Research, the Internet, Barabasi and...Robert Frost

According to a recent Boston Globe article research at the University of Chicago claims the internet is having a narrowing effect on...well...research.

In brief, databases, search engines, etc. all algorithmically favor recent articles over older, established (or obscure) texts, leading to a smaller range of sources and a "tightening of consensus."

There are those, of course, who disagree, and I look forward to watching the debate. Though,if nothing else, Laszlo-Barabasi describes the phenomenon in his excellent book, Linked.
While, theoretically, the internet makes everything available, in actuality it creates 'hubs' that attract the majority of links, based on popularity, leaving other sites stranded in oblivion, buried in the 11+ billion pages that make up the web.

If he doesn't mind me paraphrasing him, Doug Johnson wrote that he's not sure what the findings mean--it could be the idea of "sufficiency" has worked its way up the academic ladder.

I also wonder if that "breadth" that supposedly existed earlier wasn't a function of lack of access to a broad selection of current resources forcing scholars resort to the tried and true of what was already available. Along the same line, before the days of search engines, one really had to dig to find information. I remember spending HOURS poring through the Reader's Guide just to find a few articles that our library MIGHT have. Looking at everything else along the way might have led to some serendipitous finds. Online searching with its wealth of results make that serendipity less likely.

One of the comments mentioned a new search engine Sere.ndipito.us that tries to build in the "Eureka!" factor. I wasn't that impressed. It seems to limit results to only 10 or so. On my first search "French revlution" the results were exactly the same as Google's. (they display results side-by-side)

The next search for Basset Hound yielded different results and did, I must say, lead me to some

cool cartoons

Google didn't bring up. Other results were rather bizarre, though.

In the meantime, the kids will continue to do what I suspect kids have always done--find a few resources and think they're finished, while I nag and badger them to dig deeper.

Primary Sources a la Google

I'm a bit Google-obsessed lately, I have to admit. I think it's a distraction from politics and the economy!

Anyway, I've been working on creating a custom search engine for primary source material. The cool thing about this is it makes student searching more profitable, but they still have to use their search skills, unlike creating pathfinders of websites.

Try it out there on the right.

So What's Up With Boolean??

I'm teaching a research and documentary class for Middle-Schoolers at our Summer Institute. Yesterday, I gave them a quick lesson on how search engines work, we talked about AND, OR, NOT and how they function.

I pulled out my handy-dandy search on Vikings (which always pulls up the football team). Then we talked about how to remove the football sites. I pointed out that Google doesn't accept NOT, that you need to use the '-' sign (grin--feeling very savvy for knowing that, I might add!) We typed in Vikings -football and, Voila! Had a million hits on the Minnesota Vikings. Make a liar out of me, Google.

No worries, I explained. Google has always been a bit odd, and I showed them the advanced search engine, which basically puts Boolean in a different form. "Let's try Yahoo," I said. "That will work."

A zillion hits on the Minnesota Vikings. Hmmmm. Last try, AltaVista. Same results. And they had the same advanced search engine as Google.

So what gives? Why isn't Boolean working in the search engines anymore? Anyone know? Obviously, it's easy enough to just show them the advanced engines, but it's odd that you can't just type in the terms and save yourself a mouse click!

LATER UPDATE: OK, forget all of that. I don't know what sort of bizarre alternative universe I was in yesterday, but I just played with it again, and it worked on all three engines. Weird. I wonder if I had a space in and didn't realize it?

Wikia Goes Live

A brand new search engine just entered the fray. Wikia, the brain-child of Jimmy Wales (of Wikipedia fame) uses an open-source concept similar to the famed online encyclopedia. Rather than the opaque and somewhat suspect algorithms used by Google, et al (which can be 'enhanced' by a hefty outlay of corporate cash), Wikia relies on user feedback to generate reliable, authoritative hits.

Obviously, as they're on day one, the results aren't the best. I ran a trial search for an upcoming 7th grade project on desertification in Africa, and only found a few useful sites on the second or third page. On the plus side, it only generated 476 hits--far less daunting than the 770,ooo on Google!

However, as more people use it and supply feedback, the results should improve exponentially.

One nifty feature the site provides is a mini-article at the top of each search page, fully editable, allowing users to add information. Again, most of the searches I used didn't generate an article, as they hadn't been created yet. The site proclaims the primary purpose of the article will be to provide definitions, "disambiguations," photos and a 'see also' reference.

I doubt I'll be sending students to this any time soon, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on!