http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2009/05/13/stephen-wolframs-int...

I wonder if they'd consider opening the system up for others to develop 'plug-ins' covering more knowledge areas.

Am I missing something? Did the Mathematica inventor do a screencast with a multiplication error? Or is he using a video / mockup rather than an actual Alpha?

Actually im underwhelmed by it :( which is sad.

they chose to use some specific, static operators so that you can do interesting things with the data, instead of having it simplify your request to what you "probably" want.

I understand your point: and I would have figured it out. But this is marketed as an everydfay search engine - which it's not, it's an advanced search for an encyclopedia :)

i imagine if it turns out to be a common problem, they'll probably give you a little reminder message about it. "if you're looking for data comparison, use vs. instead of /"

In general its best to thing of that input field as a API with a huge syntax space, rather than something that is actually "understanding" anything. Getting the side-by-side comparisons can be done in many ways, like just using a comma instead of /

(edited, no need for "vs.", just series seems to do the trick)

One query I'd like to build is a TCO for a particular model of car based on running cost, service cost and the probability I will die in a crash which obviously limits my future earnings.

It doesn't appear to me that WA is searching text based information at all, rather these are tabular datasets that are carefully organized and queried to provide the user information.

Google is just looking for strings of text and especially strings of text from pages that have conformed to its requirements for SEO-ness leading to mostly marketing type information, where as WA is looking for facts and numbers.

I think most of the world doesn't really care about the kind of results they'll get from WA, but I don't care about that.

I think WA is a beautiful product. It isn't a google killer. Only those without a valid understanding of information would call it a google killer.

And Google Squared has nothing on WA. G^2 is just an attempt to steal WA's thunder. If Google would go to such extremes to hinder WA with their G^2, what does that say about Google's confidence in their product?

For too long, google has ridden on a history of good search results, but really, Google isn't much of an innovator. Most of their innovations were actually acquisitions. Eric Schmidt himself has said Google is not an innovator.

Here, WA is the innovator. Google is a me too and has been since their inception.

If you are correct, then WA can only get better and better over time. (Barring total incompetence.) So long as they can make good use of the failed queries, the user-base itself will guide what they include next.

Here, WA is the innovator. Google is a me too and has been since their inception.

The implication here that Google is the new Microsoft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFG2P-toC6k

Come on, Wolfram Alpha was only announced a few months ago. G^2 was not developed in a few months. It's not like G^2 is a "response" to WA.

I don't know how I feel about a Friday night launch. On the one hand the weekend allows for fixing problems, but on the other hand they are doing a webcast and have been building publicity for more than a month.

Fridays are almost bad as nobody will remember you next monday.

Thursdays gives you just one more day to digest your offering.

Now you have mondays, tuesdays or wednesdays left.

Mondays are catch-up days, everybody getting up to the minute with meetings, planning, late tasks, errands, etc.

Wednesdays are good, very good, but no better than tuesdays, which gives you three more days for penetration, attention, conversation and full digestion.

So, even if wednesdays are good, tuesdays are better.

A coup for justin.tv though.

I seem to recall it is just some pages though - I will dig out a screeny.

EDIT: voila: http://screencast.com/t/rP72HQ0UG