W4: What are the pros and cons of using Naver versus Google for research purpose? / Lee ye han

Summary

Naver and Google are famous sites that are used a lot for information retrieval. I think they both have different strengths and weaknesses.

First of all, Naver is a famous Korean portal site, which is used the most, so it is easy to use because it is familiar and well adapted. Suitable for light searching or information acquisition. Also, it is convenient to check information by category.

But the downside is that Naver has too many advertisements. If you search for a particular word, the advertisement comes up first before you get an explanation for it. In addition to Powerlink, there are many posts of inaccurate information such as blogs and cafe posts, so it is not easy to filter out high-quality information.

Unlike Naver, Google can be relatively unobstructed by advertisements because only search windows exist on the main screen.

Also, the advantage is that there is more specialized data and the amount of data is huge.

However, vast amounts of data can be a disadvantage. It's not easy to find the information I need because there's so much data. The downside is that more efforts are made to get the desired data, and it can take time.

The two sites can complement each other's strengths and weaknesses, so you can get good information by mixing them properly.

 

Interesting point

Considering the pros and cons of both Naver and Google sites, it was interesting to see that they looked similar but had different. This is because the strengths and weaknesses of each site seemed complementary to each other.

Naver had a "real-time search term" function, which made public opinion stronger, but it recently disappeared. I wonder if information bias will decrease in the future and the functionality of search engines will increase.

 

Discussion point

There is a saying that children these days get information by searching on YouTube, not Naver or Google, if they have any questions. As such, YouTube is not only used to watch simple video content but also to search sites.

Why has YouTube started to be used as a search platform? Will it be able to grow into a search site as much as Naver and Google?

Comments

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