tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1254315679163990153.post6694423647461726724..comments2023-09-09T09:36:50.321+01:00Comments on Systems Thinking for Demanding Change: You don't have to be smart to search here ...Richard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1254315679163990153.post-39382938154065857332008-11-07T14:46:00.000+00:002008-11-07T14:46:00.000+00:00I love the Lucas rhyme you left on my blog. To be...I love the Lucas rhyme you left on my blog. To be smart in my original sense means that (a) I know the full details of what I want to search for and (b) I know where to find it. In fact, I don't have to know but a very few details and I only have to know approximately where to find it. Your blog posting seems to support this. <br><br>My view of searching does require brain activity, but it is not the same level of "smarts" as offered by an expert in the field. My view is more that of "the detective" chasing down a few wild hunches. In the Missouri example, I only had a few snippets of text. That was all I needed. I knew nothing about the full context, but I did know enough to mine the most likely associated text in Google. Sure, that’s a level of smart searching, but it’s highly hit-and-miss, and artificial versus the domain expert’s approach. I would prefer to call that “cunning.” In my approach, I knew that the proper noun “Missouri,” and the verb “winning” and the preposition “without” would get me close enough. That same, rough template would apply in many cases.<br><br>So, in effect, we are both right - it just comes down to the meaning of "smart." I believe searching can be accomplished with a lower degree of domain specific knowledge, and a reasonable degree of language parsing to find the key phrases that you need - cunning. Templates and frames can substitute for domain expertise in searches, I believe. Is that smart? Well, sure… I would never admit to being a dumb searcher, just a cunning one. It’s just a different kind of smart. Now, in reality, how many of us search without some implicit domain knowledge? Your example of adding “Lucan” to the search terms is a very good example of domain knowledge, but also of speculative, cunning search that I discuss. <br><br>Word meaning again...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com