Comments on: Knowledgebase vs Database

By: CJ

CJ — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:16:13 +0000

Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed that and found it useful. It doesn’t have much knowledge because as I explained, it is a “usage-based model” which KB usually are. This means they get better the more you use them. It has been well documented that Google does not give the best list of resources, but as many know no different, they think it’s the holy grail. It is a brilliant engine, but it’s not quite right also, which Googlers readily admit. That’s a very sincere and intelligent thing to say. Lots of engines are actually quite cool, I loved Duck Duck Go, but again it’s not even supposed to be Google. It’s excellent for bloggers. Do you remember what Google was like in the early days, when the web was much much smaller? We have no idea what Kumo will be like. Never judge before you see it for yourself and make sure you know what its function is too. Yahoo for example is doing extremely well with semantic web stuff, which Google haven’t been dabbling in much. A different beast again.

By: Check_The_Technique

Check_The_Technique — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:19:25 +0000

Excellent explanation of a knowledgebase vs database, CJ!!

I somewhat agree with Mehmet’s comment. I wouldn’t say WA is useless, but it doesn’t seem to have much “knowledge” at this point. Considering it can only answer a fourth of the questions I ask it. However, I must remind myself this is brand new and will grow considerably in years to come! If you compare search engines in their early days to where they are now, it’s night and day.

Overall, I think this is an exciting first step in a new direction. One that I’m really excited about!

By: Mehmet Ali

Mehmet Ali — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:08:52 +0000

I think WA is an useless engine whatever you call it knowledge, search … etc. Also, Microsoft is joining this trend and launches an other useless engine called Kumo http://thenextweb.com/2009/05/20/mskomo/

By: Steve Ardire

Steve Ardire — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:12:52 +0000

echoing what Tanya Goodin said:

Very well done !

By: CJ

CJ — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:08:08 +0000

Actually try “truncated icosahedron” in Google and then in WA – that’s the difference.

By: CJ

CJ — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:06:01 +0000

Yes, Google is for resource and data, WA is for answers. Do you know the equation behind a truncated icosahedron? If you do is this knowledge or data? Google doesn’t provide knowledge, you create the knowledge from the resources.

By: Jacek

Jacek — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:59:26 +0000

Hey CJ, good to see that promised post Yes, the last few weeks of #wolframgooglekiller craze just show how clueless the majority of ‘tech writers’ is. But it also shows that there is a need for a tool making reliable data easily accessible/findable, which in turn makes Google/WA comparisons necessary. WA will probably prove very useful (providing they are able to serve better than ‘estimated 1986 data’ and thanks to Mathematica’s computational power), but it can only replace your general encyclopedia/almanac + calculator combo, not Google.

As far as the data/knowledge distinction goes ‘the opposite’ is also true, it just depends on how you define/present it. It is Google that gives me the information/knowledge via linking to documents containing it, when WA is limited to computing ‘curated data’. Nobody really looks for ‘data about indexed documents’ (well, we do while SEOing in Google, and everybody using WA actually looks for good, reliable data.

By: Tanya Goodin

Tanya Goodin — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:53:15 +0000

The best, and most compelling, description I have seen to date of the essential differences between WA & Google. Excellent reading.