Quote:
|
Originally Posted by achille
That study does NOT Mean Nothing, If you read closely, the study does not evaluate the quality of the information given to each user.
It is just saying that each user only clicked on the first 3 links.
|
Actually, that
does say a lot. First, it says that search engine placement is critical. Second, it says that users are "lazy". I'm lazy, but I usually look at the first page of results, and sometimes the second page.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by achille
Modern day search engines have highly sophisticated search enginges that give you what you were looking for in the first lines of the result. If the information requested is not visible in the first page of results, chances are that you have chosen the wrong keywords to look for and that you need to re-type the search with different keywords.I use google and I'm proud to say I usually get what I'm looking for in the first 3 search results!
|
Search engines employ sophisticated algorithms, but they aren't a match for a human for deciding relevance. Until we have true artificial intelligence, the "highly sophisticated" engines you speak of will only be good at guessing.
Also, it's easy to blame the user for picking "bad" search terms, but the user obviously thought they were good choices. For example, if I'm searching for information on 512 MB Secure Digital cards, should I type "SD" or "Secure Digital"? If I'm searching for information on the iPAQ 2210, I'd likely also be interested in results about the 2215. A human would know to match both, but a search engine would require a user to use a Boolean search.
Another issue is page formatting and sentence placement. If I want to find reviews of the iPAQ 2215, and type
"iPAQ 2215" review, I would get sites that had "iPAQ 2215" and "review" on the same page, even if they weren't related (but missing "iPAQ h2215", of course). I could narrow it by specifying
"iPAQ 2215" NEAR review, but I'd still get pages that said something like, "To review, the iPAQ 2215, 1945, 5155 and 5555 were announced today." I suppose you can blame the author for picking "bad" terms when writing, though. :roll:
Steve