Information Research Weblog

Slate has an article, Digging for Google Holes, that is critical of various aspects of searching Google, some of which seems pretty lame to me. For example, it is claimed that synonyms are a problem (big news, aren't they for everybody!?) and cites the fact that:

Search for “apple” on Google, and you have to troll through a couple pages of results before you get anything not directly related to Apple Computer — and it’s a page promoting a public TV show called Newton’s Apple. After that it’s all Mac-related links until Fiona Apple’s home page. You have to sift through 50 results before you reach a link that deals with apples that grow on trees: the home page for the Washington State Apple Growers Association.

Presumably the writer is someone who rarely searches: I put 'apples "Washington State"' into Google and the Washington State Apple Commission came up first, with no trace of an Apple Computer. Shouldn't journalists who write on search engines try to learn something about them?