Google-Like Searches Too Crude

Google-like searches, where you plug in a few keywords, are too crude. The systems come up with too many options.

Search tools need to make it easy to provide additional information that depends on the context and nature of the material being searched; for example, date ranges, who's involved, and concepts involved.

... David Ferris

One Comment

  1. Posted July 30, 2008 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

    Hi David,

    I totally agree with you. As you and many others know, Google has the advantage on the web of having links to order relevance but in a flat repository like an email system, links don’t exist (actually they do exist in the threads but they are much harder to mine). As such, flat searches are definitely too coarse.


  2. Posted July 31, 2008 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

    Great minds think alike! 🙂

    And fools rarely differ! 🙁

  3. Posted September 6, 2008 at 2:37 AM | Permalink

    Posted on an ediscovery blog: Why Transparent Search In E-Discovery Is The Answer To Victor Stanley- Will Uppington on August 26th, 2008

    Will notes a comment from Judge Grimm “Because keyword search technology is prone to producing over- and under-inclusive results, attorneys using keyword search should adopt one of two approaches: either collaborate with the opposing party to agree on keyword search methodology, or utilize best practices that demonstrate they have taken reasonable measures to reduce over- and under-inclusiveness. However, the black box search technologies that are used in e-discovery today make following this guidance difficult. They can’t reduce under-inclusiveness without increasing over-inclusiveness. And they make it expensive to utilize collaborative or best practices methodologies including testing, sampling, refining and documenting searches. All of which begs an obvious question: what can be done to improve search for e-discovery?

    This article clearly supports the need for Semantic Search. I’m a big fan of Cognition which is used to augment search technology like Autonomy, Attenex, Engenium etc- Cognition makes them “semantically aware” or “semantically-enabled”. They are not a replacement technology…. rather an augmentation technology. I’d like to hear more about how solutions can compliment one another. And I believe we can benefit from this approach. Cognition is embedded into Concordance and Merrill Lextranet. It also offers the transparency a black box solution can not.


  4. Posted September 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    Thanks Deborah.

    The point about under- and over-inclusiveness is clearly valid and a big concern.

    Thanks for your comment on Cognition. I’ll look into the firm.


Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. To comment, first join our community.