The disambiguation of the moon

Bananas aren't the only curved yellow fruit.There’s a Facebook group called “Campaign to Rename Our Moon.” The group’s founder wants to change the name because “the moon” is kind of boring. A friend and I talked about the idea and I was arguing in support of it, really only half seriously, but I was trying to stress the importance of applying consistent naming rules, that are scalable, so that it makes sense to more people than only the people we know or could know (and to computers), and in situations we can’t conceive of. (The conversation ended with parallel universes.) Especially in text, the fact that the moon, a specific thing, shares the same word with what we could call everything else like it (other moons) really bugs me. At first I thought, we might not always have the context necessary to distinguish between “the moon” and the moon (of another planet).

It got me thinking about linked data, and the effort to include library catalogs, and how, in an environment in which things are more precisely identifiable because of its relativity to everything else, rather than in spite of it, we might not have to worry about the confusion our moon’s name might cause in a future we can’t see. On the Internet, linked data can provide that context all the time.

Of course, that future might not involve the Internet at all.

TL;DR > Ctrl+F

A researcher at Google claims 90 percent of people don’t know how to use Ctrl+F, the keyboard shortcut for the “Find” function in web browsers and applications.

The “Find trick” has been a eureka moment in my library computer class for four years. Even patrons listening to the class from nearby computers are delighted to hear about it. But very few people showing up to these classes are heavy Internet users, or aspire to be, although most have computers at home. I think of the 170+ people I’ve worked with, maybe three wanted to learn beyond the basics, or what they think are the basics.

The find trick is the solution to a problem a lot of people I meet don’t have.

In order to demonstrate the usefulness of Ctrl+F, my class creates the problem that the find trick solves, but when I’m creating that problem (using find and replace to fix patterned formatting errors in a document), no one really recognizes how he or she would apply that solution.

I suspect a lot of the people in the Google survey don’t use Ctrl+F because they don’t wade through a lot of text to find something buried in it. I say suspect because the article that quotes the survey doesn’t include any links to more info about the survey, like how it was controlled: Do the surveyed people use the Internet much, look at a lot of text much, use a different command for Find (“/” orF3), use Edit > Find on the toolbar? And I couldn’t find anything on the researchers site.

Who reads this?

TLDR is a popular Internet initialism because it’s a widely shared sentiment. The Internet isn’t the best medium for deep or long reading (eyestrain, distractions, etc.), so why use a tool that depends on it?

I would like to see the measure of Ctrl+F use among office workers only, where people read lot of text offline. Maybe I can pitch a library system-wide survey to the IT department.

On a more productive note, the guy from Google is obsessed with helping people search better, and pages-worth of his presentations and class content are on his blog: just what I need to start planning search technique presentations I’ve been thinking about. And that 90 percent survey result, however misleading it is, will probably remind a lot of educators how important computer and web search instruction is.