[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
>  
[...]
> I'm sorry, but I'm just not a worthy opponent against your
> exceptionally persuasive discourse. I gave it my best try -- truely,
> I did -- but, I'm obviously no match for your incredible skill.

You are giving me more credit than I deserve. ISTM, your difficulty
was with the extremeness in those UIE opinions that you were trying to
defend.

The studies are yours. You know everything about them, including how
useful they really are in supporting your published UIE opinions. If
you really thought the study details would make a strong case, it
would make sense to cite them - especially when you yourself were
having trouble making a convincing case in an open discussion watched
by your peers.


[...]
> I wish I could master the oral sparring techniques that I really
> admire in your style.

It is in the mindset, not techniques. Adopting a fact-finding mindset
goes a long way towards detaching emotion from arguments. That paves
the way for sorting out conflicting perspectives. 

Of course, whether the matter can be sorted out depends on the
availability of data. You have the data. Whether to make them
available "so that *everyone* can draw their own inferences and
opinions" is up to you.


[...]
> I have to say, you *really* impressed me when you compared the
> apparent success of my organization to that of a tobacco company

The example that I used for "illustration" was perceived by your mind
as "comparison". Isn't human mind magical?

That magical mind also came up with the following conclusion in the
UIE article "Why On-Site Searching Stinks"
(http://www.uie.com/searchar.htm):

WOSSS> Our data showed that today's on-site search engines are worse
WOSSS> than nothing -- significantly worse.

But the logic leading up to that conclusion was flawed. So too was
perceiving "illustration" as "comparison". 

I hope you now understand why I pressed for the study details. May be
they were another case of "illustration" perceived as "comparison".


[...]
> I'm on the verge of completely rethinking our entire business model
> because of the saliency of your arguments.)

Care to be specific about another of your mind's creation?


> I do know that, at such point I find myself replying to an email of
> yours in the future, I'm going to have to really dust off and study
> my copy of The Elements of Rhetoric. Without far more practice and
> knowledge, there's just no way I'll ever come away looking anything
> but a fool compared to your high-caliber sophistry.

Casting a discussion about logic as one of rhetoric or sophistry does
not help sorting out conflicting perspectives. And I repeat, just
because one method has a higher success rate than that of another does
NOT mean the other method is "worse than nothing". Whether to patch up
your own logic's gaping hole or leave it out in the open, the choice
is yours.

You joined this conversation in order to defend your UIE articles'
opinions. But the success of such endeavour is very much determined by
the soundness of your position. May be if those UIE opinions were not
that extreme, you would have a much better chance of defending them.

I hope the difficulty of defending extremist opinions will mean less
of them in the future.


Boniface