Librarian of Fortune

Google search quirks

In preparation for my Internet Librarian talks, I was playing around with Google, looking for how much my search results varied based on how I constructed my search. I was surprised to see how much they differed. 

First, I tried searching carbon neutral winery and then searching winery carbon neutral. Not only were the results significantly different, the first search retrieved 93,500 results and the latter retrieved 195,000. (My hunch is that since there are plenty of sites that have the exact phrase "carbon neutral winery", Google delivered the results from a "shallower" search than for the less common wording of "winery carbon neutral".) I also found that, among the first 20 results of each search, there were five results that appeared in only one or the other search result. 

My other surprise was the difference in results between standard results and limiting the search results to web sites updated in the last year, a technique I often use to get more relevant results. There was very little overlap between the two search results and, while I still prefer the results with the last-year filter, I am reminded that I could be missing some good material that way.

 

 

Entrepreneurs who get it

I have a standard poodle. (OK, actually a very non-standard poodle, but that's for another post)  So I take Meatballinto a local groomer, who did a great job and didn't yell at me, so I was going to use her regularly. But then I got a call from her this morning, asking how Meatball was and whether I was happy with the cut. I am now not just a regular customer but a groupie; this woman really wants to create loyal customers and knows how to show it.

If you're ever looking for a great dog groomer, check out Puppy Paws Pet Spa in Niwot, Colorado.

Why we can't assess risk

There was a great article in Sunday's New York Times, to the effect that the basic architecture of the brain makes us feel first and think second and explains our notorious risk-perception gap. Long live the amygdla!

My highlights from the article:

• While our choices about risk invariably feel right when we make them, many of these decisions end up putting us in greater peril, because we often cannot correctly evaluate risk.


• Humans subconsciously weigh the risks and benefits of any choice or course of action — and if taking a particular action seems to afford little or no benefit, the risk automatically feels bigger. Conversely, if the benefit is very clear, the risk is seen as less. (See, e.g., difference between parents' enthusiasm for polio vaccine and fear of current childhood vaccinations)


• The part of the brain where the instinctive “fight or flight” signal is first triggered — the amygdala — is situated such that it receives incoming stimuli before the parts of the brain that think things over.


• A societal risk, well off in the future, tends not to trigger alarm — in part, because the hazard isn't singling any one of us out, individually. Hence the lack of response about global environmental threats.


• Risk perception is not so much a process of pure reason, but rather a subjective combination of the facts and how those facts feel to us.

While the article looks at personal decisions such as whether or not to vaccinate one's child, it applies in the rest of the world as well. I'm in the business of providing insights for decision-makers, and I know in my heart that a lot of what goes into a decision is far less tangible than analysis...