Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Wolfram Alpha and Google Face Off

Continued from page 2

By David Talbot

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

SEARCH TERM: Cancer New York

WOLFRAM ALPHA: I was expecting statistics on cancer rates in New York. Instead, the Wolfram site assumed I meant the constellation. It showed me where Cancer could be found in the night sky viewed from New York, told me when it would next rise and set, and included a map of the night sky.

GOOGLE: The first link was to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The second was to the New York State Department of Health's cancer page. The third was to the New York State Cancer Registry. Not bad.

VARIATIONS: Adding a second state (Cancer New York Nevada) confused Wolfram--it didn't know what I wanted. With Google, all the top results were Nevada-centric: a mix of news stories, lawyers' websites, and medical centers relating to cancer (the disease) in Nevada. No comparisons, no data, and not as helpful as it was when I just put "Cancer New York."

SEARCH TERM: Utah Florida population

WOLFRAM ALPHA: Alpha gave me tables containing the two states' populations from 2006, the population growth rate from 2000 to 2006 (including a chart that I could download), and the number of annual births and deaths in 2004.

GOOGLE: Even though Google just launched a new data-presentation service with access to public census and labor data, this search term did not bring me to the new data service. The first hit was to a U.S. census press release that itself contained links to population tables.

VARIATIONS: When I tried "Utah population," Google did give me a view of its new service: a simple chart of Utah's population from 1980 to the present.

When I changed the search term to "Utah Florida," Wolfram threw the almanac at me, giving side-by-side tables on population data plus high and low elevations of the two states, the dates that the states joined the union, the area of farmland, the household income and poverty rates, and so on. Google gave me random sites that contained the two words, starting with a mapped location of a business in Lake Mary, Florida, that contains the word "Utah."

Generally, I did not use search terms that clearly had no computable answer (and therefore would have stumped Wolfram). But I also didn't throw any softballs in areas close to the heart of its makers: physics, chemistry, engineering, and genomics. On hard-core scientific questions, it gives you tons of symbols and graphics and other information that would be useful to a researcher but obscure to most people. But on many common questions for which there is no obvious data element, you will not get much help. In any event, if its plans hold, you should be able to test it out yourself in two or three weeks.

Comments


  • smihael
    05/05/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • comparisons not quite applicable
    This is fair and interesting data, but my concern is that you're not using these two sites appropriately. From what I understand, one of the chief benefits of Wolfram Alpha is that it can produce results based on natural-language questions, whereas Google relies on more machine-based queries.

    Putting in multiple-word keywords naturally favors Google, because you're not really asking a question there - you're just searching for data. In this instance, Google is most likely going to return more of the "right" kind of data that you're looking for, because they've had 10 years to finetune their algorithm in this way.

    I think a more practical test would be to think about a few real-life questions you want answered, and then put in the best Google search you can think of, and compare that to simply asking Wolfram Alpha the question.

    These sites/engines are tools, and it's tough to compare them by telling them to do the same thing the same way. You have to use them to their strengths.

    Thanks for the article, though - interesting data. Can't wait to try it out.

    Nate

    ItStartsWith...
    05/05/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: comparisons not quite applicable
      Post a pair of queries and I'll try it out.   But I think it's fair to use identical search terms -- otherwise how can you compare the two?  
      Anyway, I'd wager that most average users don't/won't know how to customize a query (though they might learn over time).  Thanks for your comment.

      david.talbot...
      05/05/2009
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      4/5

This discussion has been moved to our discussions forum.

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.