Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts

Monday, March 03, 2008

He invented neither tacos nor crackers.

Have you noticed the funny little man with an old phone on today's Google™ logo?

The mouseover text informs you that it's Alexander Graham Bell. And a little common sense (or a little research) should lead you to realize that it's the anniversary of his birthday.

A quote to commemorate the occasion:

The thorax is the treasure-house of the human body,--a veritable strong-room, girt about with walls of bone for the protection of those precious organs the heart and lungs. Let us imagine ourselves for a moment inside the thorax, but first, with your permission, let us empty this safe-deposit vault of its valuable contents, so that we my have space for exploration.


When the logo is taken down you might still find it here.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Did you mean to vote for...

One of the nice features of Google™ is the spelling suggestion given when a search term looks like a likely misspelling. Above the search results a helpful line in red letters alerts you to a more common spelling for what your search term appears to be.

Type in 'winndows' and you get Did you mean: windows

Type in 'johnny carsen' and you're asked Did you mean: johnny carson

Type in 'conen o'brian' and you see Did you mean: conan o'brian (tho his last name is spelled O'Brien...and misspelling only his last name doesn't offer the correct spelling.)

Note that the misspelled word gets the italic emphasis. That's nicely intuitive.

You've probably also noticed the Sponsored Links in the peach shaded box above search results when the search terms scream I might spend money! Search for 'books' and Amazon jumps up begging for attention. Type in 'stereos' and Circuit City elbows its way in. But these are sponsored and not necessary suggested by Google™.

I recently did an image search for Christopher Dodd and Google™ saw it fit to make the following suggestion

Also try: john edwards

At first I thought the search engine was just throwing out the names of other candidates -- an equal time thing. So I did image searches for all the candidates I could think of.

  • barack obama -- no suggestion

  • john mccain -- no suggestion

  • hillary clinton -- no suggestion

  • mitt romney -- no suggestion

  • rudy giuliani -- no suggestion

  • fred thompson -- no suggestion

  • bill richardson -- no suggestion

  • john edwards -- no suggestion

  • tom tancredo -- no suggestion

  • ron paul -- no suggestion

  • sam brownback -- no suggestion

  • dennis kucinich -- Also try: dennis kucinich wife elizabeth kucinich


  • Much as the spelling suggestion italicizes the respelled word, the additional or changed term gets bolded in these suggestions.

    These "Also try" offerings only work in the image search. I can imagine that most searchers would appreciate images of Elizabeth Kucinich more than images of her husband Dennis. And I can imagine that searches for images of Elizabeth are more common than searches for images of Dennis. But what's going on with Dodd→Edwards?

    Is politics really all about the hair?

    Tuesday, September 18, 2007

    Is Yahoo Serious?

    I can't call it a snowclone. I'm not sure what name I would give for the pattern--other than 'tired joke.' A story on NPR about James Burrow's new sitcom starring Kelsey Grammer and Patricia Heaton has been given the title "'Back to You' Crew: Sitcoms Are Serious Business." No one expects this headline to elicit a laugh of course but it is playing with the connotations of serious. Jokes are serious? How can that be? I thought jokes were only funny!

    A Google™ search tells us that the following are "(a) serious business" in a search for "[X] are (a) serious business":

    • Games (5X)

    • Cybernet games

    • Legos

    • Toys (3X)

    • funnies

    • Funny Ads

    • comedies

    • comics (4X)

    • jokes (2X)

    • hoots and hollers (ie laughter)

    Those were all found within 200 results (100 each for [X] is serious business and [X] is a serious business). These reversals were not the most common subjects--they make up about 10% of all results.

    I would create 4 tiers of the types of results. The first is use devoid of irony. The writers who claim that hurricanes, missles, eating disorders, drugs or allergies are serious are speaking with cheek clear of all tongue. The only slight reversal in the list might be something like "allergies": an affliction some people might consider a mere nuisance but which the writer is saying is a source of real suffering for some people.

    I'll put the first list above into an opposing tier: opposing the 2nd list and directly opposing expectation. It's a list of topics that would often be considered contradictory to seriousness. In fact the definition of several of these could easily include the necessary quality that they are not serious. Likewise, serious activity might easily be defined as an activity/event that does not allow games or anything funny or comical.

    The third tier would be a list of topics/objects that would not normally be considered serious and which might more likely be considered contrary to seriousness. Cupcakes, birthday parties, and noodles would rarely be defined as serious, but neither would I expect anyone to sp define a cupcake as a non-serious item. But if prompted to rate the seriousness my guess is that these types of objects would fall on the non-serious side. Only an impression--but I'm pretty certain... Non-seriousness may not be a necessary connotation, but seriousness might be an incompatible connotation.

    One last tier is the completely neutral. Mowers, acquisitions, reunions and minivans have no typical connotation to either seriousness or non-seriousness. Claiming that these are serious business has no strong implication of bet ya didn't think so...like humor or burritos. Yes it does blend on the edge with the 3rd tier. Especially since inference is a slippery determiner of connotation.

    There is of course no clear line between any of these tiers. And any arguement based solely on my inferrences is easily boring even to me. But there is an interesting pattern at each end--of either typical intention or reversal of intention--that favours repetition of items that are in the first two tiers. Illness and disaster are represented heavily as are humor and play.

    Out of 200 results 26 said humor or play was serious business. Another 26 said disaster or disease was serious business. These 52 results were distinct results: repetitions were not counted. That left 148 results. The remaining 148 comprised a variety of results: food, legal procedures, machines (technology in general), cultural/mass-media references, hobbies, botany, biology, travel...and all the repetitions thereof.

    I decided to leave out any search using "is" because I figured "are" made the point already. But the first 10 results for "* is serious business" turn up 2 results for "comedy"--so maybe using "is" would have made the point better.

    Well clearly this is not quite the most scientific survey. So far from it in fact that I should just drop the litotes and say it flat out: this is not a scientific survey. But it does show a pattern with general antonymy that I mentioned in a post a while ago when I wrote

    Somewhere in that encyclopedic matrix of 'what this word means' is an awareness of what the word does not mean and a sense of the word's opposites and even complements.


    Sometimes that awareness is subconscious and sometimes its foremost in our intention. And that awareness leads us to rely too often on those opposed meanings--thinking too often that we are the first to come up with a clever use of a word.

    Tuesday, September 11, 2007

    Google's grasp grows

    One of Buffy's favorite comedy bits is David Letterman's Great Moments in Presidential Speeches. After a particularly funny one tonight she remarked that she wished we had recorded it.

    "Wouldn't that be great to have them on tape?" she opined/asked.

    Without thinking about a website mismatch I responded: "You could just go on YouTube and google all of them."

    I know Google bought YouTube but I'm still quite sure I said it without a capital 'G' or the trade mark symbol (™).

    [BTW Update:
    Yeah yeah I know that this use of google as a verb is common. It was just because I used it expressly in connection with another website that it flicked my attention.
    ]

    Monday, January 29, 2007

    I still haven't seen Gilroy

    I like to look through my stats every once in a while (read: 6 times a day) to see who has been coming to my page. I use StatCounter to tally the visitors. It's a good meter. One of my favorite features is the Recent Visitor Map. But what I follow most are the keyword statistics. The counter provides a link to the pages that refered people to your page. When the visitor comes from a search engine the search terms are reported.

    The search terms that have led the most visitors to my page have been related to banshees and the pronunciation of babel. There was a short time when pluto/ed and Word of the Year brought in a gaggle of Googlers. Burr in reference to winter and cold has been a steady term for a few months now.

    Some searches are amusing. A few days ago someone came to my page asking "what's a good dare for a gf?" Use your imagination buddy. You'll come up with something. I have considered posting a little text box in the sidebar giving the most amusing search term of the week.

    Today's find is not a search term but a page. Apparently there's a Pig Latin Google out there. Click here to take a look.

    I notice on the search button that somebody named Peter probably designed the theme. I also notice that Google is never converted into Pig Latin. There are probably two reason for this.

    1) The integrity of the trademark must be preserved. This is the prime directive.
    2) Something about Ooglegay might not be quite right for mainstream marketing.