Status
Not open for further replies.

rose

Extremely helpful member
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
2,925
Reason
DX MND
Diagnosis
7/2008
Country
US
State
Maryland
City
Anytown
Many here on the forum use Google as a mainstay to research symptoms, research breakthroughs, and, research just about anything.

A friend sent me a video on technology and how it is changing us and the amount of information we can access.

Some statistics about "Google":
There are 31 billion searches on Google every month. In 2006 this number was 2.7 billion...

.It is estimated that a week's worth of the New York Times contains more information than an individual was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century

....It is estimated that 4 exabytes of unique information will be generated this year. This is more than the previous 5000 years.

Its just a shame that "Google" misguides so many people when they're trying to self diagnose. Maybe its because even though the general population can access information on just about anything, that doesn't mean they have the training or background to discern what that information means in their individual case. Its easy to be mislead, and the more information available to us, the more there is to potentially be misinterpreted by us. :)
 
I did not understand what is a connection between amount of information supplied by Google, and the fact that it is (thought to be) misleading. But what I noticed is that lately the vast majority of medical reserach articles that I find through Google require subscription, so actually I can get no information at all, good or bad. All that is left is standard write-ups about ALS, with mostly obsolete information.
 
Pitch...

Maybe misguides or misleads is the wrong terminology, (I'm searching for the correct word, but falling short). Maybe its "indiscriminate" information...
 
Hi, Ptich ... Imagine 20 years ago, when there was no Internet and if you wanted information, you would drive to a library and slog through 30-year-old textbooks on the subject, if the library happened to have any.

So, we have not yet perfected "instant information gratification." A few glitches remain, such as the fact that a lot of the info on the Internet is plain old crap, and we have to pay for the good stuff. It's a good thing there are doctors out there, who can answer our medical questions!
 
Okey-dokey, here is a quote from Robert's (Planninguy) cyberchondria link.

New York Times; By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: November 24, 2008

....The study suggests that self-diagnosis by search engine frequently leads Web searchers to conclude the worst about what ails them.

The researchers said they had undertaken the study as part of an effort to add features to Microsoft’s search service that could make it more of an adviser and less of a blind information retrieval tool.

Although the term “cyberchondria” emerged in 2000 to refer to the practice of leaping to dire conclusions while researching health matters online, the Microsoft study is the first systematic look at the anxieties of people doing searches related to health care, Eric Horvitz said.

Mr. Horvitz, an artificial intelligence researcher at Microsoft Research, said many people treated search engines as if they could answer questions like a human expert.

“People tend to look at just the first couple results,” Mr. Horvitz said. “If they find ‘brain tumor’ or ‘A.L.S.,’ that’s their launching point.”



.... "Blind information retrieval tool" is the perfect choice of words that I needed down in my earlier thread. Much better terminology than "misguiding" or "misleading". :)
 
Interesting info

I wonder what all those people used to do when they had to haul around their Encyclopedia Brittanica books?8)8)

hugs to all,
brenda
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top