Fragments

In a previous post I lamented about the inability to search outside the box when using Google because of the intentional limitations of it's search alogrithm.  Well, I've just learned about DuckDuckGo, a search engine that responds to this problem by eliminating search filters.  The illustrated guide explains it best in plain terms and fun visuals. Read about it and then try some comparison searches.  One search engine may not be better than the other - but it is nice to have alternatives.    If you've stumbled on any other alternatives, I'd love to hear about them, so please leave a comment below. 

Web search engines strive for relevancy. They make use of algorithms that look at keywords and other less obvious things like IP addresses.  For instance, Google places a high degree of relevancy on a user's location. No matter how creative I am with keywords, I sometimes feel literally trapped inside a box when I'm searching the web with Google.   I realize that most people do not go beyond the third or fourth page of search results when looking for information - but I am one of those people who likes to explore and discover things through serendipity and therefore, I do find myself trying to go as deeply into the web as the search engines will let me go.  Unfortunately, Google doesn't actually let you go that deeply with a single search string.  Google brags about the speed and the number of items "returned" - but only allows you to look at the first 1000 links.  Also, with image searching this is particularly problematic when you have an idea in mind for an image that you are seeking.  It's very easy to visually skim through images, but having a cutoff point is frustrating.  For example, I was looking for an image of a particular style of house (the house that I grew up in) and I tried searching for Ontario Cottage Architecture. Some of the images were very close to what I was after, but I wanted to see if I could find something identical to the house that I lived in.  Google told me there were 153,000 images related to my search string  (a nice round number).   Google only let me search about 700 images and I got through all of those in about 2 minutes.  There is no way to see all 153,000.  Google is a phenomenal search engine, but it's not perfect. 
To address the idea of serendipity in search, Brendan Dawes has developed a nifty tool for the more creative-minded searchers.  The search engine currently draws upon news articles (excuse the pun) and makes use of visual connections.  What I like about this method of searching - besides the chaos, which I generally thrive in, is that choice and serendipity seem to work together in discovery. It's not so much about putting in the right keywords as it is about being ready to traverse into unknown territory.   The tool is called Doodlebuzz and the site explains that it "gives people the opportunity to explore unthought of paths and connections along their news gathering journey."  Give Doodlebuzz a try:  http://www.doodlebuzz.com/

The Indianapolis Museum of Art brings us a wondeful platform for discovering and sharing videos about the world of art. ArtBabble is its name, and the "about" page explains that "It is intended to showcase video art content in high quality format from a variety of sources and perspectives."  The list of partners contributing content include:  The Art Institute of Chicago, The Museum of Modern Art, the Smithsonian American Art Museum and many more.  Now go spend a few hours learning about art :) 

Although Wikipedia is a quick and easy reference tool to use, we all know (or should know) that it lacks authority, which damages the credibility of the source.  Luckily, the library has shelves upon shelves of scholarly reference material.  Knowing exactly which reference titles might be helpful can be tricky, but luckily, the library now subscribes to a nifty tool called Reference Universe. This tool allows you to find information by keyword.  Reference Universe then searches both the table of contents and the indexes of reference books that we have in the library, or have access to online.  This is a great tool to use when you are just beginning to gather information on a topic.  Give this tool a try. 

(type any word/phrase, then press enter)

The Booker Prize, (also known as The Man Booker Prize), is a prestigious literary award that is given out each year for the best newly published novel of that year.   The award was first created in 1968, and the original rules for the contest allowed for books published prior to the year of the contest to be eligible for the award. In 1971 the rules for the contest changed so that only books published in the same year of the award would be eligible.  This change meant that much of the fiction published in 1970 fell through the cracks and could not be considered for the Booker Prize.  In January of this year, the Booker Prize Foundation announced the creation of a special award - The Lost Man Booker Prize that would be selected from a list of 22 novels listed below.  Six books have been shortlisted and the foundation is involving the public to help choose the winner in an open online vote. 

Read more about this here.

You can vote for the winner here. 

o Brian Aldiss, The Hand Reared Boy
o Paul Bailey, Trespasses
o H.E.Bates, A Little Of What You Fancy
o Nina Bawden, The Birds On The Trees (shortlisted)
o Melvyn Bragg, A Place In England
o Christy Brown, Down All The Days
o Len Deighton, Bomber
o J.G.Farrell, Troubles (shortlisted)
o Elaine Feinstein, The Circle
o Shirley Hazzard, The Bay Of Noon (shortlisted)
o Reginald Hill, A Clubbable Woman
o Susan Hill, I'm The King Of The Castle
o Francis King, A Domestic Animal
o David Lodge, Out Of The Shelter
o Iris Murdoch, A Fairly Honourable Defeat
o Shiva Naipaul, Fireflies
o Patrick O'Brian, Master and Commander
o Mary Renault, Fire From Heaven (shortlisted)
o Ruth Rendell, A Guilty Thing Surprised
o Muriel Spark, The Driver's Seat (shortlisted)
o Patrick White, The Vivisector (shortlisted)

Western Libraries has recently acquired Film Indexes Online, a portal interface that allows cross-searching in three key film resources, including:

Film Index International (FII)
FIAF International Index to Film Periodicals
The American Film Institute Catalog (AFI Catalog)

Film Index International provides information on films and personalities from 1900 to the present.  Production details are provided as well as detailed synopses of films.  Details on individuals connected to films are also provided. References to periodical literature are also provided in the records for films and personalities. 

The FIAF International Index to Film Periodicals contains article references from 340 film periodicals from 1972 to present.  In addition, there is access to over 85,000 full-text articls from 40 key journals.  Note: We may have access online to the other references located in FIAF through other means, so be sure to check the catalogue for subscriptions to the journals that you need.

The AFI Catalog provides detailed information on American films produced between 1893-1971.  The catalog includes subject indexing, full production and cast information and extensive plot summaries.  This resource also includes full listing of the Top 10 films from 2000 to 2006.

If you have any questions about this new resource, please let me know. 

The practice of remixing video on YouTube has been happening for quite some time. If you have heard of the "Stars Wars Kid", then you will know what I'm talking about. If you haven't heard of him, then this remixed video might be one to start with.  This particular footage is somewhat controversial as it was uploaded without consent from the person appearing in the video.  A search for "star wars kid" on YouTube results in over 4000 versions of the video.  It's interesting to follow the trends in terms of which video footage takes off. Some of the remixed videos are quite well crafted, though there are just as many amateur versions not so well-crafted that get spawned from the same footage.  Everything and anything from home videos to hollywood films are potential targets for remixers.  The concept of internet trends is best described using Richard Dawkin's word "meme".  Dawkin's first proposed this new word in "The Selfish Gene", describing it as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. This concept, with respect to YouTube in particular, is also known as viral video. 

One YouTube clip that I find quite hilarious is the remixing of the footage from a pivotal scene in a 2004 film called "Der Untergang" (The Downfall), directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel.  This clip has embodied topics ranging from Hitler losing at a game of the Settlers of Catan, to Hitler's response to the "Balloon Boy Hoax".  I find the concept of memes really fascinating.  I wonder at what point a meme becomes a meme. For instance, the Downfall video covers such wide-ranging topics now, that it seems obvious that the video itself has become a vehicle for discourse on culture and society.  How many remixes are necessary before it can be deemed a meme?
The most recent version of "The Downfall" remix that I have seen covers the Scientific Peer Review Process.
 
 


For the definition of Meme, see EUBIOS  Bioethics Dictionary <accessed December 17, 2009>