RE: [SearchCoP] FW: Re: [cmpros] "Voodoo search technology is the last refuge of information anarchists"
Seth, I think you are right on the mark. This is a discussion we’ve had with partners and others that argue that companies don’t need to take on classification or taxonomy development projects in order to more easily find their information. Put our search engine on top of whatever repository you have (shared drives, SharePoint, traditional ECM) and we can find it.
In my opinion, this approach doesn’t encourage changes in process and the ways of working that I believe are necessary to take the information that is really valuable to the organization and make it more easily retrievable. The problem will only get worse if people can continue to work the way they do and put their content where they want to, without any indication of what it is via some type of classification.
Douglas Schultz, ECMP, ECMS | Access Sciences Corp. | Principal Consultant | 713-554-9570 work | 832-367-0468 mobile | dschultz@...
From: SearchCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto: SearchCoP@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Seth Earley
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: [SearchCoP] FW: Re: [cmpros] "Voodoo search technology is the last refuge of information anarchists"
I thought this might be of interest to the group...
I like "voodoo search..." :-)
From: cmpros-bounces@ lists.cms- forum.org [mailto:cmpros-bounces@ lists.cms- forum.org] On Behalf Of Seth Earley
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:30 PM
To: tbyrne@cmswatch. com; cmpros@lists. cmprofessionals. org
Subject: Re: [cmpros] "Voodoo search technology is the last refuge of information anarchists"
I have always argued that the Google approach is fine for certain types of content but for higher value stuff (best practices, approved methods, example deliverables, policies, methodologies, etc.) we will always need to proactively organize this information.
The idea of not organizing and leaving this to a "really smart" search engine is fallacy. No matter how good the algorithms they really can't infer intent. Also, with very nuanced information, we need to be able to distinguish between content for slightly different purposes - for example - the bug fix for version 2.4.3 of a piece of software and version 2.4.4 - searching for "bug fix" will not be precise enough. We have to tag that bug fix with the appropriate version.
Having classification systems can guide users in their attempt to locate information - when people don't know what they want, providing mechanisms to browse (based on tagging and metadata) can lead to knowledge discovery.
I like to quite some Microsoft researchers Ryen W. White, Joemon M. Jose and Ian Ruthven "...search terms are short, ambiguous and an approximation of the searchers real information need...". So even when the search engine is terrific, users do not think precisely enough to get to the information they need. They think in overly broad terms and need to be given a hint. This is what organizing principles can do.
It's also interesting to note that more navigation these days is based on classification and that the lines are blurring. The most powerful mechanisms for locating content are based on metadata but look exactly like navigation. So tagging and structure is absolutely necessary in that case.
____________ _________ ________
EARLEY & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Email: seth@earley. com
New Search Community of Practice:
http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ SearchCoP/