W4: What are the pros and cons of using Naver versus Google for research purpose? / Park Chan Young

Summary

Naver should approach the portal that includes search and Google as a search engine. Naver's search results are basically sectioned. Naver can be seen as close to the concept of a portal and database of information sharing comprehensive information. On the other hand, Google's search results are simpler than Naver. Most of Naver's search results are Naver services. Therefore, users who search on Naver will use Naver service, and the second search will also stay inside Naver.  Google exposes most search results to other web pages. Users who search through Google will not stay in Google until another search action. Google has a greater purpose in delivering quality contents. Therefore, Naver can be easy to find information that is tied together and Google can help you navigate through various information. Each advantage Google and Naver have will be the other's disadvantage.


Interesting point


It would be one of Naver's marketing strategies to make it stay inside Naver when using search through Naver. This is because Naver is a comprehensive website that provides various services as well as search. Just as department stores do not have windows or watches, Naver also wants to lock users up on its website.


Discussion point


Why isn't there a search engine website like Google among Korean websites? 


Comments

  1. SOMIN PARK (박소민)March 27, 2021 at 6:33 PM

    Maybe because there is already a big search engine called Google, there is no site like Google. Also, I think Koreans expect to see blogs and news through search platforms. I guess this is different from Google's style, so it wouldn't have appeared.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hyeonsu jeongMarch 27, 2021 at 11:40 PM

    I guess because Google's influence is strong. And Korean likes at-a glance portal website. Korean don't likes many depths.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: GFC book notes By 'William S. Kowinski' , 'Cory Doctorow','Piotr Konieczny' and 'Paul Youngquist'/ 진신

Summary- William S. Kowinski: The true exception is the innovative success of a collaborative effort that has prime online reference work called Wikipedia. This book is not meant to be biography or reportage, but contemporary ethnography or study of a culture. What this book does well is describe how Wikipedia works and what issues have arisen.  It's short on drama and personality，and so it's probably destined to be a source document. Since that seems unlikely, this may remain the best opportunity for learning about this remarkable project. Summary- Cory Doctorow: Reagle makes an excellent case that this assumption of good faith is particularly powerful when it comes to dealing with those who lack good faith — it creates positive outcomes for arguments with everyone from neo-Nazis to political hacks who're whitewashing their boss's entries. Wikipedia's most fascinating and unprecedented aspect isn't the encyclopedia itself — rather, it's the collaborative cu...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more