“..too much information, especially when it is unstructured, can hurt understanding”

-William Doanne
(The University at Albany)

RING RING. BEEP. YOU’VE GOT MAIL. BEEP. YOU HAVE TWO UNHEARD MESSAGES.

From the welcome availability of information to the daunting task of sorting through it, we are all familiar with the time involved in reviewing all the data coming to us. But what is too much?There are two sides to this issue. As individuals we can sort through things faster, spending less time in what I call the “danger zone.” The danger zone is the time spent sorting through data, the time in which we are able to make a mistake. Logically it makes sense that the less time spent in the danger zone the better- wrong. The less time spent in the zone means you are spending less time working with the information, meaning less time ensuring that there have been no errors. On the other hand we can spend more time in the danger zone, meaning spending more time looking over the data, but the longer we work with the information, the more time we have to make a mistake.

taken from third party

So what makes sense? Spend more time on a topic and possibly make fewer mistakes or spend less time on a topic and possibly make the same amount because of carelessness? Major companies along with small business face the similar issues, many of which have found very creative ways to maximize profitable output while minimizing time in other words increase their efficiency.  They can do this through information organization. For example, Google has set up a very clever way to organize immense amount of data into search able hierarchies. If you are familiar with Google’s set of online games, you would know about Google’s image labeler. It is an online game in which two online users will be randomly paired and over a two minute period they will:

• View the same set
  of images.
• Provide as many
  labels as possible to describe each image you see.
• Receive points
  when your label matches your partner’s label. The number of points will
  depend on how specific your label is.
• See more images
  until time runs out.

Google Labeler is likePictionary: the more specific your description the more points you are awarded. After the users finish playing the online game, Google gets to work. The words or ‘tags’ used to describe the images are moved to a mass database of images and their associated tags. As more and more users play this game, more words are associated with specific pictures. These tags are then used to help users located pictures in Google Images Search.

The game helps keep all images up to current terms. For example today, in 2009 a cat is called a cat. Therefore someone viewing a image of a cat in Google Image Labeler will tag it as “cat.” However, in a hundred years from now, there might be a new term for what we call a “cat.”  So a picture of a ‘cat’ shows up the users would then label it as the new term. Over time the system will build a user-built library of tags for specific images.

Another example of efficient information organization is one used by millions of users on a daily basis: iTunes. Lets say you have your own band, you rip your CD into iTunes and the infamous “Track 1, Track 2” default name titles are given to your tracks. You are then offered to rename the tracks and if you want, you may upload the track information to the iTunes database. This makes it so the next person to rip the same CD will be able to download the information you assigned to your tracks.

Both of these systems create a seemingly unending stream of information. Which is maintained by millions of users who have no association with one another. Thus leading to a constantly updated database of information.

Is the constant availability of information making us “dumb”?

The answer is a dual edged sword. On one end, yes, the constant availability of data alters our   mindset of what is true due to past experiences with the reliability of content on the internet (an excellent example of this is wikipedia, where there is a lot of good information as well as  misinformation).  But keep in mind Google is improved as users use it. Every search performed on Google in one way or another helps identify the types of users using their services and thus Google can become a sort of “Second brain” for some users. We can always Google something at a later date instead of learning it now.

 

On the other hand the constant availability of information  is only as hazardous as you allow it to be. The more analytical we are towards the information we receive the less likely we are to accept false data as true. But at the same time, we might allow our biases to get in the way of fair judgment.

In the end, it is up the end user – you – to decode how you use information. A recent report by Basex shows that, in 2008, information overload  cost the U.S. economy  $900 billion. Relatively little of the $900 billions was lost by TechiTeens, but with advancements to increase the efficient use of information, this number can be dramatically reduced.

Seth Shapiro is Chief Analyst at TechiTeens