In the year of google, 7

On the way to the airport in a shuttle, a woman who was running late made a remark about pulling an OJ Simpson through the airport. After a long pause, I remarked that such a statement might have a different connotation to someone who grew up in the 90s. Did she mean she was going to kill her ex-wife and her boyfriend, leave footprints in the blood and their blood in her drain, before flying to Chicago to dump the knife? I guessed not. But how to refer to a bygone, innocent era when it would be difficult to find out about such things?

Frankly, I'm surprised that googling "bg 'before google'" only yields 443 hits. A new meme is in order: we should start referring to the era before 1998 as "ceag" (common era, ante google). That was the era when people either had to agree to disagree because they couldn't check facts, or when they had to go to the library and spend time acquiring knowledge. We now live in the cepg (common era, post google), where everyone is an instant expert on everything.

Yes they are.

Yes they are.

Okay, you're right: no, they aren't.

If you participate in any active blog or other comment sections, where there is some interaction and disagreement between the commenters, then you have probably seen the Instant Expert. They never take the time to seriously consider opposing viewpoints. Instead, they fix their attention on some trivial aspect of a counterpoint, use Google to find some rebuttal, and use that rebuttal in place of a real, reasoned, argument. Sometimes that method leads them into defending the indefensible, an error which degenerates into the snide comment and name-calling flame war.

But I digress.

As I'm sure many people are aware, the power of Google is such that you can come up to speed on topics relatively quickly. There was a recent story about Colin Powell using it to come up to speed about a UN resolution while the Russian ambassador was still on the phone. This kind of access to information has a dual-edge power; the dark side of it is that people may become complacent in a number of ways:

• If you can have instant access to all information, it is unnecessary to develop any true expertise in any subject. Of course, it is hard to win acceptance on a job application by using "proficient with Google" as a qualification.
  
• When the cost of researching was high, we were more selective about what to research. Now that it has lowered, we try to research too many things at once. This is similar to the bullet above, but there I was talking about the temptation to never build expertise, here I am talking about the temptation to become expert in too many subjects
  
• The well-discussed problem that the lack of a gatekeeper on the internet means you don't have a gauge for the quality of information. That may be true, but there's a technological answer: gatekeeper sites such as refereed journals and commercial sites also have websites.
• Using google in the manner described is really no different than using PowerPoint to discuss complex technical issues, an error that Edward Tufte has discussed at length. Root cause analysis by bulleted list ... like this one
  

One benefit of Google, however, is the fact that it may change the way business is done. In the ceag, it was necessary for businesses and professionals to maintain a physical presence such as a shop or PO box. Moving ceag meant incurring expenses which sometimes precluded the move; moving cepg means keeping a web presence and updating any physical pointers (addresses, phone numbers) on the website. You can always be found, if you want to be, cepg.