Why useless? This is a very different type of service.
WA can do things that are better than Google, just as Google can do things that are better than Wikipedia, just as Wikipedia can do things that are better than Yauba, just as Yauba can do things that are better than Twitter.
Each of these services are useful in their own right.
Pierre
· 6 months ago
At last ! Someone out there understands the purpose of WA. It is great when you know what type of queries you can ask. To my mind, it is not a direct competitor to google, rather a direct competitor to Wikipedia as it does the calculations and "reasoning" for you. WA is *very* valuable.
Tunstan > Buy yourself a brain, please.
caos30
· 6 months ago
Yes, precisely this is my main objection: i don't like noone think by me. It's true that when someone have hurry for find a detailed information about a concret detail, WA will be very useful. But if simply you want KNOW (not calculate!!!) about something... mmm... i have doubts about if WA can be the correct answer.
For example, think about the first example of this article: if you write a list of "planets", it's POSSIBLE that you wants to know their position and cosmic sizes. But PERHAPS you are interested in their rol in the mithology, or its presence in the cinema. Do you understand me... ? So, i think that yet i prefer wikipedia, because I CHOOSE what is the information that interst me, and also i find related links to other places for get more information. I know also that wikipedia is not free of limitations, but sincerely... WA must to do the things more more better.
caos30
· 6 months ago
another question: usually i don't like the BRIEF information. Take this example: have you never use "cheat sheets" for study at school (or for try to aprove an exam ;) Well, so you know that normally only one self it's able to understand its own "cheat sheet". Have you tried to understand the "cheat sheet" of any other person?... really is difficult to understand.
What i'm trying to say is that WA is trying to follow a "semantic conversation" with the user, for understand what is what the user wants. This is the first "issue" of WA: understand what user is searching. But the other difficult (and semantic) question is to show and expose the results (the answers) to the user: which is the degree or level of deeply that it's necesary to show in the answer? which is the level of previous knowledge of the user? You know that is different try to explain something to a children than to an adult (well sometimes it's not so different :P )
Do you understan me? i means that "semantic conversations" (like WA) uff..... it's very very difficult and problematic. And -it's my opinion- we will must wait for more than 10 years (at least) for enjoy something useful ;)
kfair68b
· 6 months ago
The comparisons between WA and Google miss the point (clearly articulated here) that these aren't competing search engines, but rather 2 tools that serve different purposes.
right there at the very beginning is the definition
Now, whether Stan can tell is another question ;-)
chidorio
· 6 months ago
Ooh, nice. I guess I should have approached the issue differently
Ricky
· 6 months ago
Great info.i also tried it out.it also gives out your website detail with pageviews and ranking. Rightly said it is a computational machine.I will be waiting for the moment when giant fish google eats it up ;-)
Ricky
· 6 months ago
Great info.i also tried it out.it also gives out your website detail with pageviews and ranking. Rightly said it is a computational machine.I will be waiting for the moment when giant fish google eats it up ;-)
venkat
· 6 months ago
every one should make use of wolfram alpha and Google for their use.Wolfram alpha does what Google can't where Google do what wolfram alpha can't do.
Simon
· 6 months ago
Is it just me or is the time given for Earths orbital period just wrong? I always though it was roughly 365.26 days (thus we have a leap year every 4 years except the turn of the century.
If Wolfram wants to be trusted these simple things need to be 100%, at least with Google you can go and look at the referenced website itself and make a judgement as to whether you trust the data.
Brent
· 6 months ago
365.26 is the sidereal year. This is not the same as what W-A is considering to be the orbital period, which is the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete it's orbit, with the sun as the point of reference. And W-A does provide a link to providing reference info.
Brent
· 6 months ago
365.26 is the sidereal year. This is not the same as what W-A is considering to be the orbital period, which is the amount of time it takes for the earth to complete it's orbit, with the sun as the point of reference. And W-A does provide a link to providing reference info.
ahands
· 6 months ago
WA and Google may not be complete apples to apples competitors, nevertheless WA provides a more useful, likely answer to many of the queries I've seen entered into everyday search engines by casual searchers looking for quick answers. I've seen queries such as "what is the population of ..." WA provides a better, to-the-point answer than search engines that provide long lists of text that the user must then click on and scan the page for the desired answer. Now that WA is here, how do we wean users off traditional search engines if searching for this type of data?
Errant
· 6 months ago
Look what the first query you mention pulls out of google....
I've really been impressed with Wolfram Alpha's overall concept and design, and their functionality is quite good. The innaccuracies are grating, however -- the example of sales tax you gave up there is just plain wrong for Los Angeles, and has been for over six weeks. This surprises me, since I assume the Mathematica subscribers are paying a princely sum for this data.
Deepak Thomas
· 6 months ago
here is a use for Wolfram Alpha from this morning: read the FB 'valuation' story and wanted a quick valuation multiple on cash flow and compare with GOOG. The whole thing took all of 3 queries, including the math on WA - I'm impressed.
Dawn Pedersen
· 6 months ago
Thanks for the research! I found that WA is really good with taxonomies too. For example, human compared to chimpanzee, or whale compared to hippo.
John BBlossom
· 6 months ago
With due respect, this is a pretty weak showing for a reference appliance that was supposed to be the second coming of search. All I am seeing is some table lookups that most well-stocked databases could handle with little difficulty. The only difference is that there's a non-SQL front end that (sometimes) can interpret requests with some semantic smarts. Mind you, it's early days, but editorially and technologically this product is a bust so far.
Adam503
· 6 months ago
Google finds stuff. Alpha answers questions. It's not a google killer. It's an Ask.com killer.
Unfortunately, I typed in Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron and got ZERO career stats. I imagine we will have to drag Steven Wolfram kicking and screaming into bar arguments over whether LeBron James or Kobe Bryant really more valuable to his team.
lucasrockwell
· 6 months ago
Type "99 44/100" into Alpha and see what it gives you. Now do this with Google. Google gets the correct answer.
axiomthree
· 6 months ago
Correct answer? To what question?
If the question is "What is the prime factorization of 99 44/100?" then I would say good luck Google.
If your question referred to Ivory Soap, then a more proper WA query would be "99 44/100 pure", which gives you the correct WA answer - "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input." since there's nothing calculable about your question.
lucasrockwell
· 6 months ago
I guess I do not understand what this system is really for then, because earlier in the day I typed in "area code 707" and it gave me results about the 707 area code. But just like the Ivory Soap question, there is nothing to calculate about in the area code question, either. Oddly enough, "707 area code" gives the "WA isn't sure..." response.
The T Man
· 6 months ago
Great, Stan. But as a journalist, you should learn that one always uses "from" with "different" rather than "than". So it is always "different from" - never "different than".
Josh
· 6 months ago
I couldn't post on the other one for some reason but thanks for uploading my easter egg on the "better eggs" page :)
Walt Gordon Jones
· 6 months ago
I believe we will be seeing more (and better) semantic information tools in the near future. I'm excited about this next generation of web technology, but I think W|A was a little over-hyped.
I have struggled to find something really useful that W|A does best compared to other alternatives on the web. For example, the Alexa stats they use for web domain queries is slightly better presented on the Alexa site itself. And it didn't seem that I could do anything computational with the results.
I've been reading all the posts and articles I can find, and no one has posted yet to show a results page with something truly relevant and lending more insight than can be found elsewhere.
If anyone solves a really interesting problem with this tool, I hope you will write about it.
davidcoxon
· 6 months ago
I'd have to completely agree wolfram alpha is not a search engine, i've not played with it fully yet but what i have found so far is it has a great personality - if you ask where it is, where you are or how old it is it for example it give you answers as it it were a living being.
what i also found it great at was comparing stuff like populations of cities, properties of materials, anything that is very factual. what i found it wasn't so good at was linking to more information on the web or telling me where it ot its information.
my last comment is that you have to phrase your querries in the right way, so have a play try different ways to ask the same question and see how the results vary.
I really can't wait to see how it develops, but i think i'm going to love it more and more with everytime i use it.
Tonjevic
· 6 months ago
Man, that Ted guy is obnoxious.
Glen Raphael
· 6 months ago
"You probably wouldn’t even try to find a comparison of sales tax rates for five US cities, but on Wolfram Alpha it works like a charm."
I wouldn't think to try that with W/A because every query of that sort I've tried so far gets "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input." For instance, the other day I was trying to compare statistics such as the cancer survival rate across nations. Queries like this would be nice if they worked but are currently useless: http://www03.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ovarian+...
(Apparently it has some health statistics, but only for the US) So now we know it does sales tax by locality, but it turns out it *only* does sales tax. Not property tax, not income tax, not average tax rate overall for a locality. a search on "tax california nevada arizona" assumes you must want sales tax, because that's what they have.
In short, WA is currently a poor substitute for specialized sites like NationMaster or that ugly BMI calculator because it doesn't know very much and it's tedious to figure out whether it knows what you're trying to ask it about.
Gowan
· 6 months ago
I agree with you. I've tried several searches like this and got the "no information" answer. For instance, I wanted to compare the average temperatures of various nations. No go. I can type in those nations and get GNP and population info, but it just doesn't have that information available.
Of course, it's still in Beta, right?
anon
· 6 months ago
For me, 1st result in google is of Wikipedia and 2nd is of Wolfram Alpha. No wonder google is interested in 2nd click.
bonchibuji
· 6 months ago
Just give "weight= 65kg, height= 172 cms, bmi=?" and it will give the BMI with all details...thats really good....
bravelittlememe
· 6 months ago
I'm actually pretty impressed, after being somewhat skeptical at first. The problem with WA's perception (as well as any new search technology that pops up from time to time) is that the usual media hype referred to it as a "Google Killer," which is frankly idiotic.
"Google Killer" may make a good headline, but it in no way describes what WA is trying to achieve. Consider it more as an all-in-one calculator, and it becomes an instant bookmark. As an example, it's faster to type "$6700 in GBP" and get an instant currency conversion than it is to go to XE.com and carry out the same operation via multiple dropdowns and clicks.
I think if people tweak their expectations a little they'll quickly get past the "I can't find my own blog so it sucks" mentality and realize that WA is one hell of a useful tool.
They could use a shorter domain name though.
robertrade@yahoo.com
· 5 months ago
Hi,
You would get better details from http://currate.com as the details are upfront on same page.
Roger
· 6 months ago
If you type in a domain name, such as mashable.com, Wolfram|Alpha will give a bunch of stats such as registration info, visitor stats, site rank, date it came online, etc. Also a visitor stats timeline. It will give other free ranking/analysis tools (such as compete.com) a run for their money.
Chris Allison
· 6 months ago
"better" is the wrong word. they are totally different things and comparing it to google is pointless. it isn't a search engine and it isn't going to effect google's market share or future at all.
I have discovered an anomaly w.r.t. information returned from WolframAlpha that is otherwise not reported anywhere else. I have yet to get a reply back from WolframAlpha after reporting it to them. If you query WolframAlpha with the following equation:
moon orbital period - moon rotational period = 0.019 days
WolframAlpha actually lists the 'moon orbital period' to be 27.303 days, about 27 minutes less than the moon's rotational period. This discrepancy is not due to the synodic period of the moon, because that number is about 29.5 days. The correct answer should be 'zero' as the moon's rotation is tidal locked to the earth. Visible evidence of this phenomenon is the moon facing the earth from the same side at all times as has been witnessed by many since recorded history began. Does anyone else get the same answer from WolframAlpha? Is this due to libration as WolframAlpha is drawing from an active database that will calculate a greater oribital period to compensate next month? Any ideas out there?
mike
mike
· 6 months ago
The basis of my comment on this anomaly is yet unanswered but, I typed the terms backwards. To clarify, the equation should read,
moon rotational period - moon orbital period =
WolframAlpha reports the answer as 0.19 when it should be 'zero'. WolframAlpha does list the moon's rotational period the same as others throughout the web, for instance, Wikipedia. FYI mike
mike
· 6 months ago
Maybe I will finally get this right! The exact terms I typed, because the first two I typed do not give a numerical result, is as follows:
rotational period of the moon- orbital period of the moon =
Thanks, mike
kevfern
· 6 months ago
It didn't know what to do do with pocket ACES. Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.
AL
· 6 months ago
To amplify (and echo) Jeff Greco: Los Angeles's sales tax rate is 9.25% not 8.25%.
shane mcloughlin
· 6 months ago
I tend to think that it is overstating the mark to dismiss Wolfram as a search engine. It is still a search engine. It just does "more"!. Thus, it may be useful to conceptually distinquish it as an 'answer engine' or 'computational engine' etc., but this does not mean it's not still a search engine. Look up any definition of a search engine. What it's still doing is searching and retrieving information/data from databases. It's just that its doing 'more'. Thus, one could say Wolfram is not 'just' a search engine. http://relativemusings.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea...
C00L
· 6 months ago
Some say google squared crushes wolfram alpha According to google, yes google, W|A wins the fight hands down: http://tr.im/nkiq - @C00L
All Comments
WA can do things that are better than Google, just as Google can do things that are better than Wikipedia, just as Wikipedia can do things that are better than Yauba, just as Yauba can do things that are better than Twitter.
Each of these services are useful in their own right.
It is great when you know what type of queries you can ask. To my mind, it is not a direct competitor to google, rather a direct competitor to Wikipedia as it does the calculations and "reasoning" for you. WA is *very* valuable.
Tunstan > Buy yourself a brain, please.
For example, think about the first example of this article: if you write a list of "planets", it's POSSIBLE that you wants to know their position and cosmic sizes. But PERHAPS you are interested in their rol in the mithology, or its presence in the cinema. Do you understand me... ? So, i think that yet i prefer wikipedia, because I CHOOSE what is the information that interst me, and also i find related links to other places for get more information. I know also that wikipedia is not free of limitations, but sincerely... WA must to do the things more more better.
What i'm trying to say is that WA is trying to follow a "semantic conversation" with the user, for understand what is what the user wants. This is the first "issue" of WA: understand what user is searching. But the other difficult (and semantic) question is to show and expose the results (the answers) to the user: which is the degree or level of deeply that it's necesary to show in the answer? which is the level of previous knowledge of the user? You know that is different try to explain something to a children than to an adult (well sometimes it's not so different :P )
Do you understan me? i means that "semantic conversations" (like WA) uff..... it's very very difficult and problematic. And -it's my opinion- we will must wait for more than 10 years (at least) for enjoy something useful ;)
See: http://www.abitmorefair.com/2009/05/17/wolframa... for my recent blog post on the subject.
right there at the very beginning is the definition
Now, whether Stan can tell is another question ;-)
Rightly said it is a computational machine.I will be waiting for the moment when giant fish google eats it up ;-)
Rightly said it is a computational machine.I will be waiting for the moment when giant fish google eats it up ;-)
If Wolfram wants to be trusted these simple things need to be 100%, at least with Google you can go and look at the referenced website itself and make a judgement as to whether you trust the data.
http://screencast.com/t/8Z66EsDoz
Amusing - if not potentially a Google Win.
Alpha answers questions.
It's not a google killer. It's an Ask.com killer.
Unfortunately, I typed in Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron and got ZERO career stats. I imagine we will have to drag Steven Wolfram kicking and screaming into bar arguments over whether LeBron James or Kobe Bryant really more valuable to his team.
If the question is "What is the prime factorization of 99 44/100?" then I would say good luck Google.
If your question referred to Ivory Soap, then a more proper WA query would be "99 44/100 pure", which gives you the correct WA answer - "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input." since there's nothing calculable about your question.
I have struggled to find something really useful that W|A does best compared to other alternatives on the web. For example, the Alexa stats they use for web domain queries is slightly better presented on the Alexa site itself. And it didn't seem that I could do anything computational with the results.
I've been reading all the posts and articles I can find, and no one has posted yet to show a results page with something truly relevant and lending more insight than can be found elsewhere.
My real world test was to simply try to look up latitude ranges: http://waltgordonjones.com/206/google-beats-wol...
If anyone solves a really interesting problem with this tool, I hope you will write about it.
what i also found it great at was comparing stuff like populations of cities, properties of materials, anything that is very factual. what i found it wasn't so good at was linking to more information on the web or telling me where it ot its information.
my last comment is that you have to phrase your querries in the right way, so have a play try different ways to ask the same question and see how the results vary.
I really can't wait to see how it develops, but i think i'm going to love it more and more with everytime i use it.
I wouldn't think to try that with W/A because every query of that sort I've tried so far gets "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input." For instance, the other day I was trying to compare statistics such as the cancer survival rate across nations. Queries like this would be nice if they worked but are currently useless:
http://www03.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ovarian+...
(Apparently it has some health statistics, but only for the US)
So now we know it does sales tax by locality, but it turns out it *only* does sales tax. Not property tax, not income tax, not average tax rate overall for a locality. a search on "tax california nevada arizona" assumes you must want sales tax, because that's what they have.
In short, WA is currently a poor substitute for specialized sites like NationMaster or that ugly BMI calculator because it doesn't know very much and it's tedious to figure out whether it knows what you're trying to ask it about.
Of course, it's still in Beta, right?
"Google Killer" may make a good headline, but it in no way describes what WA is trying to achieve. Consider it more as an all-in-one calculator, and it becomes an instant bookmark. As an example, it's faster to type "$6700 in GBP" and get an instant currency conversion than it is to go to XE.com and carry out the same operation via multiple dropdowns and clicks.
I think if people tweak their expectations a little they'll quickly get past the "I can't find my own blog so it sucks" mentality and realize that WA is one hell of a useful tool.
They could use a shorter domain name though.
You would get better details from http://currate.com as the details are upfront on same page.
http://technbiz.blogspot.com
moon orbital period - moon rotational period = 0.019 days
WolframAlpha actually lists the 'moon orbital period' to be 27.303 days, about 27 minutes less than the moon's rotational period. This discrepancy is not due to the synodic period of the moon, because that number is about 29.5 days. The correct answer should be 'zero' as the moon's rotation is tidal locked to the earth. Visible evidence of this phenomenon is the moon facing the earth from the same side at all times as has been witnessed by many since recorded history began. Does anyone else get the same answer from WolframAlpha? Is this due to libration as WolframAlpha is drawing from an active database that will calculate a greater oribital period to compensate next month? Any ideas out there?
mike
moon rotational period - moon orbital period =
WolframAlpha reports the answer as 0.19 when it should be 'zero'. WolframAlpha does list the moon's rotational period the same as others throughout the web, for instance, Wikipedia.
FYI
mike
rotational period of the moon- orbital period of the moon =
Thanks,
mike
Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.
http://relativemusings.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea...