December 2's Muddiest Point

In terms of the structure of the web search engines, what are "crawlers"? Are they a program or components in software? How do they interact and contribute to the search engine overall?

Week 14 Readings

Articles

Knorr, E., and G. Gruman. (n.d.). “What cloud computing really means.” InfoWorld. http://www.infoworld.com/d/cloud-computing/what-cloud-computing-really-means-031.

           The different types of computing possible in cloud computing mentioned in the article are interesting. Supposedly SaaS (software as a service) offers a single application through the browser, requiring no upfront investment from customers and few costs for the provider to maintain (Knorr and Gruman, n.d., p. 1). However, why just one application? I can think of a number of reasons for this. Most probably, it could be because of costs – the creator may have just decided to offer one application entirely rather than add more. There could also be a storage problem; the browser might not be able to handle more than one application at a time. Another – web service providers – provide APIs that allow developers to exploit functionality over the Internet instead of offering “full-blown” applications. They encompass a wide range of services; Knorr and Gruman (n.d.) explicitly list “offering discrete business services” and credit card processing (p. 2). As such, the services sound like they focus on services for the exchange of money or some sort of numerical computing. This would explain the “discrete” nature of a couple of the services; there is an aura of secretiveness about the services described, and the exchange of numbers and money usually involves private information so users would seek web service providers which could ensure their privacy.

 

Barnatt, C. (2008, May 10). “Explaining Cloud Computing.” YouTube video, 00:05:52. Accessed December 5, 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hplXnFUlPmg&NR=1.

The section on “Hardware as a Service” was enlightening. In particular, I thought it was interesting learning about the main two rivals in selling/offering HaaS. C. Barnatt (2008) introduces both as Amazon EC2 and Google App Engine, providing screen shots of each – mainly listings ordered according to price and capabilities for Amazon and the overall formatting of Google (Barnatt, 2008, 00:01:43-00:03:03). Such an approach benefits viewers since it acts as a preview of the sites, giving viewers a way to recognize the sites in their later searches. I wonder, though, if there are other HaaS providers available besides Amazon and Google. The two have name recognition, so they would be considered the top players in providing such services. However, they can’t be the only ones.

The benefits mentioned appears incomplete. Barnatt only lists the benefits of Amazon EC2, which includes the products being elastic, flexible, inexpensive, and reliable (Barnatt, 2008, 00:01:43-00:03:03). Does Google App Engine offer the same benefits? Or any other attributes, such as speed or time warranty? If they are the same, then how has it been able to compete with Amazon without offering something new or different? What about the disadvantages of HaaS, whether overall or the products offered by Amazon and Google?

 

Frey, T. (2006, Nov. 2). “The Future of Libraries: Future scenario, historical perspective, technology trends.” FuturistSpeaker.com. http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2006/11/the-future-of-libraries/.

            Some of the trends T. Frey (2006) asserts will influence future incarnations of the library sounds a little ridiculous. For example, one trend suggested states that “Search Technology will become increasingly more complicated.” Frey starts his description by assuming that currently search technology is relatively simple (Frey, 2006, under “Trend #4,” para. 1). However, this is inaccurate; while it seems easy, since you just have to type in a search term, ease depends on what a user is searching for. He will find an object more easily if it was popular and/or specific than something relatively unknown or shares a name with other objects.

            Next, Frey predicts that the next stage in search technology will include queries on “taste, smell, texture, reflectivity, opacity, mass, density, tone, speed, and volume” (Frey, 2006, under “Trend #4,” para. 2). At this point I am skeptical. Such searches seem unnecessary and extravagant, especially since some of the terms are subjective or sound impossible to measure correctly. He may be right and it will happen, but if it does, it will probably be a passing interest or only favored by those rich enough to afford such technology.
            The last paragraph, though, sounds more arguable. Frey ends the section by stating that as search becomes more complicated and people have less time and skills to keep updated on the newest innovations, the librarian will increasingly step in as a guide in finding information (Frey, 2006, under “Trend #4,” para. 3). I agree that potentially search will become more complicated, since developments of technology will lead to newer and greater uses of it to find more information. Librarians would be present a possible “expert” on the matter, since they would have experience organizing, finding, and explaining information for patrons. They would have to act quickly, though, to establish this role with the populace; they may give this role to other information professionals otherwise.