This PPT has BASIC 101 for Educators... why they should consider a Google Alternative.

1. Paige Jaeger
WSWHE BOCES School Library System

2.  Why do I have to learn
this, when I can just look
it up?

4. • “Mediocrity that threatens our very future
as a nation….”

5. “Average Person spends two
seconds on each website.” *
 We call this Kangarooing
 Super-squirreling
•Marilee Sprunger, Educational Leadership, Sept 2009.
•Small, Gary. iBrain: Surviving the technological alternation of the
modern mind. NY. Harper Collins, 2008.

6.  “Excessive connectedness can cause
stress, which results in the release of
Cortisol and adrenaline from the
adrenal glands. Initially, this cocktail
enhances memory. ... In small doses,
this can be useful, but habitually
using this kind of attention will
put people's ability to problem
solve and interact with others at
risk .”

7.  “I raised concerns that “content farms” are
turning the web into a massive garbage
dump, that many sites are simply replicating
the content of others like TechCrunch, and
that Google has no incentive to stop this
because it gains advertising revenue from the
spammers.”

8. Content creation is big business, and there are big players
involved. For example, Associated Content, which produces
10,000 new articles per month, was purchased by Yahoo! for
$100 million, in 2010. Demand Media has 8,000 writers who
produce 180,000 new articles each month. It generated more
than $200 million in revenue in 2009 and planning an initial
public offering valued at about $1.5 billion. This content is
what ends up as the landfill in the garbage websites that you
find all over the web. And these are the first links that show
up in your Google search results.

10. + Data Mining
+ advertising
__________________
= results
To prove Google is
archiving your data visit:
www.google.com/history

11. Google, admitting they
No shock here.
make money.

12. Privacy or invasion of?

13. My Data - newer Oldest

14. Google Timeline… (gone) Google Books (here to stay)

17. Take a test Yahoo image search

18. http://www.google.com/insidesearch/index.html

20. (to eliminate a word from results)
 Hurricane –basketball
 Lincoln -car

21.  Search for a specific http://www.google.com/insidesearch
file type
 Color
 Verbatim
 NOT
 OR
 Features

22.  More is less

23.  * lyrics
 Quotes
 Types pollution *
 Solar energy *

24. DNA testing crime Crime dna testing

25. Skin cancer prevention Prevention skin cancer

26. Blekko – Skin Cancer Sweet search.com – skin
prevention cancer prevention

27. CARS :
 Credible
 Accurate
 Reliable
 Supported
 CARTS (+Timely)

30. Change your research:
Move from hide ‘n seek for facts 
Requiring an answer to a question:
? – How did the values of the Colonists shape
the constitution of the new world?
? – How do authors try to solve society’s
problems through dystopic literature?

31. I would have
failed APPR

33. • Kids go home from school and engage in
meaningful, intelligent, authentic
communication and knowledge creation in
Internet environments.
• Kids are highly engaged, creative,
motivated, and connected to meaningful
communities via technology after the
school day ends.
Study involved over 1200 learners, parents, teachers, administrators.

34. National Research Council, Inquiry and the
National Science Education Standards, 2000
•
"The challenge for all us who want to improve
education is to create an educational system that
exploits the natural curiosity of children, so that
they maintain their motivation for learning not only
through their school years but throughout life. We
need to convince teachers and parents of the
importance of children's questions."

35. Fogg, B.J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D.R., Marable, L., Stanford, J. and Tauber, E.R. (2003), “How do
users evaluate the credibility of web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants”,
Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco,
CA, USA, pp. 1-15.
Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A.,
Shon, J., Swani, P. and Treinen, M. (2001), “What makes web sites credible? A report on a
large quantitative study”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, USA, March 31-April 4, pp. 61-8.
Fogg, B.J., Marshal, J., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Laraki, O., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A.,
Shon, J., Swani, P. and Treinen, M. (2000), “Elements that affect web credibility: early
results from a self-report study”, Proceedings of ACM CHI ’00 Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 287-8.
Deep Web vs. surface Web scores were obtained by using the BrightPlanet technology's selection by source option and then counting total
documents and documents above the quality scoring threshold.
Results and Discussion
This study is the first known quantification and characterization of the deep Web. Very little has been written or known of the deep Web.
Estimates of size and importance have been anecdotal at best and certainly underestimate scale. For example, Intelliseek's "invisible Web"
says that, "In our best estimates today, the valuable content housed within these databases and searchable sources is far bigger than the
800 million plus pages of the 'Visible Web.'" They also estimate total deep Web sources at about 50,000 or so. [35]
Ken Wiseman, who has written one of the most accessible discussions about the deep Web, intimates that it might be about equal in size to
the known Web. He also goes on to say, "I can safely predict that the invisible portion of the Web will continue to grow exponentially
before the tools to uncover the hidden Web are ready for general use." [36] A mid-1999 survey by About.com's Web search guide
concluded the size of the deep Web was "big and getting bigger." [37] A paper at a recent library science meeting suggested that only "a
relatively small fraction of the Web is accessible through search engines."[38]
The deep Web is about 500 times larger than the surface Web, with, on average, about three times higher quality based on our document
scoring methods on a per-document basis. On an absolute basis, total deep Web quality exceeds that of the surface Web by thousands of
times.