Wolfram Alpha sucks

[benlehman]

Twice in the last day I've thought "oh, I have a question that's perfect for Wolfram Alpha, 'cause it's all analytical." Twice, it has totally failed me.

The first question was about net-grain exporting nations. It not only failed to answer my question, it didn't understand net, grain, export, or nation. Google answered my question with link #3.

The second question was about converting US print sizes to international print size. Again, nothing. Again, google answered my question relatively quickly.

This is the google killer? Altavista would be better.

Comments

[opticalbinary.livejournal.com]

I gave up on it as a google-killer when I found that it will tell me all of the nutritional info for an average tomato, but nothing when I ask for the nutritional info for an average human arm.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. I asked a very simple question: How many no hitters does Nolan Ryan have.

Answer: Wolfram Alpha doesn't know what to do with your question.

It can only tell you that Nolan Ryan is a baseball player, when he was born, what his full name is etc.

[(Anonymous)]

It is described as "...answers to questions based on established facts.", yet it uses Wikipedia as a source.

No thanks.

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

I preferred Ms. Dewey - not much of a search engine, but the replies were always hilarious and the actress was attractive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Dewey

sucks ballsack

[(Anonymous)]

I totally agree. Even when you use their suggestions like "enter any city" or "enter any date", Wikipedia returns 100 times more information.

sucksass

[(Anonymous)]

it would have been useful for handhelds, only if it didn't take so much time to load. its existence makes me realize why google is so important to humanity.

[(Anonymous)]

Google remains Google, but it will have to move its business entirely out of the USA, as they are about to collapse...

[(Anonymous)]

that's cool, does wikipedia show the imaginary part of the graph of f(x) = x^(-x)?

your ability to understand something (or lack thereof) does not define its value.