Google launches 'Google Squared'

And if anyone wonders how you'd actually use this. Go there and type in something like

"ipod price" . By default it'll add "model number" and "price" to your square , then you can add more columns like "features" and "condition" or whatever you actually want to compare to the existing columns.

I believe the word [of your column] must exist somewhere in the search page , i.e. "Condition : New" and "Price : $500" to get values in the "price" and "condition" columns.

EDIT: Actually an even search query : "mp3 player" . Now you get some interesting columns to your square, like "capacity" , and then you can still add "price"
and "storage media" and keep on comparing.

Now i just need to figure out how to filter/sort the columns

EDIT2: A very applicable square for here use the terms "adsl router" . Add another column with "Price" and so on...very cool.
 
Last edited:
Maelly said:
Isn't this what Bing is all about?
Click to expand...

Nope. Bing competes with Google directly. I think Bing basically just tries to give you better results [but they're not there yet imho]. This is entirely different, i believe the idea of squared is to "analyse and compare search results" where bing/google just give you the plain search results.

Example, if you want to buy say a LCD screen. What do you? You'd typical go something like "lcd screens compare" . Google [and bing] will give you websites that wrote articles comparing LCD screens...and now you need to go from one website to another to see how they compared, i.e. one would compare prices, the other would compare quality ..lots of reading and searching later you might know what to get.

Squared however do the comparing right from the search. Your -result- is already the comparison. It goes and pull the data from the websites [as far as i can tell] and build a comparison TABLE for you.

The cool thing is, once you're there , now you can add your own "comparison" and see what pops up. i.e. in squared you'd go:

Search : "lcd screen" , add a column "price", add another column "Refresh Rate" ....and voila..you got a nice table right there, listing all the LCD screens, with their prices and refresh rates.

Another search that's pretty awesome "science fiction tv series" . Now you can compare all the sci series and add whatever you like to compare. I added a column "Rating" for example.


Obviously you're going to have better results with things that is fact [comparing planets] vs. opinion [comparing car quality]. That's why you can kind of build you own little cube errr square and save it/ share it.
 
Last edited:
alf101 said:
"Google Squared couldn't automatically build a Square about jenna jameson"
:(:(
Click to expand...

Nah you're doing it wrong, you can't "compare" one person to herself. Use the following search term:

"porn star" .

NOW you'll get Jenna Jameson on top ;). Default columns is "hair color" , "Date of birth " .

Now add a column "Measurements" to get all their err.."sizes" compared ;) Nifty :D
 
diabolus said:
Nah you're doing it wrong, you can't "compare" one person to herself. Use the following search term:

"porn star" .

NOW you'll get Jenna Jameson on top ;). Default columns is "hair color" , "Date of birth " .

Now add a column "Measurements" to get all their err.."sizes" compared ;)
Click to expand...

:cool:
Now it getting useful.
 
If you build a square (err I believe a more correct term would be matrix) with "Don't be evil", "ponies", and "rainbow", Google comes out on top :)
 
Netguy said:
Some similarity, although Google Squared seems to provide more flexibility in quickly building a matrix.
Click to expand...

And "porn star" , "mp3 player" etc doesn't work in wolfram :D. Wolfram looks very specifically designed for scientific research , not "everything you can search"-research which google covers ;(.
 
<moLe> said:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/ is the original...googles "do no evil" obviously seems to exclude stealing of ideas from "evil".
Click to expand...

Wolfram will have it's place anyway...as for originality...meh. I don't see how constantly being aware of new tech and adapting to it [even if it's not of your own invention] is "evil" . I don't expect Google to sit back and do nothing just because someone else "did it first" ?? Surely not?



Google Squared vs. WolframAlpha:
First WolframAlpha, which tells me that this Saturday is 157th day of 2009, arrives and now we have Google Squared, which tells me that the most important operating system is Linux, which is the same as Ubuntu. They both are headed towards the same goal, but in different directions. Google^2’s result is more useful (and wrong), while Wolfram’s result is actually correct, though useless to 99% of us. How, then, are they heading for the same goal?

Both services fundamentally aim to organize and structure the current information chaos. WolframAlpha works on facts, ignoring anything that it cannot mathematically calculate or analyze. If you ask it something and it answers, you can be pretty sure it’s right, but it can’t answer most of your questions right now. Google^2, on the other hand, will happily answer just about anything you ask (ask being used figuratively, since neither service takes questions), it just might not be correct or relevant.
Click to expand...


Well just something interesting to not on Wolfram's "terms of use"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10245341-16.html
Wolfram Alpha and its architecture of failure

This makes Wolfram Alpha's terms of service mind-boggingly backward at best, and troubling at worst. Some have pointed to the quasi-search engine's sometimes weird results as a reason to give the service a pass, but there's a far more fundamental reason to reject Wolfram Alpha , as Groklaw suggests.

Wolfram Alpha demands citation when using the results of its "searches," which is a distinct departure from Google's "use pretty much as you please" attitude, and will almost certainly curb the appeal of Wolfram Alpha, no matter how good its output becomes. Groklaw writes:

Groklaw concludes that this requirement "means Wolfram Alpha will never replace Google," which is absolutely correct. Even if Wolfram Alpha delivers better "search" results, the burden of figuring out and delivering proper citation is going to keep people using Google, which doesn't make the same fetish of proclaiming its ownership of search results.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X