| LED Digest 2677: Search is Bad for Your Health |
|
|
| Written by Administrator | |
| Wednesday, 09 July 2008 | |
|
==================================================
The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" Data > Information > Knowledge > Wisdom http://www.AudetteMedia.com : the LED's Publisher The Internet Marketing Boutique: SEO, SEM, Social Media http://www.SEOToolSet.com/training/ : the LED's Premier Sponsor Bruce Clay's Search Engine Optimization Training & Certification ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest adam, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. July 10, 2008 Issue no. 2677 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ====== NEW ====================== --== Does Google Make You Feel Stupid? ==-- ~ Grant Crowell "Does incessant search activity have any negative impact on our mental health?" ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Authority Links [was: Measuring SEO] ==-- ~ Michael Martinez "So please understand my reluctance to agree with you." ========= NEW ===================================== From: Grant Crowell Subject: Search is Making Us Stupid Hello Unquestionable Patriots, The Atlantic has received a fair amount of press in the last month due to its cover story, is Google Making Us Stupid? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google Get past the obviously incendiary title, and you'll find a thoughtful take that's not about how stupid or smart we are in the Internet age compared to previous time periods, but more an analysis of how our very brains have changed because of it. It's a long article so I will offer my summary: Prolonged use of the Internet, now about 13 years into mainstream use, has had a profound effect on the way we process thought... speaking down to the neurology of brain tissue itself, 'how we think' has profoundly changed. OK, maybe you didn't need to read a long article to know that. But here are some interesting points on what the article refers to as our new '2.0' thinking process, or as I dub it, the '2.0 brain.' Perceived benefits of the 2.0 brain: - We are processing more information today, from more sources, and more quickly than ever before - We are better able to quickly scan information from many sources online, sometimes several at the same time. This is referred to in the article as 'power browsing.' - We are better able to multi-task - We can better handle knowledge-intensive situations Perceived negatives of the 2.0 brain: - Due to an all-consuming desire to be super-proficient and multi-task, we are more likely to lose focus and make mistakes. - It chips away at our capacity for concentration and contemplation - We tend to respond more positively to instant gratification - We are less likely to absorb information in-depth, such as an entire article or book Having been heavily exposed to the Web in my mid-twenties, I would like to think that I've got one foot still in the traditional way of thinking, and one foot in the Web 2.0 way. (Instead of left-brand/right-brain, I now refer to it as '1.0 brain/2.0 brain.') I must admit, I often can find it frustrating to relate to people older than me without the same net experience, whose brains I find to be completely '1.0.' At the same time, I can probably come across as just as frustrating to the younger generation that has a more fully-developed 2.0 brain than I do. Case in point: I spoke with the Digital Media Department Chair of a college I used to teach at. She says that her young students are finding the old ways of teaching too boring. "Their brains have already formed differently," she told me. She's been excellent at adjusting the curriculum in her class to rely less on books, and more on active engagement that can demonstrate short-term results throughout each work step. "I'm finding that textbooks are not an effective way for my students to learn." she adds. "They do much better with rich multimedia content, and this fall we are mixing in online video tutorials (such as Lynda.com) to replace technical how-to books. We are keeping theory books, but video tutorials have proven themselves more popular and effective for teaching our students. I've also transitioned to making video recordings instead of step-by-step directions for student notes. It is faster for me to create, and the students like them better." And what also has been the best for my generation to get short-term results for the information we crave? The same information we can find faster and more expansive (and hopefully more relevant) than any technology before it or after it? Search. Which brings me back to the article title ... Is Google Making Us Stupid? That very title is a based on a false premise: That if we use search, we are less likely to 'think.' Truth is, search, like its predecessor, 'reading,' are not innate to us. They are both skills that must be taught, and they both shape how our brain works. As the author says in his article, "How we teach ourselves to read affects our ability to process information, including memory retention, and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. How we form our thoughts are different because of the Net." One paragraph in the article summarizes it rather neatly: "The Net has affected our brain circuits. It has re-wired our brains. Because of the Net, we have a '2.0' thinking process. The time and reinforcement we put into this process in our daily lives, repeatedly and sometimes very intensively, has made the current generation have to give up other mental faculties... similar to not remembering a second language as well when you don't keep using it. As for the younger generation, they were never 'wired' that way to begin with." So clearly, Google nor any other search activity does NOT make us stupid. Actually, it shows how well we adapt ourselves to new intellectual technologies. But I don't deny there is still a serious problem here: We are having to adapt our brains at a furious pace that can been too physically taxing on us. Not only do we suffer burnout from all of the intensive activity we push our brains towards, but often it can leave less long-term rewards. The more information we try to absorb and process more quickly, we tend to retain less of the actual experience of learning itself. That is also an inherent problem with Search, when people let it take the place of real 'discovery'... that is, absorbing what you've learned and taking the time to appreciate the experience. But doing that is another big problem: American culture has now attached a stigma on slowing down. We equate 'slowing down' with being lazy, or not smart, or not focused. So really, the question posed in the article should not have been, 'Is Google Making Us Stupid?' Rather it should be, Is Google Making Us FEEL Stupid?' Do you feel guilty for your quiet time away from the Net, whenever you can steal it? This made me think of my own questions I would pose to people involved in the both the industry, and lifestyle, of search. I can't really say if these could be classified as scientific or ethical questions, but I find them very important for online marketers and consumers... both the processors and recipients of 2.0 information, to consider for serious discussion: Has search (technology) affected our other mental abilities, for better or worse? Does incessant search activity have any negative impact on our mental and physical health? Does Search Marketing depend on maintaining a '2.0' mentality? Or will it eventually be replaced with something else that is more proficient for the 2.0 mind? What will that be, and will it be a good thing? I don't want to suggest that we need to do away with our 1.0 brains, or that the next generation is less capable then we are of absorbing in-depth information. Whether we're young or old or in-between, we are very adaptable creatures and can process information in multiple ways that don't have to conflict at all. Even the Department Chair I mentioned has had good success with a free paperback exchange, full of science fiction and fantasy books to tempte them back into casual reading with rich content. That shows great promise for the next generation and all of us. I call it, striving for the '1.5 mind.' Now please excuse me, I've going to watch a back-to-back marathon of Springer and the Steve Wilkos that I've TIVO'd. (That might count as me reverting to a 'Minus-2.0' brain. Ahh, sweet laziness') Grant Crowell GrantasticDesigns.com / ReelSEO.com ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Michael Martinez Subject: Authority links [was: SEO results] > I know *exactly* what an authority link > looks like, and where they live, and how to > get them.... - Nathan Holley, LED 2676 - http://www.led-digest.com/content/view/2091/190/ Everyone who uses that term feels the same way. They also define it differently (I've never seen so many definitions for one supposedly standard term in my life). > ... I understand Google's Trustrank and > Hilltop. TrustRank was devised by Stanford University and Yahoo! researchers (http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P3.PDF). Google had nothing to do with it. Most people in the SEO community associate Hilltop with a late 2003 Google update. However, Krishna Bharat developed the algorithm for Google News in 2002. Many SEO Web sites that discuss Hilltop wrongly state that Google implemented it in 2003. Sources on Google's adoption of Hilltop in 2002 for Google News include: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/and-now-news.html http://www.alternet.org/story/14239/ http://www.indolink.com/SciTech/fr010305-075445.php The Alternet article was actually published in 2002, though the other two posts were published several years later. So please understand my reluctance to agree with you. I discussed the concept of high quality links and the SEO community's love of Hilltop mythology a year ago (http://seo-theory.com/wordpress/2007/07/18/high-quality-links-help-with -internal-link-structure-in-seo/). Regrettably, many of the old myths are still being passed around. I hope that situation changes soon. Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ (c) Copyright 1995-2008 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't let the bastards get you down." - anon. |
