No problem

Is it good enough? Let's see what Google Zeitgeist holds for us in today's "snapshot":

1. wire rope express
2. adrienne bailon racy photos
3. zap car
4. ncaa women s soccer
5. chuck negron
6. white house floor plan

Wow, you're right, Nick! That sure is important stuff! Oh wait ... maybe you were thinking of PageRank? ;-)

Hey, lay off. Can't you see that Nick's making a religious statement.

You have trod on a core belief. Yea, verily, it is spoken in Genesis 2.0.

In the beginning there was Google....

And later in Exodus 2.0: Thou shalt have no other Gods than Google lest Google smite thy page rank....

adrienne bailon racy photos

"Racy"? Do people really use that as a search term? How quaint.

Conal: I sense that our ironies aren't quite in sync.

I always thought what was interesting and important was what nobody thought was interesting and important.

I sometimes go to the last page of Google search results just to see what's there. They should have a button just for that, labeled "I'm Feeling Unlucky."

Charles,

Good idea.

I think that Google should automatically exclude the top three sites from their search results. The sites would eventually show up again, as their popularity declines, but it would serve to shake things up and prevent search monopolies.

Nick

Now, now, Nick - Google is an answer to a problem, roughly "What's the most popular answer to this query?" (roughly!).

That's not the same problem as "What do I want?".

But it is a very significant answer solving a significant problem. And you shouldn't do a "humanities sneer" at it, for that in itself.

The problem is when people to try to make that answer mean more than it does, as some sort of essence of truth.

@Seth,

I no longer think that Google ranks results by popularity. Rather, they rank results by an algorithm that can be gamed. Check out the results for "Social Media Blog" for example.

Hey Nick: Nice blog. . .I found you. . .I can't remember how I found you. At any rate, Gladwell's just being contrary. He's trying to pump up his erudition quotient.

@Conal, Gerard et al.
Guys, irony not your forte, is it?

Nick, whenever I see successful book authors sneering at Google, thoroughly sneer-able (?) for many reasons as it might be, I can't help but hearing "Conflict of interest !" all over.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments:

Rough Type is:

Written and published by
Nicholas Carr

Designed by

JavaScript must be enabled to display this email address.

What?