How to both benefit and hide away from on-line search engine

Everyone has their own little strategies of using on-line search engine to find an answer. We know that tweaking the spelling or the order of the keywords can help us gain faster and more precise answer with Google search. And we more or less have a sense of the patterns of the search tools, though we don’t know exactly the algorithms they are based upon. But how about hiding from it? Using the search engine to figure out where you can hide and make the answer “difficult for other to find” is totally another type of intelligence.

To learn about how people deal with the issue of using on-line search as a “double folded weapon”, benefiting oneself and incapacitating others, I designed a game where the participants used on-line searches to both raise questions to and answer questions from their opponents.

This is how it works

It was found that as the game continued, the participants started to have more concern towards how the answer to their question can be accessed through search engines by the other team, thus adjusted their way of speaking accordingly to avoid the expressions most likely to be sought out. The result was that they started to play “trick” by using misleading and ambiguous information in their questions so that their opponents would have no way to obtain the most efficient keywords to filter through the information, or did not even know where to start.

It fascinates me to find through the experiment, how fast people adjust their way of expressing to their condition, with high awareness of the pros and cons of the media they use. The result was that people tended to hide “literally” by giving misleading and even deceptive information, probably because of the limited time they were given to design the questions and it was the fastest technique they can utilize as a reaction of defending.

After documenting the whole process, I watched closely at the footage and highlighted the moments where such behaviors occurred, and analyzed the language used by the participants at those moments. The tactics of “making tricks” fell into several categories, such as omission, misleading, ambiguity, paradox and concepts exchange. The process of analysis found here.

Work-in-Progress Exhibition at Art Center

Can repeating the same things 14 times to 14 people help creating a better thesis?

I still need to figure why Art Center adopts such way of getting your work critiqued, but… as a result, I did kill my thesis in some way, as I realized the inconsistency between my projects is so huge that I struggled to state them across a single message.

But right after, a new thesis was born on top of the big mess I made…

Good bad news.