[Sigia-l] ROI/Value of Search Engine Design - Resources?

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Jared M. Spool
>  
[...]
> It is not my goal to partake in a public dissection of my beliefs,

In the last couple days, you and I have been responding to each
other's beliefs. So, if you believe that I have misunderstood your
latest 'user error' belief, it would make sense for you to respond to
what I'd said, unless of course you have trouble disagreeing.


> particularly on this list which doesn't have a recent history of
> being a 'friendly, safe place' for people to share their views.  

This is a discussion list. Many come to broaden their perspective. I
myself have benefited from watching conflicting perspectives sorting
themselves out.

Some people look to discussion lists to confirm their beliefs. Thus,
merely having their own views challenged is considered unsafe or
unfriendly. But a discussion list is not a support group in which
opinions are expressed and accepted without challenge.

Regarding this discussion with you, I have been voicing dissenting
views on UIE opinions. I guess had people here been enthusiastically
endorsing UIE opinions, this list would be viewed as friendly and
safe.


[...]
> 
> Yes it may. However, other institutions that have duplicated our
> results have come to the same interpretation.

Care to give us the URLs of those duplicated results and
interpretation?


> 
> >For example, the UIE article "Why On-Site Searching Stinks"
> >presented user interface problems and then claimed that "on-site
> >search engines are worse than nothing". To me, that was data
> >mis-interpretation.
> >
> >Would you mind explaining the logic behind the statement "on-site
> >search engines are worse than nothing"?
> 
> The logic is simple: When users don't use on-site search, they are
> twice as likely to find their content than when they do.

Let's see... we have two methods (A and B) for locating information.
Just because method A has a higher success rate than that of B, you
concluded that B is "worse than nothing"?

Don't you see a gaping hole in that logic? Care to patch up that hole?


[...]
> > > As we do more testing, we'll have more results, from which we'll
> > > draw more inferences and opinions. We'll continue to present the
> > > data so that everyone can draw their own inferences and
> > > opinions.
> >
> >Does that mean you will publish details of the studies behind the
> >articles "Why Amazon Succeeds -- And Why It Won't Help You" and
> >"Why On-Site Searching Stinks"?
> 
> It is available. Contact me for pricing. 

Earlier you said you would present data so that *everyone* can draw
their own inferences and opinions. You did not mention any fee. But
when I followed up on your offer, you said such information is
available only to those who pay. Isn't that kind of a reversal?


> (I'm sorry, but it is not economically feasible for us to make it
> available for free.

I merely asked for the ones that you had trouble making a convincing
case. 

Regarding the article "Why Amazon Succeeds -- And Why It Won't Help
You", obviously if you believed that the study's details would help to
build a strong case in an open discussion, you would have cited those
details. After all, you joined this discussion to support that
article.

But you ended up suggesting that we should agree to disagree. Then
when I asked for details, you said it is available only to those who
pay. ISTM, you are not confident that the study details will lend much
support to the UIE article.

Regarding the article "Why On-Site Searching Stinks", the logic
leading to that article's conclusion has a gaping hole. I look forward
to seeing how you patch up that hole. But do I have to pay to see that
hole patched up?


[...]
> Our clients are happy with our results. They are making informed
> decisions using our data. And they keep asking for more research. We
> must be doing something right.

Tobacco companies have countless clients very happy with the tobacco
products and keep asking for more. Does that mean the companies have
done the right thing by manufacturing and marketing those products?

Validating the logic behind the UIE opinions and having happy clients
are two different things. One is not a substitute for the other.


Boniface