W4: What are the pros & cons of using Naver versus Google for research purposes?

Naver is the number one searching website in Korea, but nowadays, Google is one of the most actively used websites in Korea.

First of all, I would like to talk about the pros and cons of using Naver for research purposes. When I search something using Naver, I can see a lot of categories about the subject which I want to know in “one page”. Each category contains links and shows the summary of the content in links. Also, Naver has a convenient function that it directly shows me the information, which makes me feel that I do not have to access a link. For example, when I put the word “Ansan Lotte Cinema”, Naver shows me the timetable of today’s movies on that day. Therefore, Naver saves me time when I search the information for research purposes.

However, Naver first shows me the information or the articles for advertising purposes. It makes us try to judge what the right information is, not the purpose of advertising.

In this way, there are the pros of using Google for research purposes, which is that I do not see the articles for advertising purposes. Google first shows me the related information about the subject which I want to know. Moreover, I can see a variety of websites containing the information which I research for. Also, It is easier to find academic articles compared to Naver.

On the other hand, Google has such a simple design, so I can see only lists of the links related to the subject. It makes me confused about recognizing what kind of article or link is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
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