W4) What are the pros and cons of using Naver vs Google for research purposes? /박채정, PARK CHAEJEONG

The pros and cons of using Naver vs Google for research purposes are..


 What is the biggest difference between Naver and Google? First of all, Naver, which is firmly maintaining its position as the nation's No. 1 portal site, is literally being used by many people. It's not that people don't know Google, but what they're actually using is Naver.

 Then, why do you use Naver? Naver is also a website that reflects the environment of Web 2.0. Instead of just looking at news articles and looking for information, you can provide various services on Naver, such as comments, blogs, cafes, knowledgeIN, and webtoons, share them with people in the community, and communicate interactive. Naver also implemented 'real-time search term service' a few weeks ago, although it is now gone. It was quick and simple to know what people were interested in and what today's hot issues were. Like this, Naver feels more like a community than just a website. And people are used to it. 

On the other hand, what about Google? Google is very neat from the first main page. Search services are made up of the main, and if you enter search terms, you can find a lot of related articles and professional materials. Like this, Google has a slightly businesslike personality. It is very convenient for office workers to use for public or work. You can make a video connection with Google Meet, share it together through Google Documents or Google Presentations, and work together. 

 However, people who do not know other services do not know. Therefore, it seems that it is still less known than Naver. (meaning unfamiliar part in South Korea)

 Back to the point, Naver has a community-like personality that allows us to see various people's opinions and learn new facts while sharing them. However, since there may be unfounded data in this process, it is necessary to have the ability to judge information by oneself, including whether it is authentic or not. Google is a limited amount of data than Naver, such as articles and papers, but it can be considered more reliable. Because each web page has a different personality, I think we can use the site that we need from time to time. 

 What do you think? 



Comments

  1. JeongYoon OhApril 1, 2021 at 5:34 AM

    I agree that Naver's strength is that we can get information through communication such as Naver cafe and blog. But Google often gets more diverse and accurate information. When I write school assignments or reports, I think I get information based on Google. In my case, I think Naver is used to solve more everyday or trivial questions.

    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