Comments on: AskMe is not a replacement for google

AskMe is not a replacement for google

Count Ziggurat — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:45:54 -0800

Yeah, I haven't bothered to Google this one either
c'mon, now. this is not progress.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:01:36 -0800

"There is no expedient to which a man will not go to avoid the labor of thinking." — Thomas A. Edison

By: metaculpa

metaculpa — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:04:06 -0800

Rothko wins. Thread over.

By: onalark

onalark — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:07:02 -0800

*Thrusts an unlit torch in the air menacingly while trying to set fire to his pitchfork*

By: riffola

riffola — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:19:56 -0800

Even though I answered in that thread, I agree with this callout.

By: Alt F4

Alt F4 — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:54:45 -0800

weak sauce.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:55:50 -0800

*raises his hand* Excuse me... Excuse me...
I'm confused, what is going on? I am not seeing what the issue is, someone break it down barney style.

By: Dick Paris

Dick Paris — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:12:24 -0800

A day does not pass where I see a question that I consider to be a waste of AskMefi bytes and brainpower. A day does not pass where I see a question that looks like an effective use of the same. I consider the former as a form of waste similar to any project: these questions are the sawdust and scraps of AskMefi.

What gets to me are answers that appear to be mere conjecture...

By: Dick Paris

Dick Paris — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:13:14 -0800

...er, unless the question calls for conjecture, of course.

By: keijo

keijo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:47:57 -0800

TwelveTwo, what is it that you do not understand? Even if we have a huge amount of brainpower on AskMeFi if someone states that they are not bothered to google for their information and rather use us is that not a waste of time for us all? At least my view is that AskMeFi should be used for information that we have rather than asking others to look for it on behalf of you. Enough barney style? :)

Or if that comment was just a troll I apologise. I just did not like the original question. Or rather the way it was posed.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:50:09 -0800

Ah gotcha! My mind was and is running at a fraction of capacity due to it being very very tired. YOU GET BEST ANSWER, keijo

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:52:42 -0800

Now I'll make a "me-too" comment.

Yeah! What does he think the place is, Google Answers?

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:51:39 -0800

I was really pissed off by the "hey, I heard a rumor and didn't bother to google first and I'm going to even brag that I didn't google to show off what a tool I am" question, and flagged it for deletion, but then dhartung's answer was so excellent that now I want it to stay.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:03:22 -0800

I can't believe people get pissed off about bad questions. Don't you have better things to get pissed off about?

By: keijo

keijo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:06:43 -0800

Well, smackfu, some people use AskMeFi to get interesting information about the world and/or to help other people. And noise where people they didn't even bother to google for the info just bothers us. Am I right or am I right?

By: keijo

keijo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:11:28 -0800

I mean the trouble today is that there as so many questions every day that at least for me it is impossible on many days to keep up with it even if I would be interested to. I do not know how jessamyn and mathowie even try to do it. So that is why it sometimes makes you angry to see postings like that. No harm intended. Look at the sidebard, and there are some brilliant ones, showing what a great place AskMeFi is.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:40:32 -0800

Hey guys, thanks for giving me one more thing to be outraged about!

By: spaghetti

spaghetti — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:22:11 -0800

For AskMe to be a useful body of information, which is the idea, there will need to be some overlap in information between its own archives and the rest of the web. That means that this question, and more importantly the answers, are quite useful even if they are readily available in other places.

Yeah, that was a pretty annoying way to phrase the question, but the archives will hold a great resource for anyone else who wants to know the answer.

By: Miko

Miko — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:15:57 -0800

Even though I answered in that thread, I agree with this callout

Same for me. And I posted a Snopes link that had already been posted (duh). AskMe becomes more useful once people have already done due diligence. It functions quite well when the Asker is looking for evaluative rather than factual information; that is, when the Asker seeks personal experiences with or recommendations for the question topic. That tends to bring the discussion beyond the simple facts which a basic few minutes' research could provide.

It seems as though about 50% of AskMe threads end up featuring:

- a Wikipedia link on the subject (or a closely related topic);
- a Snopes or Straight Dope link
- a dictionary link
- links to the most useful reference sites on the question's topic (software support forums for software questions, Epicurious for food questions, etc.)

So when I arrive in a thread where these base-level resources haven't been examined yet, usually my first recourse is to check them, and post links to them if they're relevant. My secret hope is that more people will bookmark them and use them as the first go-to links, rather than cast blindly about in AskMe.

I know that others do the same, because of the frequency with which I see the same useful links offered by other users. In fact, it would be interesting to be able to view a tally of I outgoing links and see what the most often-recommended information sites are. And to see the same broken down by question category.

Just ruminations.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:21:01 -0800

I think you nailed it, Miko: Due Diligence.

I think it is unbearably rude for a user to push a good AskMe question off the front page by asking a question that can be answered by merely typing the essential text into Google.

Users who can't be arsed to do some due diligence answer-seeking should not be tolerated.

By: mystyk

mystyk — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:47:23 -0800

Indeed, fff, but what are we to do about it? There's no rule saying that somebody is required to check with the usual sources before posting.

Further, sometimes people simply aren't very web literate and can't figure out how to write a proper google query. That's when we get the "my google-fu failed me" bulls**t.

By: dame

dame — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:53:33 -0800

Miko: My secret hope is that more people will bookmark them and use them as the first go-to links, rather than cast blindly about in AskMe.

It works.

By: ori

ori — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:12:15 -0800

Rothko deserves a medal for that delivery.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:29:51 -0800

There's no rule saying that somebody is required to check with the usual sources before posting.

But the post-a-question page does ask you to at least check with google first. To brag about not having done so is just rude.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:15:35 -0800

As is posting a question where one can type that very question into Google and get the answer within the first-page links.

That has happened at least twice that I've caught. It simply astounds me as being the most selfish possible reason to use AskMe: because one's too lazy to look at Google.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:14:07 -0800

It seems that the question itself deserved some commentary as well as an answer, which is why he posted it.

AskMeta is a superior resource when one is looking for more than "just the facts". Was it wise to mention that he hadn't even googled? No. But that was the only problem here.

By: keijo

keijo — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:33:44 -0800

snsranch, I think the original question was very simple. I do not think the fact that it creates discussion per se merits not googling. it means that the poster should have googled and asked a more specific or another question altogether. Almost anything will create discussion here as we all know. Anyway, this is turning into splitting hairs and bigger than it should so I will stop here.

By: dg

dg — Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:08:51 -0800

I always assume that, because posting it to AskMe is harder than typing a query to Google, there must be something more than just simple answers the person is looking for. The ability to provide peripheral information based on non-logical views of the question is something that Google simply can't do.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:39:52 -0800

Further, sometimes people simply aren't very web literate and can't figure out how to write a proper google query.

Which is entirely different than what's being called out here.

"I tried to Google this, but couldn't find anything relevant. Perhaps I'm not using the right terms," a.k.a. "my Google-fu is weak," is just fine. No one here is complaining about that.

"I forgot to Google," (not in the question itself, but, say, in a subsequent comment) is not fine, but not worth a callout. We all make mistakes from time to time. However, that's not what's happened here either.

"I know that I'm supposed to Google before I ask, but I've decided that the rules which are clearly stated on the AskMe page don't apply to me," which is what sjvilla79 has done here, should be deleted on sight.

By: sjvilla79

sjvilla79 — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:03:35 -0800

I choose to moon for rebuttal. Ha!

The ability to provide peripheral information based on non-logical views of the question is something that Google simply can't do.

Yeah, my idea was based on rumour and snippets I'd heard as a child. I figured the question was in the right place, for I knew it would prompt a human response. One user even picked up on my motive. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough to begin with. Now, back to the real world.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:18:21 -0800

Yeah, my idea was based on rumour and snippets I'd heard as a child.

Folklore, transmitted by word of mouth, has been a professional topic of study for a long time, and you'll fund a lot of resources on the web for things you've heard as rumor. Not to belabor the point, but you can clear up a good 9 out of 10 of those questions by checking Snopes, The Straight Dope, and Wikipedia, to start with. All three are excellent clearinghouses for the kinds of stories we tell one another. They have been around long enough to aggregate a tremendous amount of research and comment on verbal folklore.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:33:44 -0800

...and I'm not sure what's elitist about recommending that.

By: peacay

peacay — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:46:13 -0800

dg writes "I always assume that, because posting it to AskMe is harder than typing a query to Google, there must be something more than just simple answers the person is looking for. The ability to provide peripheral information based on non-logical views of the question is something that Google simply can't do."

Well for some people 'chatting' is the reason.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the second sentence. That AskMe question was eminently reducible to a search term. The results page point towards sites that are written by human beings who also have non-logical views.

It's more like: don't admit the 'ungoogle offense' in your question. Or outline what, in excess of a factual result, you are looking for.

So I guess I tend closer to DevilsAdvocate position. But more moderating work isn't always the right answer. People should be using AskMe for things beyond easily searchable facts.

By: dg

dg — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:00:39 -0800

Oh, I absolutely agree that AskMe should not be used for things that are easily available via search engines and I don't understand why anyone would choose to use AskMe for these things, because it is easier to type a query into Google than to create a thread on AskMe. Because it is harder, I assume that the user is looking for more information than the search would provide. Things like why does x happen? or what similar thing has happened to you that may provide me with some insight into this thing that has happened to me? These are things that search engines are not so good at. The problem may be in the way that the questions are phrased, because the question that we read is not always the right question to get the answers that the user is looking for.

By: Miko

Miko — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:33:51 -0800

the question that we read is not always the right question to get the answers that the user is looking for.

That's because the questioner is ignorant of the basic information they would have discovered had they done the simplest level of research. Had this Asker done so, he would have found out all about the semi-apocryphal nature of this story. He could then have asked a finer-pointed, more evaluative question about it, if he needed to. I'd say the point of early research is to refine the question -- and perhaps even to eliminate it, leaving more AskMe space for the more subjective, less linear questions.

By: dg

dg — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:38:07 -0800

Good point, Miko.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:40:28 -0800

dg : "I don't understand why anyone would choose to use AskMe for these things, because it is easier to type a query into Google than to create a thread on AskMe. Because it is harder, I assume that the user is looking for more information than the search would provide."

That may be true in some cases but an unwarranted assumption in others. For example, if someone has a past of never being able to find answers to their questions via Google, they may choose AskMe as a venue instead, because while typing the question into Google is easier, they may believe it's less effective (i.e. Asking someone out on a date is far easier than joining a dating club and attending a dating seminar, but if someone keeps getting turned down for dates all the time, they may skip the former and choose the latter). I'm not defending the action (it says to check Google right there on the posting page), but I think there may be more than one possible conclusion to be drawn from skipping the easy approach and going with the harder approach.