"60 Minutes" erroneously wowed by Google

[KurtNYC]

Anyone else catch 60 Minutes segment on Google last night? They sent Lesley Stahl who just glazed over when they started talking about the "next big thing."

According to the segment, "the next big thing" was one of the following.

1) web pages will be translated by computer: Google engineer Alan Eustace explains, "One of the ideas that we’re working on is machine translation. We strongly believe that there’s enough data on the Web and in the world right now to allow us to automatically translate from one language to another."

Of course they could have just looked at AltaVista which has had the feature for 4+ years.

or 2) "I think it could be summed up in, 'search will no longer live only on your PC,'" says Battelle, when asked to speculate on what the next big breakthrough might be. Google is already moving that way, testing a new product that allows people to send short text messages from their cellphones and get an immediate reply to the search.

Where I live (reality-land) that is called a "Blackberry."

So in summary, they plan to hire tons more people, rename existing ideas as their own and roll them out with high dollar marketing campaigns (hey, it worked for Microsoft). The "next big things" apparently are: babelfish, the Blackberry, Priceline, over-paying your adolescent work force, IPOs, dressing casual every day, and riding Razor scooters around the office.

And again, there is catchall term for these "innovations" -- it was called the late 1990s. Fortunately for Google, almost no one at "60 Minutes" recognized any of this as nonsense (but what do want from a network that couldn't tell the difference between a document from a 1971 typewriter and one that came off a new-fangle computer 30+ years later?).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/30/60minutes/main664063.shtml

[theorist]

1. Lip service to uninformed share holders.

Do you really think these guys are going to 'open up' to a reporter about their next big project? They just want their investors to feel good about holding a company with no product. (But hell, if I had the money, I'd own some google, too.) :)

[skypilot]

2. I'm slowly getting weened off of "60 Minutes".

It seems that they are doing more and more puff pieces. I don't need to see so many segments about rich businessmen and show biz folks and that seems to be what I'm seeing alot of on both editions of "60 Minutes" lately.

[Harry S Truman]

4. It's jumped the shark

I can't believe how bad "60 Minutes" has become. It's practically "Entertainment Tonight." And that ditz Leslie Stahl should be working on E! It's time to pull the plug on this empty-headed show. What a shame.

[skypilot]

6. I'm glad and sad...

...to know that it's not just my imagination. It's a mere shadow of the show it used to be and I don't even want to think about how bad it will be after Dan Rather retires.

[antigone382]

19. I could be mistaken, but I think Rather will still do 60 Minutes

If I remember correctly, he's just retiring from the CBS Evening News.
:shrug:

Maybe his working exclusively on 60 Minutes will improve it some; at least I can hope so. :)

[skypilot]

21. I really hope so.

I can't stand the thought of losing Rather from "60 Minutes" AND Bill Moyers from "NOW". Jesus, what's left?

[LanternWaste]

24. You are correct

You are correct. Rather will continue his work at 60M after he retires from CBS Eve. News.

I specifically remember this when he announced his retirement and future plans. 60M also confirmed it days later during the intro to the first ep. after Rather's anncouncement.

[Tempest]

7. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen that

Ever since the documents bru-ha-ha, with just a few exceptions, 60 Minutes has become completely irrelevant.

I've gotten in the habit of checking the web site during the week to see what the stories are. Yesterday's show was a no-watch.

[Democrats_win]

9. Good journalism isn't on TV.

Its hard to find, but here and there we see good reporting.

[Tempest]

10. It's on TV

Just not on American TV.

You have to have satellite in order to get BBC or Canadian Broadcasting.

Now there's good journalism.

[sandnsea]

3. Google sucks

I don't know what they did to their search this past year, but it sucks. Yahoo seems to be using the technology Google used to use, I go there now.

[madinmaryland]

5. Yahoo has used google for years.

Until a year or so ago, yahoo's search engine was run by google. Now it's just their own. Googles is nothing more than what was and still is on Yahoo.

[sandnsea]

18. Not true

Yahoo has used a variety of search engines over the years. They used Google at one point. Now they're completely separate. Google revamped it's search algorithm last October and it's been downhill ever since. Yahoo implemented their own search at that time and the results are in line with what Google's used to be.

[MsTryska]

8. Thank you!

I've been wondering what was so great about google for some time now.


i like their google/unclesam feature, but i prefer using yahoo for normal pertinent results.

[depakid]

22. Yahoo uses the old Inktomi database

Which is based on a different algorithm.

Google is a decent place to start, but it has trouble with certain things- like newer pages or pages without a lot of links to them- pages that might be very relevant to a particular search query.

It's biggest weakness, IMHO, is that it's easily fooled by networks of people seeking to "lock out" the search return on particular keywords.

It's really too bad that the search engines have mostly been consolidated under common ownership. It's stifled competition and innovation in the industry (what else is new in American style captialism). 4-5 years ago, there were half a dozen good general search engines, each with their own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Where google got smart is that they didn't try to become a "portal" and overreach- they concentrated on search technology. Now that the're public, I expect that they'll have to change their ways.

[RafterMan]

11. Google has translation, too

But it all sucks, everywhere.

The reason "there's enough data on the web" is an issue is that you want to make your training sets huge, so you can capture some semantics above the usual word-for-word junk you get when you translate pages.

And why are you worried about overpaying workers?

[NewJeffCT]

12. web translator

Everything I have seen that translates English to Mandarin Chinese, or vice versa, basically sucks. You're lucky if you get 25-50% accuracy. And, those are two of the most spoken languages in the world.

[proud patriot]

13. I enjoyed the segment and like google

I learned that the Google company motto is
"do no evil"

I kinda like that . With Gates trying to
get another monopoly I'm rooting for variety
and for the time being that means supporting
Yahoo and Google :D

[Xithras]

14. You weren't paying attention

If you'd paid attention to the whole segment, you'd have realized that they weren't talking about simple page translation. They were talking about searching for your KEYWORDS in multiple languages i.e., type "George Bush Sucks" into Google and have it search for pages that have those keywords...in ANY language...and return the results to you. Currently there are no search engines anywhere that perform keyword searches across languages.

Oh, and Babelfish sucks at translating anything more complex than "See Spot Run".

And as to the search, I don't see how you could have watched the segment and misunderstood what they were talking about so badly. They weren't talking about searching the web, they were talking about searching the WORLD. Stahl even did a demo where she typed in the keyword "pharmacy" and her zip code, and the system text messaged her back with directions to the nearest pharmacy. She used it to search for a real world object, not simply data or information (hence the quote "search will no longer live only on your PC").

[napi21]

15. They also talked about two other new projects.

One they called "Keyhole". It's is an ariel satellite search of almost any location with zoom in capabilities.

And "Google Desktop" which organizes your own computer and lets you do desktop searches of things on your HD.

I like Google and use it all the time.

[0007]

17. Me too! I'm afraid though. Anything I've ever liked disappears or comes

with a price only rich men can afford.

[question everything]

16. Thank you. I agree and was going to post similar comments

I think that it also meant that not only would you find a report in, say, an Italian publication, but that it would automatically translate the report to you.

I agree that Bablefish is bad. I was once listening to a Phil Hendrie show (I think) while driving and he was translating English to Spanish and then the same paragraph to English again and the final result was hilarious. I was laughing so hard while, thankfully, standing at a stop light, that I was hoping no one in the next lane was looking in my direction.

[K-W]

20. Google is at the forefront of internet technology.

Regardless of what you gleaned from a 60 minutes story.

[sandnsea]

23. It was

Now it's at the forefront of corporate marketing and promotion.