[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 Chris Chandler
>  
> "Boniface Lau"
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.

Since when did you think I speak for anyone but myself? ;-)


> 
> I've followed the debate and am reasonably satisfied with Jared's
> straightforward defense of his results.

So? The fact that you are satisfied does not mean others must be
satisfied too. I hope you realize that.


> You might be technically correct that it is not quite right to say
> that search is worse than nothing, given the information we have 

Ah! You too see the trouble of defending such extremist opinion.


> -- but it's a very minor point.

Mind you, we are talking about an article's conclusion. That is
supposed to be the most important part in an article. And you say it
is a "very minor point" whether the conclusion is correct?


> 
> On the other hand, I've marked your arguments down for the stubborn
> insistence on Jared making his company's proprietary research
> publicly available to satisfy you.

Not to satisfy me. But for the gaping hole in Jared's logic:

JS> >Would you mind explaining the logic behind the statement "on-site
JS> >search engines are worse than nothing"?
JS> 
JS> The logic is simple: When users don't use on-site search, they are
JS> twice as likely to find their content than when they do.


> IMO, it's unreasonable for you to ask, and rather petty to keep
> insisting that not giving away his work for free lends any credence
> to your argument.

ISTM you are confused about the argument. Allow me to help...

Jared joined this discussion to defend his articles. Then he ran into
trouble by exposing a gaping hole in his logic behind his article's
conclusion. At that point, had he truly believed that the study details
would help him, wouldn't it be common sense for him to at least cite
those details to support his case? But he did not.

Those are the facts. You draw your own conclusion.

Of course, your conclusion does not necessary have to be the same as
mine. After all, Jared himself had demonstrated the magic of human
minds. His magical mind perceived an illustration as a comparison. Who
knows what other "magical" minds are out there?


> 
> I'm not particularly interested in debating with you, 

Good for you, unless you are better than Jared in speaking for
himself. Even Jared had trouble defending his own articles.


> but since you made reference to the public nature of the forum, I
> wanted to let you know that things are not as cut and dried as you
> may think.

Let's get the facts straight...

Jared made the "cut and dried" conclusion "search engines are worse
than nothing".

I was refuting his "cut and dried" conclusion.


Boniface