exist, or it's incredibly hard to find. (Cue rant about news sites and searches that think everyone cares primarily about whatever is "trending".)
Oddly enough, I can do a bit better with the punditsphere than I can with more mundane things. Someone on substack probably produces something more suitable to me (or you?) than the NYT does. But no one wants to sell me appliances that don't have "soft" controls, and far too often at least the potential for software "upgrades" not under my control, potentially changing their user interface.
I would have agreed with your opening question, had you asked it in the dark ages before we got the Internet. Nowadays, though, it's hard to imagine how it could be any easier (at least, without having to pay a curator) to find stuff that is exactly in line with one's interests.
In fact, the Internet's ability to keep one within one's one bubble is now, arguably, a bug, not a feature.
Search has been getting better and better - at finding me what the average American would probably want. It corrects my "typos" - even when they are the correct spelling of something I actually want, rather than the more popular thing with vaguely similar spelling. It "knows" that my IP address geolocating to somewhere in the US means I am a unilingual anglophone. (It also gets my geographical address wrong, routinely, but only by perhaps an hour's driving time.)
I've been unable to find any documentation more recent than 2003 for how to give any of the big search engines hints about what not to include, or for that matter what to include. And no tech company keeps a stable user interface for 5 years, never mind 20. (Best available instructions found so far (from 2003): https://www.librarything.com/work/11674)
Yes, whatever I want might well be on the internet somewhere. But would Google, or Bing ever find it for me? It sure would - if it's the latest movie, or a major brand name, or even one of their "advertising partners". But those things are all advertised to death already; how often would I ever want to look them up?
And that's before we think about outright errors, where the information returned has nothing to do with the query. (Ask for information on iOS, get an answer for Windows, etc. etc., in spite of putting iOS in the query.)
I mostly agree. Two minor points, though.
First, depending on what search engine you use, you might find that, over time, the results returned are increasingly tailored to your particular interests. Google, for instance, trumpets this. I find this somewhat annoying, truth be told. I miss being able to give a link to Google results with the assurance that everyone would see the same thing. (Helpful when arguing in online forums, for instance. ;))
Second, I don't think it's fair to say that it's hard to find stuff that you, personally, are interested if all you are doing is considering what initial search results show. Here, I have in mind that, for example, that I used to read ScienceBlogs back in the day, because I knew that PZ Myers posted there. That is how I discovered Chad Orzel. And although SB went belly up some years ago, somehow, I got my attention drawn to Chad starting a Substack. And I could go on all day about how his newsletters have led me to things that really interest me.
In other words, I'll grant that you can't just open your browser and be magically catered to. But it seems to me that it doesn't take much effort at all beyond that ideal state: I usually start from any one of a bunch of starting points, do a little link-hopping, and ... boom ... I've just spent another who knows how many hours reading about stuff that I'm very happy I did.
I guess if your complaint is in fact restricted only to frustrations due to search engine results, I don't have a good answer. I can only say that Googling gives me what I want well more than 99% of the time. On the other hand, I never Google for things like specific movies or products (I tend to go to Wikipedia first, for these).
One final note, in case you didn't already know: if you want info on something to do with iOS, without having the results swamped by Windows-related results, put quote marks around that term when Googling. That will restrict the results to only those containing that string. Not perfectly, but generally pretty satisfactorily.
Thanks for the hint about the quotation marks.
I *thought* quotation marks might mean "I want this whole phrase" (e.g. "black book" means don't match 'black' or 'book' or even 'book on the black table') - except it didn't work. Or of course it might mean 'match the whole string, including the quotes'
It did not occur to me that a quotation mark might mean 'MUST match THIS string'.
FWIW, I found Chad's blog as a result of reading one of his books. I don't recall the precise sequence of events, but I often google the names of authors I read.
Yes, you are correct. Quotes around something -- be it one word or a phrase -- essentially means "results must contain this." A somtimes handy option: you can specify multiple words, each surrounded by their own set of quotes, if you want the result to contain all of those words, but you suspect they won't appear in a phrase.
Which one of Chad's books got you going? I just finished "A Brief History of Timekeeping." Recommended.
A few years ago, I got myself in the habit of searching Wikipedia first, for many things. New-to-me authors is a good example. If a given author has an entry, there is generally a bibliography and links to the author's personal website(s), which usually suffices for me. And it's easy enough to Google, next, in the rare case where there is no entry.
Goodreads [.com] is also pretty handy for the search you described. You do have to create an account to get much use out of the site, but it's free, and they don't overwhelm you with spam.
I believe the book that got me following Chad was the same one you mention: A Brief History of Timekeeping.
I've been using LibraryThing, which is more-or-less an alternative to Goodreads. (As of when I joined LT, in 2015, there was less difference in their sizes.) I prefer it partly because Amazon is not involved, partly because it does not limit itself to books which are currently in print, and partly because its user interface is less modern - and thus far easier for me to use. I also like the community, but don't know enough about Goodreads to compare that.
“...the low entropy of Top 40 radio playlists”. I love this juxtaposition. And you’re right, the 11-year old expressed that skillfully, if not in specialist terminology.
So I have a theory about who killed Asmodean...
You? No!