• http://joeldowns.com JoelDowns

    It seems to me that you can’t directly compare Wolfram Alpha and Google Squared – GS is tailored to give you list of things with their associated metadata to help you find the thing or things you’re looking for, while Wolfram Alpha is built to give you in-depth information about a single thing. They serve different needs, and both would augment Google’s core functionality quite nicely. That said, I’m much more impressed with Google’s technology in its ability to infer meaning from structured or semistructured data that it crawls while Wolfram is getting data meanings the old-fashioned way – a bunch of people at keyboards.

  • eg

    Did you take the screenshots with a camera phone? Sorry.

  • Winooski

    Great coverage. Thanks Danny!

    “Google Squared, in a way, goes one better than what Wolfram Alpha is doing. Wolfram’s data comes from taking in structured data. As a result, there are lots of questions it doesn’t know about. And while the human curation of this data helps in accuracy, doing a search and coming up with nothing is a disquieting feeling.”

    I don’t know if “goes one better” is appropriate in this context. It’s the old “accuracy vs. breadth” issue, right? You note how there are plenty of queries for which Google Squared comes up with results, yes, but not-that-great ones. So which is really better: Giving the searcher a result regardless of relevancy/accuracy, or giving the searcher a result only if the tool has sufficient confidence of its relevancy?

  • noodlesquares

    This is really impressive but still can’t come anywhere close to something with human intelligence mixed in. Compare the search engines square to http://noodlesquares.com/html/squareSearchEngines.html. [Disclaimer: associated with noodlesquares.com]