<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: being critical</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thepoliticsofsystems.net/2007/10/18/being-critical/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thepoliticsofsystems.net/2007/10/18/being-critical/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Power and Software</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:48:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Siva Vaidhyanathan</title>
		<link>http://thepoliticsofsystems.net/2007/10/18/being-critical/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Siva Vaidhyanathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thepoliticsofsystems.net/2007/10/18/being-critical/#comment-3</guid>
		<description>&quot;In Vaidhyanathan’s case for example, Google is bad because its search algorithms work too well and the book search not well enough.&quot; 

I love it! That&#039;s pretty much right. But, of course, incomplete. I don&#039;t think search algorithms work too well. They are just better than what came before. If the goal is rich information easily accessible, Google has a long way to go. Its efforts to improve search skew toward customization (with all the privacy concerns attached) rather than comprehensiveness or appropriateness. 

As far as the book search, yeah. I wish it worked as well as the Web search. But it cannot. Books do not contain links.

That said, the problem with both is the opacity of these services, one of which involves a massive donation of wealth from public institutions to a private corporation.

But I get your larger point. And I will take it seriously. Thanks!

Siva</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In Vaidhyanathan’s case for example, Google is bad because its search algorithms work too well and the book search not well enough.&#8221; </p>
<p>I love it! That&#8217;s pretty much right. But, of course, incomplete. I don&#8217;t think search algorithms work too well. They are just better than what came before. If the goal is rich information easily accessible, Google has a long way to go. Its efforts to improve search skew toward customization (with all the privacy concerns attached) rather than comprehensiveness or appropriateness. </p>
<p>As far as the book search, yeah. I wish it worked as well as the Web search. But it cannot. Books do not contain links.</p>
<p>That said, the problem with both is the opacity of these services, one of which involves a massive donation of wealth from public institutions to a private corporation.</p>
<p>But I get your larger point. And I will take it seriously. Thanks!</p>
<p>Siva</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
