Yesterday, Google rolled out it’s latest in a string of improvements to their search functionality. Google Instant’s, “most obvious change is that you get to the right content much faster than before because you don’t have to finish typing your full search term, or even press “search.” [It...] helps you formulate a better search term by providing instant feedback.” At first I was impressed. Then, I realized this is nothing new.

To balance out the “feelings of euphoria and weightlessness,” here are some reasons why users should to come back to Earth:

All-in-all, I’m pleased with the changes they’ve made. Given some of the hype out there, though, these points sum up exactly what Google Instant is: a nice tweak. We aren’t seeing anything new, it’s not special, and it certainly isn’t a fundamental breakthrough.

Bricks in the Wall: 5.75/10.

What would you classify this as? A video? A website? Music? In all honesty, I’m not sure any of these terms capture the breadth of the medium. As a side note, props to Google for  using this to promote Chrome. Shameless, but effective.

Edit: This is seriously pushing me to learn more JavaScript.

I cleaned out one of my desk drawers today and came across a useful handout for searching with Google. Believe it or not there are numerous operators that can be used to sift through all of the worthless junk out there! For more information check out the Google Guide.

Basic Operations:

   boats ~gloassary - Finds glossaries and dictionaries about
   boats.
   cat dog - Finds the words "cat" and "dog."
   cat -siamese - Finds cat but not siamese.
   "I am batman" - Finds the exact phrase "I am batman."
   fortune-telling - Returns all forms hyphenated or otherwise.
   shoes nike OR adidas - Finds "nike shoes" or "adidas shoes."
   define:skeptic - Defines the word skeptic.

Site Restrictions:

   link: - Find pages that link to another site
   (i.e. link:amillion.us).
   site: - Search only one website
   (i.e. Christmas site:www.census.gov).
   [#]..[#] - Search between numbers. (i.e. Scrubs 2003..2007).

Special Queries:

   book - Search a full-text book
   (i.e. book Great Expectations).
   weather - Find the weather somewhere
   (i.e. weather Columbia MO).
   stocks: - Check your stocks (i.e. stocks: goog).
   phonebook: - Show all listings (i.e. phonebook: MoDOT MO).
   rphonebook: - Show residential numbers 
   (i.e. phonebook: AJ Million).
   info: - Find info on a page (i.e. info:weblog.amillion.us).
   related: - Show all listings
   (i.e. related:weblog.amillion.us).

Many of these aren’t that usefull but it’s always handy to know you can do much, much more than conduct a simple search.

Over at the Angry Librarian there is a really sobering debate going on about Libraries, Google, and the efforts of librarians to provide the best possible service to patrons. For those of you unaware, librarians have had mixed feelings on search engines for quite some time. On one hand they make our jobs easier. But, on the other hand they’re little more than tools. Very effective multi-million dollar tools, perhaps, but still them nonetheless. Our patrons like to use them instead of us too!

Anyway, the Angry Librarian brings up something called the “Reference Abstract” which is basically a search engine that returns accurate information for it’s users in a Googlesque manner. Think of it as Wikipedia, Yahoo, et al. with an academic checking up to make sure the sources are always valid. But there’s a catch and it’s a big one. The Angry Librarian notes:

An obvious rant, for sure, but as someone with a background in digital libraries she makes a really good point! Librarians just can’t expect to create the neat stuff that most of the private sector does. It’s not our job. We don’t have the technological talent and we don’t have the money. That said, I’m curious as to what the rest of you think. Is this necessarily the case? If so, does that mean libraries are going to start dying off? Did I waste two years of my life in library school?