[Sigia-l] People thinking like computers (was ROI/Value of Search Engine...)

[Christopher Fahey [askrom]]

Hmmm...

Jared's recent post with examples of failed search queries got me
thinking about what exactly goes through a person's head when looking at
a search field.

Let's take Jared's first example:

> (1) A user, looking for "a low-cost, yet reliable laptop 
> computer that will last 4 years for his son who is going
> away to school" typed "laptops" into Amazon's search 
> and receives 210 results, for which he has no way of
> discerning if any of these computers match his criteria.

I'll confess that my first reaction to this was to roll my eyes at this
person's deep misunderstanding of how search engines work. But then I
wondered: why exactly did this person type in "laptops" instead of
something more specific like "low cost reliable laptops" or even "I am
looking for a low-cost, yet reliable laptop computer that will last 4
years for my son who is going away to school"? I mean, s/he wouldn't
walk up to a salesperson at CompUSA and simply say "laptops" and expect
to find a useful recommendation either. Why did this person only type
one word?

I'm pretty good at trivia, so people often email me questions like
"what's the name of that artist who wrapped the Reichstag"? And I
quickly (and rudely) send them a link like this one:
  http://www.google.com/search?&q=artist+who+wrapped+Reichstag 

This is going to sound like blasphemy to the religion of
user-centricity, but my initial reaction was in part correct: The fact
that this user just doesn't know the right way to use a search engine is
clearly a major factor in why this user failed to find his or her
result. Why do people not understand how to use search engines? What can
we do about it?

One way to remedy this is to make smarter and smarter search engines,
programs that are designed to adapt to the way users actually think,
programs that do not require users to deeply understand how to use
search engines. This is clearly what Jared wants us to do, and I agree. 

But another way to make searches more effective is to educate the public
on how to properly use search engines. While the latter is certainly not
realistic on any single web site, particularly a site that is trying to
sell things, it does point to a broad issue in public education and
social theory: We are, in fact, slowly learning to adapt to the way
computer programs work, instead of the other way around. Web sites no
longer need to say "click on the underlined words to jump to other
pages". 

Here's another of Jared's examples:

> (2) A user, looking for "the film thingy you put into a 
> digital camera" typed "digital camera film" into 
> Amazon's search and receives all sorts of interesting
> results, none of which are the 32mb Compact Flash
> card he really was looking for.

This is a great example of a user who might, in fact, actually
understand how search engines work, but does not understand how digital
cameras works. In this case, a CompUSA floor salesperson would probably
know how to interpret this 'input' and direct the customer to the
Compact Flash display area. Jared probably includes this example to
emphasize the message that the user is not at fault here, that the
search engine should be able to figure out this likely common mistake.

Our current crop of search engines are still basically just tools for
power users who understand how search engines work. Search engines work
for people who understand that more search terms narrow the results,
they work for people who understand what kinds of words are likely to
uniquely pertain to their desired result. Clearly there is something
about the 'right' way of using search engines that a lot of people just
don't get.

Jared's ultimate point was that every day customers are using search
engines in the 'wrong' way and that search engine designers need to
recognize this. Jared writes: "users interact with
non-uniquely-identified content [like DVD players] differently than with
uniquely-identified content, such as books or cds." The implication is
that the search engine designer should offer some additional assistance
to the user besides the simple 1-2 punch of 1)Search Form 2)Search
Results List. Here are only two examples of how this added assistance
might manifest itself:
   - If a user types "DVD player" into a search field at an online
electronics store, and it returns 400+ results, then the results page
should offer some added assistance (for example, it might be a "DVD
Buyer's Guide" page)
   - Search forms could offer additional fields/form elements to help
users form more useful queries relevant to key product offering.

But what about the approach of teaching people to use search engines? My
theory about the user who typed in "laptops" is that this user *is*
actually learning and adapting to the idiosyncratic way computers work.
The problem is that they are overadapting. This user may be thinking
something like this: 
   "Computers don't understand english, they only 
   understand one- and two-word commands like 
   'run' and 'delete'... So I should type in as few 
   words as possible."

As computers get smarter and more like humans, we humans are becoming
more like computers. Our human languages are becoming more logical and
streamlined just as computers are learning more about how to understand
the wacky syntax of actual human language. We may eventually meet in the
middle somewhere, where human behavior and thinking is so intertwined
with and adapted to advanced computer functionality that the grand task
of making super smart computer programs that can understand our chaotic
primate ways will be no longer be necessary.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com