[Web4lib] Re: Google News Timeline

[Peter Noerr]

Katherine, I'm intrigued by your last sentence. ("That's just silly and increasingly sophisticated users know it.")

Why is relevance ranking silly in this case or any other? (I'm not arguing for it, I would like to hear your reasons)

What sort of arrangement would your "increasingly sophisticated" user expect? And why?

And how would you tell the system of this desire? I presume you just took the default (ranked by relevance) display (if you were given a choice).


Peter


Dr Peter Noerr
CTO, MuseGlobal, Inc.

+1 415 896 6873 (office)
+1 415 793 6547 (mobile)
www.museglobal.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:web4lib-
> bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of IsisInform at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 09:10
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: [Web4lib] Re: Google News Timeline
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sending this Bernie.
> 
> The concept of organzing information is Google's lead  sentence, even as
> they beta test chronological order.   Google seems to be recognizing their
> users' frustration  with disorganized presentation.  To a user, relevance
> often looks like random.
> 
> I recently searched another database for the contents of one issue of  a
> journal.  The results were returned in order of relevance, even  though all
> article titles equally met the same issue requirement.  That's just silly
> and increasingly  sophisticated users know it.
> 
> 
> Katherine
> ***************************
> Katherine  Bertolucci
> Isis Information Services
> P O Box 627
> Phoenix, AZ  85001
> 602-258-2035
> katherine at isisinform.com
> IsisInBlog: _“Beyond  Findability” Published in Searcher_
> (http://isisinblog.typepad.com/isisinblog/2009/02/beyond-findability-
> published-in-searcher.ht
> ml)
>