Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

i-m — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:40:18 -0000

simply google is The Best

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

robertrade@yahoo.com — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:37:37 -0000

Hi,

You would get better details from http://currate.com as the details are upfront on same page.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

C00L — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:05:15 -0000

Some say google squared crushes wolfram alpha According to google, yes google, W|A wins the fight hands down: http://tr.im/nkiq - @C00L

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

shane mcloughlin — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:03:02 -0000

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.blog...

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

AL — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:53:27 -0000

To amplify (and echo) Jeff Greco: Los Angeles's sales tax rate is 9.25% not 8.25%.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

kevfern — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:22:26 -0000

It didn't know what to do do with pocket ACES.
Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

mike — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:29:52 -0000

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

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

mike — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:22:57 -0000

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

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

mike — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:33:00 -0000

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

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

paramendra — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:43:56 -0000

Wolfram Alpha is cool.
http://technbiz.blogspot.com

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Gowan — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:39:31 -0000

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?

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Chris Allison — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:41:39 -0000

"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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Roger — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:43:28 -0000

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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

caos30 — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:32:57 -0000

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 ;)

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

caos30 — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:23:03 -0000

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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

bravelittlememe — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:32:20 -0000

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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

bonchibuji — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:30:53 -0000

Just give "weight= 65kg, height= 172 cms, bmi=?" and it will give the BMI with all details...thats really good....

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

alps — Wed, 20 May 2009 02:41:31 -0000

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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

anon — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:51:18 -0000

For me, 1st result in google is of Wikipedia and 2nd is of Wolfram Alpha. No wonder google is interested in 2nd click.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Glen Raphael — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:58:18 -0000

"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.c...

(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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Tonjevic — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:57:11 -0000

Man, that Ted guy is obnoxious.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

chidorio — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:11:01 -0000

Ooh, nice. I guess I should have approached the issue differently

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

davidcoxon — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:43:00 -0000

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.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Walt Gordon Jones — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:41:55 -0000

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.

My real world test was to simply try to look up latitude ranges: http://waltgordonjones.com/...

If anyone solves a really interesting problem with this tool, I hope you will write about it.

Re: Five Things Wolfram Alpha Does Better (And Vastly Different) Than Google

Josh — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:36:17 -0000

I couldn't post on the other one for some reason but thanks for uploading my easter egg on the "better eggs" page :)