Sophisticated Lady in the Modern World

[Tamara]

I was presented with a good one today, as a way to improve my customer relations performance.

I was told that in areas that I don't know when someone asks a question, I could at least try, research it on Google.

I practically choked at that suggestion. GOOGLE? The system that delivers more "opinion" than fact? The system that, especially since it got rid of its binary operators, links you with every possible connection each word of your search, making a sophisticated search not only impossible but also frustrating. It's because of the gibberish that the NET has become that I keep, constantly buy tons of reference books to have at home to be able to efficiently research topics, have years of data stored for what I have pain stakely researched.

When I commented on it later to a co-worker, he told me that unfortunately, a lot of the world does research like that. I wonder if the profs in colleges scream in frustration....or just flunk them. It is concerning to me because I pride myself in being a researcher and wonder how it might affect my professional reputation to start having to give answers on a 98% and not half a**ed procedure.

[Doktor]

Only the tools are changed, for a good research you still need to know where to look at.

Google makes it easier and yes a lot faster, which leads the kids to 'cheat'.

Copy/paste ability is more worrying then actual search, if you ask me. From what I gather around the older the kids are the lazier. At uni level some good proportion doesn't even bother to reads the things they pasted.

[bigross86]

Tamara, you are absolutely wrong on all counts.

Google is an amazing research tool, and with very little practice and experience, you can use Google to find almost anything you want, and not have to worry about myth or conjecture. Sure, Google does find those, but it immediately ranks them lower on the Page Rankings, meaning you will need to search harder to find them.

Let me give you a simple rule of thumb: If it's not on the first page of the Google results, it doesn't exist. Change your search string and you'll find what you're looking for, if it's there to be found. Google is extremely intuitive in that it extrapolates from your search string what you're really looking for, and if you know how to use Google's advanced search tools, you can find almost anything.

Like Dok says, there is no difference between the Uni library, or even those reference books you buy, and Google, aside from the speed with which you can get to your results. Looking at almost any subject you toss out, there are probably reference books full of complete and total nonsense. How do you tell which is true and which isn't? Same way you would on Google, confirming with other sources.

You call Google research half-assed, when in reality, the half-assery here is the fact that you're not willing to do all the work necessary to turn Google into a proper, high quality research tool you can use reliably.

[Tamara]

Okay......

I was trying to get information for the Navy Quiz question about the Standard SSM work we did with the Shah of Iran before Harpoon came on line.

As I indicated above, I finally just gave up on it because of so many false hits.

How would you approach that question?

Or, how about this search. I want a picture of the actress Saber who was in the movie "Leather and Lace"....and these are the results given to me.

Absolutely nothing in the target category. Now, when I threw in the producer's name, Paul Norman, then I got a slight slight result (that's her the 4th line down, but it is not from the movie).

If I could use boolean operators like "-", I might able to fine tune the search and eliminate a lot of the extra hits.......but they took those away many months ago.

[Doktor]

The questions in Quiz threads are usually worded nicely, so the takers wont be able to just copy/paste the question to Google and get the answer.

Here are some nice tricks on how to google, from Google -> Search Tips & Tricks ? Inside Search ? Google

[Tamara]

The questions in Quiz threads are usually worded nicely, so the takers wont be able to just copy/paste the question to Google and get the answer......

No, you are not understanding what I am saying.

I was trying to produce a question concerning the Shah of Iran and the Standard SSM project in his country when he was in power. Ie, I remember a portion of a video that I saw decades ago which shows the Shah visiting one of his patrol boats and the missile launch.

This was not a question that is in Naval Quiz. I was trying to make a question.

But I couldn't get any information on the Standard SSM, the interim missile before Harpoon came on line. ZILCH!

All the results I was getting either talk about the secondary mission of the current missile or activities after the fall of the Shah.

So that question stands in a way. How would you approach the search question to find out about anti ship missile work done in Iran when it was ruled by the Shah of Iran?

[bigross86]

Okay......

I was trying to get information for the Navy Quiz question about the Standard SSM work we did with the Shah of Iran before Harpoon came on line.

As I indicated above, I finally just gave up on it because of so many false hits.

How would you approach that question?

Or, how about this search. I want a picture of the actress Saber who was in the movie "Leather and Lace"....and these are the results given to me.

Absolutely nothing in the target category. Now, when I threw in the producer's name, Paul Norman, then I got a slight slight result (that's her the 4th line down, but it is not from the movie).

If I could use boolean operators like "-", I might able to fine tune the search and eliminate a lot of the extra hits.......but they took those away many months ago.

See, your problem is that you're approaching the problem all wrong. Obviously, searching for vague search terms like "saber" and "leather and lace" will give you millions of wrong answers. What you need to do, like I said before, is expand your search string to narrow the answers. I don't really wanna know why you're looking for images of porn stars, but running the search string

"sabre" porn star, actress, "Leather and Lace"

leads to these results (including some NSFW results), but if I'm not mistaken, the very first two images found are pictures of Saber, the porn star you were looking for.

If you can't find what you're searching for on Google, then you're searching wrong. The information is out there on Google, you just don't know how to search for it, or haven't found the right search string to find it yet.

And by the way, I have no idea where you came up with this nonsense that Google doesn't allow Boolean searching anymore. It only goes to show how out of touch with Google you really are...

[Tamara]

See, your problem is that you're approaching the problem all wrong. Obviously, searching for vague search terms like "saber" and "leather and lace" will give you millions of wrong answers. What you need to do, like I said before, is expand your search string to narrow the answers. I don't really wanna know why you're looking for images of porn stars, but running the search string leads to these results (including some NSFW results), but if I'm not mistaken, the very first two images found are pictures of Saber, the porn star you were looking for.

If you can't find what you're searching for on Google, then you're searching wrong. The information is out there on Google, you just don't know how to search for it, or haven't found the right search string to find it yet.

And by the way, I have no idea where you came up with this nonsense that Google doesn't allow Boolean searching anymore. It only goes to show how out of touch with Google you really are...

Still a lot off junk in that return. I think I only saw two pictures that relates to the flick.

In regards to Saber, the subject could proceed like, say, this: "Disease transmission in lesbian porn seems to be of a lesser risk than in heterosexual porn. A possibility of why is that lesbian porn is more acting while heterosexual porn is more actual sex. Given the increased risk, why would a woman engage in such? Lesbian porn has at least two disadvantages. First of all, the available shooting jobs are fewer. The want of the market is not as wide spread. Secondly, actresses who do only lesbian porn are reported to have a much smaller fan base. The want and demands of the fans can be a factor in how much an actress is hired."

Now, from there, picture wise, I might pick a lesbian actress and see if I could get a count, if a rough one, of how many magazines she shows up in. Why not try to get a text response to which magazines she shows up in? Because the text response probably wouldn't tell me one essential answer: are the photos in skin magazine A and in magazine B the same photos? If they are, then it may be the photographer selling his photos to multiple magazines but actress only gets paid for one shooting.

Is any of this at all relative to today's world? Well, yes, from at least four standpoints. There is the question posted above about risk. In at least two of the starlet autobiographies I have read (Lords/Flame), there is a notation about having photo shot through the entire industry, so this might be a study to confirm what they said. Third, let's say what they wrote is true, then this might be a preliminary study in human intelligence, criminal operations, and behavioral profiling (loosely saying). Fourth, if the photographer is reselling his photos to multiple magazines while she only gets paid for one shooting, it could be used for further information in women/acting profession exploitation.

As far as Boolean searching, well, maybe they changed back, because they certainly did take it away a while back.

Finally, serious questions aside, the Saber and "Leather and Lace" was noted a while back of the garbage on the net. IE, "Why does a request for a bondage actress from the 80's produce a picture of a WWII U-Boat?".

[Doktor]

Because of the 'sub' part :red:

Considering your initial, Shah/Missile question, searching images would be good start.

Don't listen to Ben that only first page counts (it does, but not always and not in this particular case). The bigger the web becomes the more noise you will get unless you are really capable to pinpoint the search. But then, same goes with books. How do you know which one to look at?

[Tamara]

Because of the 'sub' part :red:

Considering your initial, Shah/Missile question, searching images would be good start.

Don't listen to Ben that only first page counts (it does, but not always and not in this particular case). The bigger the web becomes the more noise you will get unless you are really capable to pinpoint the search. But then, same goes with books. How do you know which one to look at?

Well, as things go, I did find a picture of the system/ship:



Imperial Iranian Ship Palang. There before the bridge is the Standard SSM in a box launcher. Still can't find text on the system though. Could my memory be wrong? Might it have been a SAM system instead? Perhaps, but I don't see any missile directors there unless it is combined with the gun director. There is a bow on picture in navsource under "USS Stormes" and not only are there no missile directors but it looks its radar was only surface search.

WHOOPS! Looking at one picture, typing at another. Clearly an SPS-29 variant there. And looking at the picture I was looking at when I typed the above, the antennae was perpendicular to the bow.

Still, though, bits and pieces I am coming up with are saying what I was trying to get to in the question, that it was an SSM, with a different warhead. Bits and pieces, still kind of hard to find anything on this part of history.

As far as how I found it, well, some of the sites about the current Iranian Navy are still calling it "Imperial Iranian Navy" which makes one wonder. Still don't have an answer for that one, but searching just under that name, I came across a site dedicated to it.

As far as how do you know with books? You don't!.......That's why you read and read and read.

[DOR]

Skip Google's main page, and start here: Google Advanced Search
I use it as my homepage.

The Boolean operators work just fine, too, anywhere in Google.

[bonehead]

Like any other research tool, google is viable. You just have to wade through the garbage to get what you are looking for.

[lemontree]

Tamara,

To ensure proper research using google, one has to avoid putting questions in sentences.
Put your catch words within "quotes" and put associated words to ensure the year/era/location are as per your choice.

Google will not spoon feed you.
While doing research on military topics you have to really search, as not all information is online.

[Tamara]

Like any other research tool, google is viable. You just have to wade through the garbage to get what you are looking for.

AND

Tamara,

To ensure proper research using google, one has to avoid putting questions in sentences.
Put your catch words within "quotes" and put associated words to ensure the year/era/location are as per your choice.

Google will not spoon feed you.
While doing research on military topics you have to really search, as not all information is online.

Well, you two are rather hitting the point to the situation I was balking at.

I know research has to be worked at, that one is not spoon feed, that, alas, everything is not on the NET. That the NET is full of stuff that is not fact, more on that in a moment.

But it was suggested to me as if it was while I am talking to a customer on the phone, that an answer could be found in a minute or two. That's what the issue is. Curiously enough, during this conference, I was complimented on all my degrees, how finding answers shouldn't be a problem for me.

WELL, HOW DOES ONE THINK I GOT THOSE DEGREES? Two graduate and an undergrad with honors? By doing less than half hearted research?

Now, about what the Net is filled with. Last night was just another demonstration of he Net is filled with opinion, not necessarily fact, at least not on the first glance. I did find a forum where someone was asking the same questions I was (and I'm sure down the line that if another asks a similar question, they will get what I typed last night). But the thing is, that is opinion, it is not fact. If I used that in a college paper, I'd flunk. If I used that in work without verification, I'd be dead meat (and odds are, I'd used the verification, not that).

I learned this long ago when I was doing a take home exam (in the last hours, like most other people). The subject, I think, was for land planning and the question was something about where would I put an oil refinery. I went to the Net with the question and very soon saw that I wouldn't find the answer in the time I had there. I solve the answer with one of my organic chemistry books. So these days, I buy reference books right and left, encyclopedias on this or that, to be able to approach mostly any question. You know, sort of like Jack Ryan in "Clear and Present Danger" with the "car bomb"? (and more on that in a moment). Occassionally, I'll build research packages, not really dossiers, for myself on this or that subject, (for example, perhaps certain aspects from last night's example), just to have it out there, just in case.

The Net is getting "better" in many areas, but it lacks a lot, especially in history, thought it is getting better there. A number of years ago, for example, finding information on the Israeli Entebbe raid produced results like trying to find information on the Yak-25RV Mandrake today. And why pick on those two particular subjects? Because a few years ago, I was using Entebbe in some of my research and it was very difficult to find information on it if one didn't have a book (I think now I have 3, if not 4)......and in the 80's, I called someone up to search out a 70's book, "Soviet Air Forces", in their library because I had a question on the Mandrake. In the latter's case, at the time, I had a vague memory of the aircraft, having read the book years earlier, and needed the designation, name.

Which comes down to that I am very visually oriented. I see, I read, I remember practically forever. Hence the reference to "Clear and Present Danger" about reference books. It's not my favorite scene in the flick; I prefer the Two Million Dollar Helicopter. But I see, I remember.....and I associate. Which has got me to thinking........

.........that perhaps I ought to end my exile from the current feature flick work and start watching again. Yes, they may be unoriginal, more CGI than acting, rather horrible, but they are of the current time period and they "need" to be in memory. For that question, though, the question is how to go about it. That is, the cheapest way for the time I have available so to catch up. Probably better that I just work on my movie library..........

..........you know, I've never seen any of the Harry Potters.

[lemontree]

No, you are not understanding what I am saying.

I was trying to produce a question concerning the Shah of Iran and the Standard SSM project in his country when he was in power.....
But I couldn't get any information on the Standard SSM, the interim missile before Harpoon came on line. ZILCH!

All the results I was getting either talk about the secondary mission of the current missile or activities after the fall of the Shah.

So that question stands in a way. How would you approach the search question to find out about anti ship missile work done in Iran when it was ruled by the Shah of Iran?

The STANDARD SSM was the RGM-66D (I assume you are looking for this missile)
Only three destroyers of the Imperial Iranian Navy were equipped with it, as per the information I got through google.

It's a 1977 source - 1977 | 1417 | Flight Archive
The link also gives the Imperial Iranian Navy boats that were equipped with Harpoons too.