How to Make Google Better - Make it More Structured (like Online Help)

What's wrong with Google? Why do I always end up with search results that lead me far away from my intended search topic or are just plain horrible?

In comparing traditional online help to user-authored help, what are the differences? Is one better than the other?

Better would mean that more users are using it, it is more effective. Looking at traditional online help, I see a table of contents, linked  topics, linked associated topics, an orderly structure, a hierarchy of topics, and an index, and a search.

In traditional online help, the author has probably used some type of compilation program such as RoboHelp.
The author has probably researched his or her topics and has probably consulted with a SME (subject matter expert) in writing the content.

The content is likely to meet at least some of the writing standards including clear, correct, testable, maintainable, etc. Also, there is likely to be a versioning system and a publishing process whereby only approved content is published along with the application or alongside the product.

In user-authored content, there is not likely to be any of these things.

Take Google Search for example. Comparing Google Search to the Search in Traditional Online Help:

1. both yield search results

2. online help can be a full-text search, or not

3. google search is searching a copy of the internet on whatever or

however they index it

4. online help search is finite

5. google search is seemingly endless

6. online help search can be linked to the content in the index and the

toc thereby creating a map

7. in google there is no toc or index

Let's compare user-authored content 'systems' such as a wiki to traditional online help.
Let's compare WikiPedia to Traditional Online Help.

1. is there a TOC in both?

well in wikipedia you first select a language and it tells you the number of articles available, that's something online

help does not have.

Perhaps in the wiki I use at work, it would be nice if the following features were present:

• number of articles available so I know how big the wiki has become
• date last changed
• by who
• reason
• number of people accessing
• content rating
• like/dislike

Anyway, none of this sounds like a research paper. Or a thesis. Just that I think traditional online help has its merits that user-authored content fails at.

User-authored content fails to measure up to traditional online help. Maybe that's my thesis.

Users may hate online help but it's clear, complete, accurate, consistent, testable, maintainable, and better than the alternative.