2 ms·
His experiment fails. He didn't apply the same inputs to both systems, therefore his findings must be discarded. He changed it up, and had he STARTED at Yahoo
by dpcan 17y ago
His experiment fails.
He didn't apply the same inputs to both systems, therefore his findings must be discarded.
He changed it up, and had he STARTED at Yahoo and performed the exact same searches, he would yield the same results, only reversed, and his blog post would be about why he dumped Yahoo instead.
Here's my case:
1) He searched Google for "Zags" which is NOT in "Zaggs". So, no results.
2) Then he goes to Yahoo and searches for "Zag" which IS in "Zaggs" - AH HA, he gets a result (of course he does!)
3) He RETURNS to Google and searches for "Zagg" which IS in "Zaggs", and boom, results. Surprised? Me neither.
I guess my point is, I don't have enough karma to have down arrows next to this post, so I'm going to write a cranky comment about this article.
- beza1e1 17y agoHe did search for "zag" in Gmail. Right after "zbuds" and before "headset".
- dpcan 17y agoGAH! All that frustration over nothing. Thank you.
- nkurz 17y ago3) He RETURNS to Google and searches for "Zagg" which IS in "Zaggs", and boom, results. Surprised? Me neither. You might want to hold off on your cranky comment. Would you be surprised if the search for 'Zagg' did NOT turn up the results for 'Zaggs'? Because for better or worse, that's what actually happens. GMail search does not perform stemming (like removing that final 's') and also does not allow for substring searches. So in fact, a search for 'Zagg' will return nothing. While this isn't a fatal flaw, it is a drag.