Does search need rescue?

Brightwave MD Charles Gould examines Google's results methodology and still hasn't found what he's looking for

See related articles

In a world awash with vast volumes of information at the click of a mouse, how do we actually learn stuff we need to? Perhaps Google isn't quite the source of all knowledge we take it to be. Recently, the European Commission began investigations into allegations that Google abused its dominance by promoting its own services in search results - services like YouTube, Blogger and Google Maps.

In a recent survey carried out by Brightwave, Google / the power of search was voted the most influential trend from our personal lives that would have the greatest influence on the future of workplace learning. Yet research from Forrester has found that 97% of internet searchers never look beyond the top three results and similar studies show only 5% look beyond the first page. If we add these findings together we have a picture of learning based on information of very limited and questionable provenance.

The fact is that the way Google searches, and on what basis it presents its results, is far from transparent. Broadly speaking, we assume that the results are based on popularity. But would you trust the Sun over the Economist as a source of accurate, impartial knowledge? Hello magazine over Harvard Business Review?

The volume and popularity of information sources do not help us learn efficiently. Far from being a quick way of learning, we actually need to be skilled researchers and spend lots of time to get to accurate and comprehensive sources of learning. Even then we have to trawl though endless dross to get the occasional nugget of knowledge we need. What I really want are the answers to questions that I can trust in a form that's relevant and just the right depth for my purposes. I want knowledge and know-how to help me understand and do things better.

Now, I'm quite prepared to accept that the much maligned 'course' is not always the best way of achieving this. More informal ways of learning might well provide more colour, depth and insight. But time is money. I'm prepared to pay for usable knowledge packaged in a way that makes most efficient use of my time. To do that it needs to be sourced from experts then structured and contextualised in a way that directly meets my needs.

You might also like:

• Style and substance
• Time to make a difference
• E-learning by the yard

Comments

Add New

Search isn't finished yet... Mark Berthelemy 2011-06-16 15:11:15 Hi Charles, I agree that we don't know quite how Google ranks it's results, and, yes, it's pretty obvious that Google's own content sources would come near to the top. However, your commentary on the survey statistics seems to imply a value judgement on those statistics that shouldn't be made. Perhaps those 97% of internet searchers find what they need in the top three results? Perhaps the 5% that go beyond the first page aren't particularly good at writing good search queries? In today's world, where search is omnipresent, we must be good researchers. There's no excuse for not having the skills to interpret results, refine searches, and qualify sources. You say "I'm prepared to pay for usable knowledge packaged in a way that makes most efficient use of my time. To do that it needs to be sourced from experts then structured and contextualised in a way that directly meets my needs." I would agree. That's why I buy books, which I can use in a multitude of ways. But there are very few occasions when an online learning package has met my expectations as a learner. Most of the time they waste the learner's time and the client's money. This is why I spend much of my time trying to educate clients away from SCORM packages for knowledge delivery and more towards the models of knowledge delivery that work on the web - with search at the centre. The key thing is to make your knowledge package become recognised as a useful, trusted source in the search results. Reply

re: Search isn't finished yet... Charles Gould (Brightwave) 2011-06-17 14:46:48 Hi Mark, Let's assume that the quality of the search results depends solely on the skills of the researcher (a big assumption). I agree that there’ll be many occasions when I want to do that research and satisfy myself that I've found what I need. Like most people I learn better when I evaluate and reflect on the information I find. I have to accept, though, that it might be time-consuming and I do sometimes doubt my research skills. Sometimes I'm happy to turn to a trusted source of pre-packaged knowledge. You mention books as your preferred knowledge package. But surely there are other formats for well-designed and structured knowledge packages: TV documentaries, specialist websites, magazines, even (dare I say it) blogs. So why not an online learning package? I'm with you when you say that most do waste the learner's time and the client's money. But not if they're the result of highly skilled research combined with excellent design and pinpoint positioning. It’s probably worth acknowledging the difference between learning for work and learning for the sake of it. In the case of the former I often need to learn something I don't have an intrinsic interest in. And so maybe I won't be motivated to do the research properly. I thought Chris Bones, in his keynote at the LSG Conference last week, put it well: "learning is a means to an end for organisations - but not for learners". Charles Reply

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2