Log in

View Full Version : Wolfram|Alpha


sudikics
May 17th, 2009, 03:28 PM
www.wolframalpha.com

Does anyone think that Wolfram|Alpha is a serious threat to Google? Both serve different purposes, really: Google finds you webpages with content, Wolfram|Alpha finds you content. However, Google has far greater resources for their projects, and they do more than just searching. Even if WA catches on and even if it were to supplant Google, Google would still rake in cash from their advertising industry (which is how they make a majority of their money anyway).

Tsar Phalanxia
May 17th, 2009, 04:33 PM
I've used it and it seems to be more about finding basic facts and statistics, especially with regards to History and Politics. It may supplant Wikipedia though.

Pterodactyl Handler
May 17th, 2009, 04:50 PM
threat to google? Nah, it's a totally different creature from the google. Like you said, google's function is to return hyperlinks, not content.

for certain types of searches, wolfram could be far more useful. Certain professions will benefit greatly from it.

We'll see how much data they aggregate though. It's extremely limited right now. I'll be curious to see how they quantify / operationalize more abstract data.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 17th, 2009, 04:54 PM
I think it's still basically in a beta stage at the minute. It should grow more detailed over time. It'd be interesting to see what it's like in six months.

sudikics
May 17th, 2009, 05:08 PM
I think it's still basically in a beta stage at the minute. It should grow more detailed over time. It'd be interesting to see what it's like in six months.
One major criticism of their system is that they're gathering information by consulting with various experts, and therefore information will be added very slowly.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 17th, 2009, 05:09 PM
At least it's right

sudikics
May 17th, 2009, 05:13 PM
At least it's right
I suppose. Then again, it woudl be interesting to compare Wolfram|Alpha as it currently exists with a second version which collected all information form Wikipedia.

sudikics
May 17th, 2009, 05:21 PM
Please stop derailing this topic.

Back on-topic:
What do people think would be the result of a Wikipedia-powered W|A? Wolfram|Alpha clearly contains a revolutionary new AI system, but Wikipedia has far more info.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 17th, 2009, 05:24 PM
Hal.
Just kidding, but I don' think it's likely. They've both got two completely different attitudes to finding information.

Clark Nova
May 17th, 2009, 05:24 PM
Please stop derailing this topic.

Back on-topic:
What do people think would be the result of a Wikipedia-powered W|A? Wolfram|Alpha clearly contains a revolutionary new AI system, but Wikipedia has far more info.
I Don't think it would work, A major part of the W|A is its caching ability, but that falls apart on a site that has over 14 million edits a day.
Especially on rapidly changing topics such as a persons death.

And this really should be in its proper forum. please move it.

Clark Nova
May 17th, 2009, 05:31 PM
please stop spamming this thread thanks.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 17th, 2009, 05:32 PM
I Don't think it would work, A major part of the W|A is its caching ability, but that falls apart on a site that has over 14 million edits a day.
Especially on rapidly changing topics such as a persons death.


Well, 75% of the edits on Wikipedia are made by 2,000 people, so in theory, it wouldn't be too hard to keep up with Wikipedia, if they had adequate funding.

Clark Nova
May 17th, 2009, 05:35 PM
Well, 75% of the edits on Wikipedia are made by 2,000 people, so in theory, it wouldn't be too hard to keep up with Wikipedia, if they had adequate funding.
No that doesn't make sense. I'm talking from a hardware point of view.
The way the W|A works simply cant keep up with that, each change would create a process to analyze which topics it should relate to creating about ten times the process power sink then the edit alone would create.

Additionally to anyone reading this: this thread does not belong here. Please do not make threads like this in serious discussion, it belongs in google chat.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 17th, 2009, 05:36 PM
Ah, right. But then, if you're looking for news, then TV and the internet in general are better sources than even Wikipedia. Likewise, it would be a mistake for W|A to aim to be like that.

Clark Nova
May 17th, 2009, 05:42 PM
Ah, right. But then, if you're looking for news, then TV and the internet in general are better sources than even Wikipedia. Likewise, it would be a mistake for W|A to aim to be like that.
True. In fact I always hate the warzones on wikipedia that are created every time some celebrities tit pops out. its a terrible source for current events because everyone gets a say.

Additionally this thread is still in serious discussion:
New members please understand that you do not have the right to have a thread like this here, I know its confusing. Only siccudus does. when making a thread about google or related topics please use the correct forum: googlism chat.

Daruko
May 17th, 2009, 11:38 PM
This is an amazing scientific achievement. Woot!