Top Web Searches for 2006

What's hot on '06?

Top Overall Searches on AOL (taken from Wendy Boswell's article in about.com)

1. Weather
2. Dictionary
3. Dogs
4. American Idol
5. Maps
6. Cars
7. Games
8. Tattoos
9. Horosopes
10. Lyrics

Top Overall Searches on Yahoo! (see Yahoo! top searches of 2006)

1. Britney Spears
2. WWE
3. Shakira
4. Jessica Simpson
5. Paris Hilton
6. American Idol
7. Beyonce Knowles
8. Chris Brown
9. Pamela Anderson
10. Lindsay Lohan

Top Blog Searches on Yahoo! (also in Yahoo! top searches of 2006)

1. Perez Hilton
2. The Superficial
3. Pink is the New Blog
4. Huffington Post
5. TMZ.com
6. Daily Kos
7. Jossip
8. A Socialite's Life
9. Little Green Footballs
10. Gawker

Top Overall Searches by Google Zeitgeist (see 2006 year-end Zeitgeist)

1. Bebo
2. Myspace
3. World Cup
4. Metacafe
5. Radioblog
6. Wikipedia
7. Video
8. Rebelde
9. Mininova
10. Wiki

"Traditional" and the "Trends" Approach

There are at least two ways in coming up with a list of the top web searches for the year - or any other category for that matter. The default or "traditional" way is the straightforward approach of extracting the items that most frequently appeared in search queries. The alternative is to gather the most popular web searches of the year (2006) that were not as popular the year before (2005) - what I would refer to as the "trends" approach.

Google, through Google Zeitgeist, used the latter approach. Zeitgeist retrieved the most popular web searches for 2006 - those who had the most significant breakthroughs this year. Artem Boystov, a Google Software Engineer, explains this in an article on GoogleBlog.

Based on the results, I am guessing that AOL and Yahoo! used what I called the traditional method to produce their respective lists. Weather and dictionary on the AOL list seem to be fixtures in search queries. I am not sure how Yahoo! came up with its list but Boswell's article on top blog searches of 2006 in Yahoo!, stating that the list comprises of "...the ones that the most people searched for the most number of times in Yahoo Search...", seems to imply the use of the traditional method if Boswell herself has first-hand knowledge about what Yahoo! used and that the same algorithm is used for all the top so-and-so results in the same website.

In fact, I've always thought that Yahoo, AOL, and Google employ the same approach in producing their top searches of the year (my so-called traditional method) until I read the description of Google Zeitgeist. I am unaware if other websites like MSN have yet other approaches.

Zeitgeist provides refreshingly new information about the trends and patterns on the Internet. However, I would prefer it if Google too would provide its own list of top searches for 2006, using the traditional approach, if it hasn't come up with one yet. As mentioned, the top ones in the list are not necessarily those which were entered the most frequent number of times overall. For instance, even if Bebo ranks higher than Myspace on the Zeitgeist list, it does not necessarily mean that more users searched for Bebo than Myspace on 2006. It was just that the increase in the number of searches for Bebo in 2006 exceeds the increase in searches for Myspace. In such a case, I'd also like to know how popular Myspace has become compared to, say, Britney Spears. I might also wonder how often do they search for Myspace compared to games (supposedly a fixture in search queries).

A Second Look at the Results

Based on the Yahoo! Top Searches result, most people use the Internet (or is it just Yahoo?) for entertainment. Every single one in the list is either an entertainment figure or program. People just can't seem to get enough of them on TV that they log on to the net and devour every bit of info on celebrities and TV programs. Or the opportunity that the Internet provides to people for posting comments and engaging in discussions especially about celebrities could be another reason why entertainment is also popular on the net. I am reminded that watching TV is a passive activity where viewers could only "accept" information (often blindly) and react in some other medium. The Internet presents itself as just that kind of medium.

Among the top blogs, I confess to visit only the Huffington post. I find it very interesting and recommend it to others. Most of the other blogs seem to be mostly about gossip and entertainment which I sometimes find trivial and not very entertaining.

The 9th item (horoscope) on the AOL results caught my attention. It is ironic how the internet, a product of hardcore science and technology, is being used to search for horoscopes, itself a product of the pseudoscience of astrology. In this age of reason, the supposed positions of planets and stars are still being used as "guides" for daily living. I am personally confused as to why people would still spend so much time about horoscopes when it has already been debunked by science.

Finally, the Zeitgeist result shows that 2006 is the year of networking and information sharing. Bebo, Myspace, Mininova, Wikipedia, Radioblog, and a couple of others all fall within these categories. They seem to define the internet for most people, especially the younger ones. We just don't get tired of these things, do we? Try next year.

 

Thoughts on "You" as Time's Person of the Year

Time Magazine has selected "you" as Person of the Year for the unprecedented expansion of user-generated content on the Internet. The criterion for proclaiming the Person of the Year is "the individual or group of individuals who have had the biggest effect on the year's news". The magazine has stressed that it is neither an honor nor an award, but more of a statement. Hence, the choice of "you/us" as Person(s) of the Year encourages not so much any lust to pat oneself on the back as it should a moment of contemplation on how much the world has changed in so short a time and what it has in store for us.

It is undeniable that technology, particularly the Internet, has allowed all of us with the opportunity for and ease of information access and transmission. This perhaps summarizes almost all of the benefits that we are enjoying from the Net. Wikipedia delves on just about any topic and is accessible to anyone online. Youtube allows us to post our own videos for the world to see. MySpace and Facebook (and Friendster in the Philippines lol) gives us the opportunity to network with other people regardless of whether they live next door or at the other side of the world.

In fact, Time (in the same 12/25/06 - 01/01/07 article) states that users watch 100 million videos a day in Youtube. MySpace reportedly has 230,000 new registrations a day. Wikipedia has about 1.5 million English articles.

The choice of Time is both a confirmation and emphasis that, as Thomas Friedman put it, "the world has become flat". "Flat world" is a metaphor to describe the leveled playing field, in a global scale, that is empowering the common individual more than ever before. In a flat world, power and influence are more decentralized from a select few to a diverse multitude. It does not matter who you are or where you're from. In a flat world, the critical factors are minds and methods - what you think, what you can do, and how you can do them.

In this kind of world, people can foster an environment where knowledge is continuously spread out across places and cultures, in such a way that innovation becomes ubiquitous. The online community can wield its influence on local and global policies. It can at least make its presence felt against administrations. A word of caution on this: with such power comes the reponsibility of educating and informing oneself to make reasoned arguments. (Statistics show that the Internet/online community, particularly the young voters, in the US is partly responsible for the Democrat victories this recent mid-term elections. Young voter turnout surged compared to past elections and most of the youth voted Democrat.)

To my judgment, majority of the online community is acting fairly responsibly. At least in my own experience, Wikipedia proves reliable most of the time. In some of my research and casual readings, I have verified Wikipedia articles' content with actual books and more reliable websites. On certain occasions, inconsistencies are mentioned on the page itself. Other times, you'd see that a page has been edited to the point of being "bull". As a rule I have learned back in college, I do not trust the site as a primary source of content. But I still refer to it for easier understanding of complex topics. The exchanges I read in Blogs (and even in other sites like forums and Youtube) show that the Internet is a wide avenue for free expression. Posts range from personal attacks to informed statements. I hope we could move further towards the latter end of the spectrum.

To this end, such people who use the power responsibly deserve more than a mere feature as Time Person of the Year. That collective "you" deserves honor and praise. Ideas can be healthily and openly exchanged, cultures can be bridged, and the world can be healed if we have more of that kind of "you".

 

One "Hell" of an Answer

I rediscovered this article when my professor showed it in class. I find it witty, creative, and entertaining. It is doubtful, though, if it really was "an actual question" in a University chemistry class. You can find different versions of this on the Internet. Here's one:

****************************************
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington Chemistry mid-term. The answer was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

BONUS QUESTION: IS HELL EXOTHERMIC (GIVES OFF HEAT) OR ENDOTHERMIC (ABSORBS HEAT)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed), or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
_______________________

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul goes to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Ms. Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic, and will not freeze.
_______________________

The student received the only 'A' given.

***************************************

Might I suggest the possibility of Hell expanding at the same rate as the increase of souls in it?

 

Major Upset!

Time for some NCAA Football

UCLA Bruins beat rival USC Trojans 13-9!!!! The loss shattered USC's hopes to play in the national championships. This game should the biggest upset this NCAA season considering that USC was ranked in the top 2 among all schools in NCAA Division 1. UCLA, on the other hand, was unranked.

Last Tuesday (November 28), my professor told us about a university announcement that there might be some heavy traffic come Thursday (November 30) as UCLA will hold a rally- "Beat USC!" Thankfully, I don't have a class on Thursdays. We just scoffed at the idea of the Bruins beating the Trojans. My professor mentioned that he'd rather face "reality" and we're better off at basketball where UCLA is ranked #1 in the nation. I even saw an advertisement on LA Times from a furniture store that says if UCLA wins, all products worth $2000 at the minimum are for free. It's tricky though as you have to purchase the products first before game time.

Alas! The Bruins scored an unlikely win. This is UCLA's first win against USC since 1998. I wonder if there were people who went to that furniture store and bought those expensive products. If there were a lot, the owner might be banging his head even if he's a Bruin.

picture taken from http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/sp/getty/5a/full.getty-72659920sd011_usc_v_ucla_9_10_11_pm.jpg