

Google Squared is Live - zeedotme
http://www.google.com/squared/

======
jerf
"Religion" is entertaining. Christianity is written by CS Lewis and published
by the Oxford University Press, which in fact publishes most religions. The
canonical image of Islam is the guy holding the sign "behead those who insult
islam". Slavic mythology (the 27th result) is located in the country of
Afghanistan. The distinctive image of Humanism is a bus advertisement (I
think) saying "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."

Adding the column "adherents" reveals that there are 4,400 Jews in the world
to Islam's 300, to Christianity's 1.9 billion. Adding the column "Leader"
reveals that the leader of Christianity is Chris Argabright, complete with a
phone number I won't reproduce here.

Actually I have to admit this isn't too bad for a computer algorithm, it's
just the better the algorithm gets, the more entertaining the wrongness gets.

Ah, and poking "science" in gives you a phone number for each science. Nice.

Further edit: Poke in "X-Men Origins" as a column for almost any query. It's
like magic. A coworker tried something like the following and discovered the
column showing up, then we couldn't resist poking it into many other queries:
[http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=square&items=tria...](http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=square&items=triangle&items=hexagon&items=regular+hexagon&items=what+happens+when+I+go+to+the+gym&items=rhombus)

Further, further edit: Add "Rating" (not "ratings") to religion! It's so great
that we have Google to sort through the difficult problem of rating religions
for us.

~~~
dlnovell
Adding "Star Trek" as an additional column is pretty enlightening as well.
Apparently Islam has a Star Trek value of "Set Phasers on Awesome!"

------
khandekars
Nice. I searched for four scenarios. Apparently, one can train the engine, as
discovered in the 4th scenario. In that, it said that it couldn't
automatically build a square about the topic and asked me to enter up to 5
examples. I entered Alan Turing, Alan Perlis, John McCarthy, Donald E. Knuth,
C.A.R. Hoare. I was delighted to see that Google Squared built the square and
added names of Norbert Weiner and Claude Shanon to it.

This is a good application of machine learning.

    
    
      Scenario 1: "renaissance artists" florence
        Squared: http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=%22renaissance+artists%22+florence
        Web Search: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22renaissance+artists%22+florence&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=%22renaissance+artists%22+florence&aqi=&fp=1mZ_-PL2Zjc
    
      Scenario 2: "open source" "cryptographically strong" "random number generators"
        Squared: http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=%22open+source%22+%22cryptographically+strong%22+%22random+number+generators%22
        Web search: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22open+source%22+%22cryptographically+strong%22+%22random+number+generators%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=%22open+source%22+%22cryptographically+strong%22+%22random+number+generators%22&aqi=&fp=1mZ_-PL2Zjc
    
      Scenario 3: "string theory" problems
        Squared: http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=%22string+theory%22+problems
        Web search: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22string+theory%22+problems&aq=&oq=&aqi=&fp=1mZ_-PL2Zjc
    
      Scenario 4: "mathematicians" "computer scientists"
        Squared: http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=mathematicians+%22computer+scientists%22
        Web Search: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=mathematicians+%22computer+scientists%22&aq=f&oq=%22open+source%22+%22cryptographically+strong%22+%22random+number+generators%22&

~~~
JimmyL
Google Sets (<http://labs.google.com/sets>) was one of the earlier things
available in Google Labs, back when it was just a dumping ground for weird
stuff (as opposed to one for non-mainstream features). I'd guess this is where
the technology used to generate the square from the samples comes from.

I also wouldn't call it training, for what it's worth. I punched in the same
query, and was asked (like you were) to provide some samples - shouldn't
(ideally) it know that it's not known this before, and use the samples you
suggested?

~~~
vidarh
Would you trust a single input for immediate future use?

If so, Google Square has some Viagra to sell you...

In other words: A single user can never be trusted when they know nothing else
about you - if they did, the spammers would be out in force as soon as it got
any traction at all.

~~~
wizard_2
Yea but like for the "wiki search" they can trust you know what you want to
see.

------
dood
I like that they show you the source pages, confidence, and alternative
sources for the data.

However, it suffers the classic Google app problem; it does interesting stuff,
but just looks ugly, and is generally unappealing. Hard for me to explain why,
but despite my interest in the technology I just didn't enjoy using it at all.

But it is interesting stuff, I'd been wondering when something like this would
emerge since watching this Norving talk from 2007
[<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU8DcBF-qo4>].

------
TallGuyShort
Once you wrapped your mind around how to use this, I can see this being really
useful - perhaps even more useful than Wolfram Alpha.

It still gives you lots of garbage results at the moment (try a search for
religion - it's hard to get relevant data when you add columns or religions),
but the ability to do a structured search on a whole array of similar items at
once? That's cool! With countries, although you get some obscure nations to
begin with, you can add rows and columns (like GDP, population, area, etc...)
very easily, and get very useful comparisons.

------
timcederman
Is it bad that I just don't get this?

~~~
catch23
I think it's one of google's answers to wolfram alpha

~~~
TweedHeads
And Yahoo YQL

~~~
neilk
There is no relationship at all. YQL is just a way to query disparate Yahoo
data sources with a relational-like language.

------
gambling8nt
This doesn't seem to be consistent in the way it is trying to help me; for
example, a search for "tympanuchus cupido" (the genus and species name of the
greater prairie chicken) returns only phasianidae, the family to which prairie
chickens belong. Meanwhile, a search for just "tympanuchus" (the genus, which
includes more than just prairie chickens) returns Attwater's Prairie Chicken
National Wildlife Refuge, which seems only tangentially related. Terms with
multiple meanings (which is precisely what structured search is supposed to
help with) don't seem to recognize this multiplicity--consider a search for
"peripatetic", which is both the name of a school of ancient Greek philosophy
(which is recognized in the results), and a term meaning wandering or
itinerant (which is not recognized, even when the search is changed to
"peripatetic definition"). Even the most straightforwardly categorical queries
don't seem to work that well ("dungeons and dragons classes" returns a list
that is neither complete, nor correct). Speaking of neither completeness nor
correctness, if you think my query choices were a little too farfetched,
consider the query "search engines"--it returns none of bing, Duck Duck Go,
and cuil in the first 50 results (although, somewhat entertainingly, Yahoo is
the first result and Google is the second).

Is there something I'm missing that this engine actually does well?

~~~
RyanGWU82
<http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=abba+albums>

~~~
gambling8nt
I'm not sure how this is superior (or how anything along this line would ever
make it superior) to getting the information via classical
search...particularly since it is readily available, more complete, and more
organized via wiki (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBA_discography>). Can you
think of any advantage this has?

~~~
Raphael
Now you can find any kind of lists in one place, with any columns you want.
For example, add a column for length. Much easier than navigating to each
album's Wikipedia page.

------
ggruschow
Stunningly bad. Are they desparate to show they're not standing still and you
shouldn't start using other services or something?

First thing I did, I clicked on one of their examples "US Presidents" - which
one would assume would probably produce the best they've got to offer right?
The result I guess would've been kind of cool circa 1999, but now.. no:

Google^2: <http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=US%20presidents> Result: _7_
, seemingly random presidents, in no apparent order or with rhyme or reason as
to why they were selected.. Washington - OK, Jefferson - OK, Obama - Sure,
he's current. Rutherford B. Hayes... WTF?

Wolfram Alpha: <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+presidents> Result:
Basic stats in Barack Obama - current president of the united states, a brief
list of the past couple predecessors and their effective start and end months
in office, and an AJAX link to expand it to a complete list.

Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_presidents> Result: --> List of
Presidents of the United States.. Awfully nice summary of what that means,
notable highlights, and a color-coded complete table with pictures of the
presidents, in order, including their full dates and vice presidents.

I don't foresee ever going back until I hear news they've dramatically
improved, but based on my past recollection of Google's habits.. it'll sit and
suck for a very long time with perhaps small incremental improvements.

------
aston
<http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=programming+languages>

Scheme comes out on top. Awesome.

~~~
snprbob86
Try adding these columns: Paradigm, Typing Discipline, Designed By, Major
Implementations

Impressive.

~~~
CUViper
Not really -- those are all categories in the Wikipedia sidebar. The data is
already structured for easy consumption.

Try something like a "Version" column and it starts to break down. It makes
decent guesses overall, but they're not current (e.g. Python says 2.4, where
2.6.2 or 3.0.1 would be better).

------
kingsley_20
My search for "freedom fighters" turned up Indians exclusively. I wasn't
signed in. Strange. Are they not called "freedom fighters" in other cultures?
It _is_ a semantically dubious phrase.

<http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=freedom+fighters>

~~~
sp332
The Indian freedom fighters are unusual, in that most freedom fighters offer
violent, armed revolt. Even Wikipedia singles them out in the second
paragraph: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fighter>

------
noodlesquares
The results rarely make any sense. This kind of thing still needs to have some
human intelligence mixed in; compare to <http://www.noodlesquares.com>.

 _Search engines_

<http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=search+engines>

<http://noodlesquares.com/SearchEngines.html>

 _Cameras_

<http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=cameras>

<http://noodlesquares.com/Cameras.html>

[disclaimer: associated with noodlesquares]

~~~
jimboyoungblood
Ugh, I clicked your link. I want the 15 seconds you took from my life back.

~~~
noodlesquares
Sorry, we're just getting going. Is it because it's slow or because the
content sucks? We want to try a hybrid human/automated approach.

~~~
zkz
I liked it. I cannot enter queries there though, it's a pity since I really
wanted to test that engine.

------
whatusername
"Australian States" is probably the perfect query for this. result set should
fit on a page, easily structured data, etc, etc..

Area worked for every state Population worked for some (NSW, QLD) When I added
"Capital" it worked for all of them

I love the idea - still has a while to go

------
anigbrowl
And it's really quite good: I got meaningful results on a wide range of topics
of varying obscurity. A few outright failures, mostly on complex terms; eg
'california TV stations' gives me CA city information.

I sent my list of 12 suggestions to the labs team: highest priority were
share/export to docs|base, and entering search terms or [sublist search] in
individual fields. If they can make it social and create 'trusted tables'
there's the possibility of having users curate a lot of data for them a la
Wikipedia.

------
tokenadult
"Google Squared couldn't automatically build a Square about Hacker News."

That's odd. It built a square around my personal name, the name of my personal
website, and the name of my nonprofit, the last of which I would think would
have to be less famous than Hacker News. Richness of semantic associations
appears to be key here. My nonprofit's name has more words in it.

~~~
whatusername
I added it as a row - and it could pick it up... (With the info from
yesterdays hack post)

------
zandorg
Well, it's good for a laugh.

------
sqs
A few months ago I attended a talk by Alon Halevy (of Google) on the
algorithms behind this. There are several papers with more details for those
who are curious. Check his publications listed at
<http://alonhalevy.googlepages.com/>, specifically those about WebTables and
dataspaces.

------
swolchok
"Porn stars" is resultful, but not in any order of notoriety. "Measurements"
is, surprisingly, an available column, and "Sexual Orientation" worked,
although not suggested until I started typing it. (I wouldn't recommend
searching for this at work, obviously, although the Image column seems to be
keeping things PG-13.)

------
calambrac
Seems pretty useless right now as far as the actual data is concerned, but I
like the interface and the idea.

~~~
DanielStraight
Much like Wolfram Alpha. ;)

------
johnnybgoode
This reminded me of Google Sets, which has been in Labs forever:
<http://labs.google.com/sets>

Sure enough, if you ask it to build a Square and it can't figure it out, it
uses a Sets-like interface to ask you for five examples.

------
johnnybgoode
Interesting. Try starting with an empty square. Add a few items, and then add
a few custom columns.

------
triplefox
It took me a while to figure out what I wasn't seeing on these results pages.

SEO spam.

So I searched for "SEO spam" and it asked me to build a Square for it. No
thanks >:(

------
Steve0
Needs some work: <http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=famous+hackers>

------
oconnor0
Searching for "java xml binding frameworks" says that XMLBeans is required. I
guess the other frameworks just aren't worth using. :-D

------
zouhair
No damn VIM in "text editors", infuriating.

~~~
jacobolus
Well, emacs costs $39.95, and XEmacs costs $74.99, so maybe that's just as
well.

------
ftse
'Squirrel' returns a good search square, but no red or grey squirrels.

------
capablanca
fail: <http://www.google.com/squared/search?q=programming+languages>

