http://loupaglia.disqus.com/paglia’s thoughts: “one to negative one” and some noise in betweenenSun, 24 Jun 2007 12:49:54 -0000http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2007/06/22/natural-language-search-powerset/#comment-4070037<p>Yes, I think that is definitely sound thinking in the workplace. Many of Factiva's most powerful users write extremely advanced queries to get to the information they need or the information that is most relevant. Many queries could be considered small applets within themselves.</p><br><p>The consumer space, for me, is the bigger question. Is the linguistic technology going to be better enough for people to change their search habits. Consumers (majority of them) aren't interested in changing their ways from something that "basically works" if it isn't easy. I'm an early adopter but I really have no interest in typing questions (and remembering to do so). But as an early adopter, I will certainly try it when it is available.</p>Lou PagliaSun, 24 Jun 2007 12:49:54 -0000http://www.loupaglia.com/correlate/2007/06/22/natural-language-search-powerset/#comment-4070038<p>Lou, I think you are right to address the question of switching costs, which are related to what the workplace anthropologists call "immutable work practices." Remember the days of the jokes about expert systems being solutions in search of problems? There is no question that there are problems that can only be solved by "deep reading." My guess is that you could rattle off a few of those problems from your own experiences. I might also guess that, for at least some of those problems, you could tell stories about the work practices that emerged for dealing with them and how effective those practices turned out to be. So the real question will not have to do with finding answers but with whether the linguistic technology behind Powerset is (significantly?) more effective than practices that are already in place.</p>Stephen SmoliarSat, 23 Jun 2007 14:00:48 -0000