"For logical reasons, Amazon seems to have designed "search inside" to help readers find text in books that they haven't bought yet. But there's just as much opportunity to apply "search inside" to books you already own. ...We tend to think of search requests as generally taking the form of "find me something I've never seen before." But real-life search is often different: You're looking for something you have seen before, but you've somehow mislaid or only half-remembered. "
An excellent insight.
However, I wonder if this has made the original purpose of search, finding things I don't have, less effective. I typed "product management" (sans quotes) into the search box as i always do, and was appalled at the results. i'm certain if they had stuck with their old system of title/subject indexing, the results would have been better. Did they do blind-testing for relevance? Is this another instance of the googlitis-- that the web search way is the best way to do search?
because it ain't. index size. context. known content. just three reasons off the top of my head why sites should not adopt a web search approach to site search.
i'm worries.. have they broken my amazon? Maybe I'll start doing my shopping at Yahoo, and just use Amazon for reference purposes. Hmm, don't think that will help their business model.
"WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? Are you, or your friends or relatives, working more now but enjoying it less? Does your family's schedule feel like a road race? If so, you're not alone. Millions of Americans are overworked, over-scheduled and just plain stressed out. "
Jay Allen thoughtfully provides the full test for "An interesting article but not for what is in it (which we all already know), but for what is not."
it's a common complaint... being edited down into nothing. the sad thing is, people who read about the problem now can't find the fix-- MT Blacklist.