A Look at Google Definitions
Bill Ives’ shares some thoughts about Google Definitions, which should return links to sites defining the search term. According to Google’s instructions, a search for “define:term” or “define term” should trigger the feature, but I found that “define term” doesn’t work the same as “define:term.” The results are very different (example: define:dogs, define dogs).
Look closely at the results for the define RSS search Bill uses as an example. Context is very important.
What sticks out in my mind is what’s missing from the results. It seems obvious to me that there should be links to pages in sources like online dictionaries, Wikipedia or other online encyclopedias, About.com pages, or some online reference sources. Why aren’t they there? I thought I even read that Google has an agreement with Dictionary.com; and, if you search using “define term,” a definition from Dictionary.com appears at the top of the results. For the RSS search, it seems like pointing to one of the standards would be a good choice, but it isn’t there. I also wonder about what Google’s saying about the authority of the sites by including them in the results and how the search actually works. Did someone evaluate the sites to decide which sources have good definitions or know something about the term? Are the results compiled based on how many links there are to a source?
Search Engine Watch wrote about Google Glossary back in 2002, which seems to be the same feature:
"Google Glossary. Unlike most glossaries, Google doesn’t offer its own dictionary-like definitions of words (though it does provide links to look up your word at Dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster). Rather, the Google Glossary uses “knowledge” of the web to show “related phrases,” definitions extracted from actual web pages, and synonyms for each word."
Search Engine Watch gave it their Best Search Feature Award alongside AllTheWeb URL Investigator back in February.
No, this isn’t a new Google feature. I just hadn’t played with it before and am curious as to how useful the feature might be. It seems like it has a lot of potential, but the search results seem very random and lacking in good resources.
Addendum 12/6: Bill picks up this post.
