A few months ago, Google launched an experimental new search project, called Google Squared, that literally tries to take all the messy, unstructured information on the Web and put it into neat little, labeled boxes.
It is still very much in Labs, but today it got better. Google Squared can now deal with four times as many squares of data, 120 up from 30. Columns can now be sorted, and results can be exported into Google Spreadsheets were the data can be manipulated, charted, and so forth. In other words, it is turning random facts found on the Web into data that can be played with and computed.
While Google Squared is much better, it is nowhere near ready for mass consumption. If you do a search for “planets,” for instance (see screenshot), it fails to identify Mars in its grid. The first result is Pluto, which officially is no longer a planet. While I too am still resisting the deplanetization of Pluto because of my emotional attachment to it, Google as a cold-hearted, just-the-facts-ma’am search engine doesn’t have the same excuse. And it is not just Pluto, it also lists Ceres (another planet also-ran), Jupiter’s moon Io, and the Asteroid Belt (which most definitely is not a planet). Mars definitely needs to go in there before the Asteroid Belt.
Is this the best Google can do against Wolfram Alpha and other newfangled search engines which also take advantage of structured data to present a deep set of facts for every query? Search for “planets” on Wolfram and it correctly identifies all eight (minus Pluto) including Mars.
They should write BETA on the logo xD
Google doesn’t use the word “beta” anymore. Anything that is in beta is now placed in Google’s lab category of products.
Did someone proofread this article before publishing it? The second paragraph has the word “were” instead of “where”. It’s difficult to concentrate on the material with distracting mistakes like this. It also takes away from the credibility of the writer. How seriously did they do their research if they didn’t spell check/proofread? Just sayin’!
Check out who is at the top:
http://www.goog...=search+engines
Ha ha ha!!!
Did you run the President search? Low confidence in born in Hawii… LOL
Google is birther….
thank-you. you made me laugh
The absence of Mars isn’t a big deal – Just type “mars” in the “Add Items” at the bottom and it gets duly inserted with all the labels.
Yeah you can do that but it makes no sense. The whole point is for Google to tell you what the planets are, not the other way around.
The point is that google automatically agregates data about a certain topic, which one day will be used to enhance the main results. So its still kind of neat that google can find all these labels automatically if you provide the name of the item.
I think you guys are missing the real power of squared. Yeh, its cool that you can search planets and it try and identifys a bunch of them and the kind of facts you’d like to know – but the real power is in running a grid search.
Say you’re looking to buy a new car rather then run 600 googles and keeping track of milage, price, features etc in a spreadsheet you can use squared to do this automatically.
Just run down the column with all the models you’re looking at, then run across the row with price, seats, milage etc and let google run all the queries for you.
I think thats the real power.
Whats wrong with just using Wikipedia?
Also for us presidents – awards for barack obama is ‘HOT’
)))))))))
The point is : 1 search doesn’t make a search engine
You can’t blame them for Pluto. I still call it a planet. Just because some scientist said it is not a plant. Who the hell gave him the power to do that.
http://www.ffwd...m/videos/230089
Technically Pluto and Ceres are planets there dwarf planets.
Pluto IS still a planet. Please do not blindly accept the controversial demotion of Pluto as fact or even as some sort of “official” status when it is not–it is just one interpretation. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. Stern and like-minded scientists prefer a broader planet definition that includes any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. That gives us 13 planets and counting: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.
Google, please take this information into account and treat this as the ongoing debate–with two legitimate sides–that it is.
I think that it learns over time, so we can fix issues like “Mars”, etc as end users. Personally, I think it’s kind of impressive. I tried a few searches that I thought might be unique and a few that I’m sure came up before.
Tom Hanks Movies
HTML Tags
Social Networks
Those all had pretty decent results and I’m sure people have searched for them before or at least something similar.
Lincoln Conspirators
Family Guy Characters
Those two I thought might be less obvious, but both had pleasing results as well.
Finally, jQuery Selectors, was really disappointing with one result, but I imagine overtime it will become better.
Cool stuff.
I think it will go to dead-pool soon. There is no structure in structured search results. Simple Google search “planets” give better result than this. It’s not easy for Google to give correct results as it is pulling results from internet instead of structured database used by wolframalpha.
The planet list still needs some work. But try this: go to Google Squared, and type in “browsers.” As expected, a list of web browsers appears. Now, in the add column field, type “development status.” Firefox is listed as “active”, and Internet Explorer is listed as discontinued! I wish, Google.
LOL!
I was reading a blog where their search result for Planet x returned a cartoon characters picture.. take a look
http://www.tech...search-results/
a search on iraqi leaders:
http://www.goog...?q=iraq+leaders
clearly google knows things we do not :p
Honestly I haven’t used google squared. Google on its own works fine for me. How many more ways do I need to search for things. google.com works for me
> do their research if they didn’t spell
> check/proofread? Just sayin’!
There is a good spell check program Spell Check Anywhere (SpellCheckAnywhere.Com). It works in all programs, including blogs and articles. It comes with an optional grammar check.
The omission of Mars is regrettable, but listing Pluto as having an orbital period of 6.4 days is madness. The correct value is more like 248 years.